Reassessing Wikipedia
Wikipedia is becoming a topic of scrutiny. As one of its co-founders and a long-time critic of various knowledge platforms, I feel somewhat responsible for this shift.
Back in September, I made a virtual visit to Wikipedia, initiating discussions about my piece, “9 articles on Wikipedia.” This spurred a response from Elon Musk, who announced the upcoming launch of Grokipedia the very next day. Consequently, this led to a larger national dialogue, with individuals across the political spectrum expressing concerns regarding the platform’s trajectory and my critiques.
Wikipedia is nearing its 25th anniversary, and it’s clear—it could really use a refresh. Over its lengthy history, the platform has exhibited a notable left-wing bias. Yet, those who maintain that bias—like administrators and regular editors—seem reluctant to let go of their skewed perspectives and often dismiss anyone who challenges them.
The first comprehensive reform proposal is termed “Nine Categorization.” Here are some suggested changes:
- Permit multiple competing articles on the same topic.
- Cease the ideological blacklisting of sources.
- Reinstate the original neutrality policy.
- Reveal the identities of the most influential managers.
- Put an end to unfair and indefinite blockings.
- Implement a formal legislative process.
Proposals like these might struggle for acceptance on Wikipedia; the system has become quite rigid.
That said, I was pleased to see that my paper sparked discussion without needing further prompting. Following my announcement, Jimmy Wales intervened in a discussion on the so-called talk page of an article titled “Gaza Massacre,” admonishing participants for breaching Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I attempted to voice my concerns, but my critiques were often met with resistance.
This brings forth a more profound concern. Wikipedia is, in many ways, stalled. How do we instigate reform when so many contributors prioritize bigotry, anonymous control, the ease of blocking opposing views, and other dysfunctional behaviors? It feels like an uphill battle.
However, there remains a viable path to reform.
Above all, anyone who cares about Wikipedia should get involved. Surprisingly, the number of people actively editing is quite low. Only a few thousand make around 100 edits in a month, which isn’t that much time—maybe just an hour or two each week. A handful of individuals work on it as a part-time or full-time job, influencing daily operations significantly.
I’ve urged those feeling marginalized to join Wikipedia. Some may interpret this as a call for conservatives and liberals to stage a takeover, but that’s not entirely accurate. Various groups—including Hindus and Israelis—have voiced their concerns about being overlooked in recent years. The real issue lies with the entrenched ruling class. Yet, if Wikipedia remains open, there’s a good chance that differing perspectives can be introduced.
If you’re a conservative, or even a liberal worried about the biased portrayal of events, it’s the perfect time to step up. Whether you’re a classic liberal, like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz, concerned about rising anti-Semitism on the platform, now is the moment to make your voice heard. I invite everyone, regardless of their political stance, to be proactive editors who engage in meaningful debate rather than merely blaming “the other side.”
Even adding a dozen new editors could create ripples of change—not to mention the hundreds or even thousands who might read this. Considering that Wikipedia garners billions of readers and appears prominently on Google search engines, enhancing the platform can enrich our overall access to valuable information and get us closer to the truth.
So, how do we tackle Wikipedia’s challenges? Collectively, let’s take individual steps for significant change.
