Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, argues that the widely used online encyclopedia is systematically biased against conservative, religious, and other viewpoints. Sanger, 57, currently leads the Knowledge Standards Foundation and believes the platform can be improved through a renewed commitment to free speech or by grassroots efforts to amplify diverse perspectives.

If these changes do not occur, Sanger warns that government intervention may be necessary to address the anonymity that shields Wikipedia editors from defamation lawsuits by public figures who feel misrepresented.

Systemic Bias

Launched in 2001, Wikipedia has, according to Sanger, been influenced by a globalist, secular progressive perspective since the early 2000s. He noted that this viewpoint dominance intensified after the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as many media outlets shifted away from impartial reporting.

While Wikipedia operates under the nonprofit Wikimedia Foundation, it claims to be a self-governing project, with policies intended to reflect community consensus. However, Sanger contends that the original neutrality guidelines he helped establish have been altered to discourage what is termed “false balance.”

“It’s now required to take a side when one side is seen as clearly wrong,” Sanger explained. “The idea of objectivity has been discarded.”

Despite his ongoing advocacy for free speech and accountability on the platform, Sanger believes many users still view Wikipedia as a neutral and accurate source. “People are gradually realizing that Wikipedia often functions as propaganda on various topics,” he stated.

Sanger criticized the platform’s structure, describing it as an “irrational bureaucracy” that enforces ideological conformity. He argued that while some editorial rules need to be restored, others should be eliminated. A notable issue is Wikipedia’s preference for secondary sources over primary ones, which contradicts the standards of journalism and academia that prioritize original materials like direct quotes and firsthand documents.

“As a former academic, I find that to be absurd,” Sanger remarked.

“Wikipedia really does need some reform,” he asserted. While he remains optimistic that the site might consider his suggestions, he acknowledged that change may not be forthcoming. “They might choose alternatives that suit them better,” he added. “If that happens, I would support it.”