The prejudice of the left wing of Wikipedia

I love Wikipedia. I have donated thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias, obsolete when we bought them.

Then libertarian Jimmy Wales invented a crowd-sourced, web-based encyclopedia.

coming from the crowd? A British publisher called Wikipedia “a public toilet”. But Wales won the battle. Encyclopedias of Britannica are no longer printed.

Congratulations to Wales.

But recently, I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now claims that Wikipedia’s political pages have morphed into left-wing “propaganda.”

It is shocking. Has the left taken over the editing?

Unfortunately. I checked it out.

All changes are done by volunteers. Wales hoped there were enough different political beliefs that biases would be countered by others.

But that’s not what’s happening.

The left just likes to write. Conservatives build things: companies, houses, farms.

See the chart comparing political donations from different professions: surgeons, oil workers, truckers, lumberjacks and pilots lean right; Artists, bartenders, librarians, reporters and teachers lean to the left.

Conservatives don’t have much time to tweet or argue on the web. The left does. And they love doing it. This helps them take over the media, universities and now Wikipedia.

Jonathan Weiss is what Wikipedia calls one of the “Top 100” Wikipedians because he has made nearly half a million changes. He says he has noticed new biases: “Wikipedia does a great job on things like science and sports, but you see a lot of political bias coming into play when you talk about current affairs.”

Weiss is not a conservative. In presidential races, he voted for Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Barack Obama. Never for a Republican. “I have never strongly identified with either political party,” he says.

Maybe that’s why he notices the new Wikipedia bias.

“The people of the left far outnumber the people of the center and the right … many (are) openly socialists and Marxists.” Some even post photos of Che Guevara and Lenin on their profiles.

These are the people who decide which news sources Wikipedia writers can cite. Wikipedia-approved “Trustworthy Sources” page rejects Fox’s political reports, but calls CNN and MSNBC “trustworthy.”

Good conservative outlets like The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Daily Wire are all considered “unreliable”. The same goes for the New York Post (this is probably why Wikipedia called Hunter Biden’s emails a conspiracy theory even after other liberal media finally acknowledged they were real).

Although it excludes Fox, Wikipedia also endorses far-left media such as Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin, a socialist publication.

Until recently, the Wikipedia pages on “socialism” and “communism” made no mention of the millions killed by socialism and communism. Even now, the deaths are “at the bottom of the article,” Weiss says, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!”

The Communist page also adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by Communist modernization”! This is crazy.

Search for “concentration camps and internment camps” and you will find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border” and, underneath, the Trump administration’s “family separation policy”.

What? Border controls on former President Donald Trump, no matter how strict, are very different from the mass murder of the Nazi.

Wikipedia says “anyone can edit”. So, I made a small addition for political balance by mentioning that President Barack Obama built those cages.

My change has been removed.

I wrote to Wikipedia founder Wales to say that if his creation now only uses progressive sources, I would no longer donate.

He replied: “I totally respect the decision not to give us any more money. I’m such a fan and have great respect for you and your work. “But then she said it’s” only 100% false … that only progressive and globalist mainstream sources are allowed. “

He provided examples of left-wing media rejecting Wikipedia, such as Raw Story and Occupy Democrats.

I’m glad you reject them. Those sites are childishly on the far left.

I then wrote again to ask why “there is not a single right-wing media outlet that labels Wiki ‘reliable’ about politics, (but) Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC” get approval .

Wales then stopped replying to my emails.

Unless the Wikipedia bias is correct, I’ll be skeptical of reading anything on the site.


The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be constructed to represent the views of the Heritage Foundation.

Do you have an opinion on this article? To ring out, please email letters@DailySignal.comand we will consider posting the edited comments in our normal “Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or title of the article plus your name and city and / or state.

You may also like...