Concerns Surround Wikipedia’s Integrity

Wikipedia is facing a significant challenge. For over a year, concerns have been raised about how sensitive topics on the platform are shaped by ideological biases and special interests.

Normally, this might not be alarming—after all, it’s just another website. However, Wikipedia has evolved into an “essential infrastructure” for online knowledge. It channels information from mainstream media to countless digital platforms, including Google, ChatGPT, Alexa, and Siri. Recently, I spoke with Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, who has expressed his worries through a series of essays he calls the “Nine Theses,” which delve deep into the issues he views as fundamental to what he terms the “Wikipedia crisis.” Here’s a glimpse of our conversation.

Ashley Lindsberg: Larry Sanger, thank you for joining us. To start, could you summarize your “Nine Theses” and explain the significance of that title?

Sanger: I’ve been voicing my criticisms about Wikipedia since around 2004. Yet, I’ve never put forward a detailed reform plan until recently. A friend prompted me to consider laying out a reform proposal, which made me reflect more seriously.

Lindsberg: In your first essay, titled “Ending Consensus Decision Making,” you state: “On Wikipedia, articles that are completely one-sided and quite controversial are often declared to represent the ‘consensus’ of the community. If this sounds silly, it’s because it is.” Can you elaborate on that?

Sanger: The term “consensus” was borrowed from the original Wiki, which relied on consensus building as a decision-making method. In those days, discussions occurred on Wiki pages, which were then transformed into narrative formats resembling encyclopedia entries. This was an attempt to encapsulate all the nuances expressed during those discussions.

Lindsberg: And we can see this play out in contentious social and political issues—like gender topics—where Wikipedia assumes a dominant narrative as the “consensus” viewpoint.

Sanger: Essentially, Wikipedia mirrors the prevailing opinion of its most influential editors. If it does reflect a consensus, it’s confined to a limited, narrow viewpoint, much akin to scientific consensus that often overlooks dissenters’ perspectives. This is problematic as it undermines the actual concept of consensus.

Lindsberg: In your second essay, you argue that “it’s impossible to practice neutrality when editors refuse to compromise,” leading to a dominant perspective aligned with the Western ruling elite—labeled as Globalist, Academic, Secular, Progressive (GASP). Why is “GASP” a concern?

Sanger: Simply put, it’s a narrow subgroup of humanity that doesn’t account for the diversity found globally. There are viewpoints from outside Western academia that are often ignored. Conservative perspectives, in particular, find it challenging to gain representation, and you may even find misleading statements about conservative figures without balanced context.

Lindsberg: Moving on to your third essay, “Abolishing the Source Blacklist,” it seems many may not realize that Wikipedia essentially acts as a wrapper around mainstream media, relying on a fixed list of “trusted sources.” How did this come to be, and what’s its legitimacy?

Sanger: The process began in 2005 when the idea of defining “authorized sources” was pitched, leading to new rules about source citations. By 2018, an editor developed a color-coded system for various news sources, where green indicates commonly trusted sources and yellow indicates sources that may not be reliable in some cases.

Lindsberg: It’s intriguing. For example, certain sources like OpIndia are often excluded, while state-run media like China Daily gets a yellow rating, and Al Jazeera is considered reliable. How do those classifications make sense?

Sanger: Indeed, it raises questions about what kind of neutrality exists regarding these sources. There’s a distinct bias reflected in these evaluations, which implies that the views of certain groups—like Hindus, Christians, and Jews—are not seen neutrally.

Lindsberg: Let’s pivot to the governance of Wikipedia. Many casual users may not be aware that a small group of elite editors wields significant influence over the site’s content. Who are these individuals?

Sanger: Many people mistakenly believe that Wikipedia is edited commercially. However, it’s staffed by volunteers, many of whom remain anonymous, creating a complex, often unaccountable environment. Initially, there was minimal bureaucracy, but now there’s an arbitration committee, super administrators, and CheckUsers who manage user identities. Out of 62 high-privilege accounts, only nine individuals use their real names—leaving most anonymous. It’s quite concerning.

Lindsberg: Given the gravity of these matters, particularly with current Congressional investigations in play, why isn’t Wikipedia taking more substantial steps toward reform?

Sanger: I truly hope they will address these critical issues. If regular editors aren’t nipping these problems in the bud, then I feel the Wikimedia Foundation has a responsibility to step in.