Last week, Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, released a series of “9 theses,” proposing changes to the online encyclopedia. His essays, which critique various aspects of Wikipedia, faced several removal attempts, with some editors censoring his content for its critical nature. While a few editors welcomed Sanger’s insights, many reacted strongly against him, accusing him of fascism and suggesting he should be banned from the platform.
Sanger first unveiled his nine theses during an interview on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, where he described Wikipedia as a “mixture of oligarchy and anarchy.” He highlighted perceived biases within the platform, labeling them as “globalist, academic, secular, progressive.” Sanger has previously critiqued Wikipedia for its alleged left-leaning bias. Their discussion gained traction, especially around a “perennial sources page,” which had blacklisted conservative outlets like Breitbart as part of the site’s ongoing content modifications.
Reactions on Wikipedia were somewhat subdued initially. On Sanger’s personal discussion page, some editors expressed their support. However, others on the “Village Pump” bulletin board debated the value of Sanger’s suggestions, and some felt he was unfamiliar with the current state of affairs on the site. The most significant pushback stemmed from his comments on left-wing bias, with critics challenging his assertion that “the facts have a liberal bias” while advocating for more conservative viewpoints. There were also ironic remarks regarding his unsuccessful attempts to establish a competing platform. Discussions also surfaced on a bulletin board regarding the controversy over “fringe theory” on the site.
Although some support emerged for Sanger’s theses, hostility was apparent. One editor accused him of backing the Heritage Foundation’s privacy initiatives and claimed that his opposition to anonymizing the site’s powerful users aimed to create a chilling effect. Concerns lingered over his positions, with one editor accusing Sanger of endorsing anti-Semitism by referencing Martin Luther’s 95 Theses positively without critiquing the historical context of anti-Semitism linked to it.
Unregistered users attempted to edit the article, leading to vandalism portraying the content in a racist manner. There were scathing attacks from other editors, with some insinuating that Sanger’s intentions mirrored those of a disgruntled former employee. One editor remarked that the hostility displayed in Sanger’s discussion could reflect deeper issues within Wikipedia itself. Another editor inaccurately claimed that Sanger misunderstood what a “thesis” meant, prompting ridicule.
Many existing users objected specifically to Sanger’s references to individual editors. One contentious section of the article about Yahweh’s secular bias claimed that the God of Abrahamic faiths stemmed from polytheistic deities, being labeled as harassment by other editors. There were claims that Sanger’s references were aimed at inciting his “trolls” to target specific individuals. Shortly afterward, the page was temporarily locked, limiting edits to administrators only. An editor, identified as a “neoliberal,” had already been vocal about critics of the Yahweh article, labeling them as ignorant apologists.
Particular issues arose regarding Sanger’s sixth thesis involving the anonymity of the “Power 62” users and his desire for them to reveal their identities or step down. An editor challenged this thesis, asserting that the controversial nature of such content was divisive. Discussions led to a nomination for complete page deletion, which ultimately failed as the majority voted to retain it, despite some editors advocating for its removal.
Even after the vote’s outcome, discussions continued. Following an article by the Signpost community newsletter about Sanger’s proposals, editor “Ari Boy” remarked that Sanger’s critique of progressive bias might indirectly call for the exclusion of certain groups from editorial roles. This sparked a new deletion discussion regarding Sanger’s papers, initiated by Ahri Boy, who argued against his proposals under the guise of inclusivity.
The second deletion attempt was brief, but another criticism of the signpost emerged shortly after. Editor Brian E. Logan contended that Sanger’s use of the term “globalist” was inherently anti-Semitic. Various editors labeled Sanger a “total fascist,” with others deriding him as a troll. Some noted that the page had been deleted after several removal attempts, albeit without further execution, while others proposed removing redirects that Sanger created to lead users to his specific writings, claiming a bias in debate approach.
Specific hostility surrounded Sanger’s “Power 62” list, described by some as an “enemy list” and a “tool of intimidation” detrimental to community safety. Critics started efforts to erase references to it and connected it with a call for revealing identities, contrary to Sanger’s stated opposition. Several editors pointed out instances where it breached site policies regarding living individuals. This topic was raised by Paul Lee, known as “Valjean,” who claimed that Sanger’s assertion that “the facts have a liberal bias” could harm Wikipedia’s credibility.
Lee, recognized for contributing to articles like the Steele dossier, highlighted various concerns. Despite his criticisms of Sanger’s actions regarding living person policies, his own writings hinted at severe implications regarding political figures, further suggesting that urgent preparation was required for potential attacks by a so-called military regime.
Amid the dialogue, Sanger warned that scrutiny would be directed at the community to encourage better conduct. Beyond hostility, there were constructive suggestions, with one editor citing the limited legal support currently offered by the Wikimedia Foundation, contrasting it to what Sanger proposed. Notably, Jonathan Cardy, mentioned in Sanger’s “Power 62,” defended anonymity, noting that not all media personnel are identified and highlighted his active role with Wikimedia UK.
In a response to Sanger’s position on anonymity, Will Nichols, a fellow Power 62 editor, questioned if Sanger’s ideas might lead to punitive actions against dissenters. Nichols faced controversy in the past concerning his own anonymity after serving on an arbitration committee. Post-election, he revealed details of a conflict of interest case that had led to his resignation, further complicating the discourse around accountability on the platform.
Critics of Wikipedia continue to share their concerns about the treatment meted out to individuals challenging the site’s norms. Sanger previously faced backlash for editors suppressing criticism directed at him. Instances of harassment were reported against various critics, including officials questioning Wikipedia’s biases, leading to intense scrutiny from members of the House Oversight Committee. Discussions of bias, particularly against Israel, have also surfaced amidst these ongoing challenges.
(Disclosure: The contributor has had prior disputes on Wikipedia involving some individuals mentioned in this article)
(TD Adler, a Wikipedia editor under the alias “The Devil’s Advocate,” was banned after reporting a conflict of interest involving a site administrator. Adler writes under a pseudonym due to experiences with targeted campaigns against critics.)
