Fact Check: Has a Wikipedia Founder Complained About the Site’s Liberal Bias?

Repeatedly.

By
15

Singer and right-wing activist Ted Nugent claimed in a recent Facebook post that a Wikipedia founder has decried the website’s liberal bias.

The post was marked as potential misinformation by Facebook’s fact-checking algorithm. It is, however, correct. Larry Sanger created Wikipedia with co-founder Jimmy Wales. Sanger left Wikipedia in 2002 and has been critical of the website since then, alleging issues with the management of the site, a “dysfunctional community” of contributors, and error-filled content. Sanger has discussed what he perceives as a bias in Wikipedia articles since 2010, when he told Slate:“I do think that there is a liberal bias on most topics where such a bias is possible, and I think that’s probably a reflection of the fact that, again, the people who work the most on Wikipedia tend to be really comfortable with the most radically egalitarian views. And those people tend to be either liberals or libertarians.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
15
By
Comments (15)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Aylene Wright

    Although conservatives often rag on Wikipedia, I actually find it one of the fairest sites out there, because it's actually an example of successful crowdsourcing, of both funds (which I have contributed) and information.
    Most regular editors really do want to get things correct. And at least it's actual humans doing the editing, not AI algorithms.

    Of course, there are pitfalls to be considered. Anyone can edit it, including cranks, and even operatives paid by a political campaign or corporate entity to scrub any material that shows the client in a negative light. Some due diligence is needed. If an article seems to be biased or even wildly inaccurate, it very well may be vandalized. I think that's the main reason teachers/ professors usually don't allow students to cite it. No guarantee that the version cited today will still be around tomorrow. (Although there is an archive of all prior versions of an article, I doubt most educators have time to wade through them.) There are also problems with dead links within articles.

    But many of the edits that RW outrage mongers point to as proof that "Wikipedia is biased against us", actually are NOT based on consensus and get reversed quickly. I usually read the "talk page" for the article to see if there are any active debates or even "edit wars". Sometimes if the topic isn't controversial I will skip this step. But any political one, I won't.

    I recall one such discussion revealed one editor had included a rather tangential anti-Trump rant in an article. Another editor, however, then stated s/he planned to remove "this Trump novel" as nothing in it was relevant to the article topic. Then the original anti-Trump editor actually replied to that, and admitted the material didn't belong there. By the time I read the article, it had been removed.

    But I can easily imagine a MAGA outrage monger reading the anti-Trump version of the article and going on a rant on FB or Twitter about how "Wikipedia hates Trump" and all loyal Trump supporters should boycott it, etc. No, one person who hates Trump expressed that briefly, but more temperate editors realized that was inappropriate.

    Collapse
  2. Eric L.

    It's blatantly true to anyone who spends a minute perusing Wikipedia. Only some of its more academic or scientific entries are more reliable, and even these are open to tampering from would-be enforcers.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Bill Nelson

    The complaint is fairly well understood. You can use Wikipedia for those topics that don’t have a possible political bent, but avoid as a reference otherwise.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      Surely you mean, "be aware of possible editorial perspective"? I mean, just avoiding the definition of a standard reference because of that would be odd. The old Encyclopedia Britannica had a political bent as well.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    My biggest beef with Wikipedia is the CE, BCE crap. It’s like rubbing sand in my eyes every time I see it. It’s a silly hill but I shall die on it since my no DH in the National League hill has been overrun by tomfool idiots.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      That's not Wikipedia, that's ... virtually everything published in the last 15 years?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        I Am the Eggman

        And it wasn't new 15 years ago, either. The designations CE and BCE have been in use for centuries, and have been gradually becoming more common for quite a long time. Wikipedia is merely going with the emerging standard.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          The Bell Tower

          It certainly isn’t everything published in the last 15 years and it serves literally no purpose as it signifies exactly the same time demarcation as BC and AD. What’s the point?

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    I Am the Eggman

    My next question is, what are Larry Sanger's political views? Is he a sane, reasonably moderate (whether left or right) person whose opinions about "liberal bias" deserve to be taken seriously? I mean, really, the fact that he was a co-founder of Wikipedia means very little. At this point, he's just a guy with an opinion, so before I give any weight to that opinion I'd like to know more about his thinking.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Dave T

      Yeah. Color me completely un-surprised that editorial boards have a point of view. That's not exactly earthshattering. And considering that I use Wikipedia all the time, mostly to find out stuff like, "What were some of the major historical figures in Pan-Asianism" or "How long to mayflies live", I'm not impressed with the 'propaganda' label.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Larry Seltzer

        The idea with Wikipedia is that there is a community of editors and the wisdom of crowds will make it fair-ish in the long run. Unlike The New York Times or The Dispatch, you don't have to be an employee, you can have an impact just by participating.

        I use Wikipedia a lot, but I read it critically, and I examine the citations. I rarely cite Wikipedia itself as a source.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Dave T

          Well, sure, but who does that? It's for general reference, not for scholarly research.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Larry Seltzer

            Even for scholarly research it's a perfectly OK way to find other sources you can scrutinize

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Cthocas

    "The post was marked as potential misinformation by Facebook’s fact-checking algorithm."

    At this point that really just means "probably true, we just don't like it."

    Collapse
  7. Raincheck

    Do we dare question The Motor City Madman?

    Collapse