Wikipedia’s editors and content administrators are at the centre of a new OpIndia dossier that challenges Wikipedia’s claim of being a free and neutral encyclopedia. The report exposes a significant Left bias in Wikipedia’s coverage, particularly concerning India and its laws. It also argues that the systemic exclusion of right-wing sources undermines the platform’s claim to neutrality.
With only 435 active administrators wielding disproportionate power over content and contributor access, the dossier questions the integrity of Wikipedia’s editors and their supposed commitment to a balanced perspective.
OpIndia Dossier
The news website OpIndia has published a detailed dossier that aims to disprove the ‘fact‘ that Wikipedia operates as a free, editorially neutral encyclopaedia reliant on the voluntary efforts of unpaid contributors, as claimed by the Wikimedia Foundation. The dossier mainly focuses on Wikipedia’s content related to India, Indian laws, and the implications of treating Wikipedia as a publisher, making it directly liable for the content on its platform.
The dossier highlights research that uncovers a pronounced Left bias on Wikipedia. Three cited studies conclude that Wikipedia inherently leans left, contradicting its “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) policy. While NPOV suggests that all views would be represented, the reality is that the platform restricts right-wing (non-left) sources from being used, labelling them as unreliable. Wikipedia’s editors and admins, who hold disproportionate power, ensure these sources are blacklisted, skewing the content towards left-leaning perspectives.
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has also confirmed this bias, stating that it distorts the platform’s representation of reality.
Furthermore, Wikipedia’s structure grants enormous power to a small group of editors and administrators. Out of the millions of contributors, only 435 active administrators have the authority to ban editors, blacklist sources, and determine which content stays on the platform. These administrators often receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects, undermining the claim that Wikipedia operates as a free, open platform for all.
Let us look at Wikipedia’s left bias in detail.
Prior Research On Wikipedia’s Left Bias
The Manhattan Institute’s research, conducted by David Rozado and published in June 2024, provides an in-depth analysis of the ideological bias present in Wikipedia’s English-language articles. The study investigates whether Wikipedia exhibits political bias and assesses the potential implications of such biases on the content’s neutrality.
Key Findings:
- Bias in Sentiment: The research reveals a noticeable left-leaning bias in Wikipedia articles. It finds that public figures and institutions associated with right-of-center ideologies are portrayed with more negative sentiment compared to their left-leaning counterparts. Negative emotions such as anger and disgust are more frequently associated with right-leaning figures, whereas positive emotions like joy are more commonly linked to left-leaning figures.
- Impact on AI Models: The study also highlights that this ideological bias in Wikipedia articles may influence widely used AI systems. OpenAI’s language models, which draw on Wikipedia content, may reflect these biases in their outputs, suggesting that Wikipedia’s content can shape and perpetuate biases in AI applications.
- Neutral Point of View (NPOV) Policy: Wikipedia’s NPOV policy is intended to ensure impartiality and neutrality in its articles. However, Rozado’s research indicates that this policy is not fully achieving its goal. The study’s results suggest that Wikipedia articles are not as neutral as intended, with a significant skew towards left-leaning perspectives.
- Media Sources and Sentiment: The research further analyzes the sentiment associated with media sources cited on Wikipedia. It finds that Wikipedia articles tend to reflect more positive sentiment towards left-leaning news media institutions compared to right-leaning ones. This disparity is less pronounced when it comes to think tanks, as these entities do not evoke the same level of emotional response as media organizations.
- Content Analysis Methodology: The study employs computational content analysis using modern language models for content annotation. This method quantitatively assesses the sentiment and emotional tone related to politically charged terms and figures in Wikipedia articles. The analysis confirms that Wikipedia’s content exhibits a systematic bias in portraying political ideologies and figures.
- Blacklisting of Alternative Views: The research suggests that Wikipedia’s bias is not limited to the portrayal of political figures but also extends to the types of sources cited. The platform tends to exclude or downplay sources that offer alternate viewpoints, contributing to the overall skewed presentation of information. This exclusionary practice further reinforces the perceived left-leaning bias of Wikipedia.
In 2020, The Critic, a British political and cultural magazine, published a research paper by two American academics titled “The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia.” This study scrutinizes Wikipedia’s internal policies—verifiability and Neutral Point of View (NPOV)—to highlight how these policies might inadvertently contribute to a left-leaning bias on the platform.
Key Findings:
- Failure of Internal Policies: Wikipedia’s Verifiability policy demands that content be based on reliable, independent sources known for fact-checking and accuracy. The NPOV policy requires articles to present all significant viewpoints proportionally. Despite these policies, the research finds that Wikipedia articles often reflect a left-leaning bias. This bias arises because sources and viewpoints deemed reliable are often influenced by the prevailing leftist perspectives of Wikipedia’s editors.
- Bias in Source Selection: The paper reveals that Wikipedia’s editors tend to accept left-leaning sources while dismissing conservative ones. At the time of the research, 16 conservative sources had been deprecated, meaning they were largely disallowed from being cited, compared to only one leftist source. This discrepancy illustrates a bias in the selection of reliable sources.
- Discrepancy in Source Treatment: The research further highlights that left-wing sources are less likely to face scrutiny or deprecation than conservative sources. An attempt to deprecate the left-leaning site AlterNet faced resistance, with arguments emphasizing its value in providing progressive viewpoints despite some concerns about its reliability. In contrast, right-leaning sources face more stringent evaluations and are often deemed unreliable.
- Bias in Arbitration Enforcement: The study finds that Wikipedia’s arbitration process, meant to resolve disputes and enforce neutrality, also reflects bias. Discretionary sanctions, a set of powers granted to Wikipedia administrators, can be used to block or sanction editors based on subjective judgments. The research shows that right-leaning editors are significantly more likely to be sanctioned compared to their left-leaning counterparts, with a ratio of over six times more likely to face sanctions in contentious political topics.
- Influence of Wikipedia Administrators: The research suggests that Wikipedia administrators’ attitudes contribute to the platform’s bias. Administrators and Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, have expressed views that show little tolerance for right-wing perspectives. For instance, during the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, candidates were asked about far-right groups, and the majority viewed them as a significant problem, reflecting a bias against right-leaning viewpoints.
- Contradiction with Wikipedia’s Stated Policies: The paper critiques how Wikipedia’s stance on neutrality is contradicted by its actions. An example is the Wikimedia Foundation’s 2020 endorsement of Black Lives Matter, which rejected neutrality on issues of racial justice, further indicating a departure from Wikipedia’s core neutrality policy.
- Impact on Content and Article Integrity: The research demonstrates that Wikipedia’s left-leaning bias affects the accuracy and integrity of its content. For instance, the paper highlights how hoax material supporting a favoured viewpoint might go unnoticed while negative information about individuals with unfavourable views is scrutinized less rigorously. An example given is the page on psychologist Linda Gottfredson, which contained fabricated quotes for an extended period due to the editorial bias against her.
Larry Sanger
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has consistently criticized the platform for its ideological bias, particularly towards liberal viewpoints. In a 2020 article, Sanger argued that Wikipedia has abandoned its neutrality policy, citing examples where it treats Democratic figures and issues with less scrutiny compared to Republicans. He pointed out disparities in how scandals involving Barack Obama are omitted while controversies surrounding Donald Trump are extensively covered. Sanger criticized Wikipedia for endorsing establishment views and neglecting opposing perspectives in areas such as politics, religion, and science.
Sanger continued his critique in 2021 and 2023. In 2021, he examined Wikipedia’s handling of politically contentious topics like Donald Trump’s impeachment and the Hunter Biden story. He argued that Wikipedia displayed a clear bias towards Democratic viewpoints, failing to present both sides of the debate fairly. Sanger asserted that the articles were so biased that they could be considered propaganda rather than neutral information.
Throughout his articles, Sanger claims that Wikipedia’s adherence to its Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy is nonexistent. He argues that a truly neutral Wikipedia would present both positive and negative aspects of all viewpoints, but this is not reflected in its current content. Sanger has also criticized Wikipedia’s leadership, alleging that there is no intention to address or rectify this bias.
Pirate Wires
Ashley Rindsberg’s research for Pirate Wires, titled “How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda,” scrutinizes the ideological bias in Wikipedia’s content, particularly its reliance on left-leaning sources. Rindsberg argues that Wikipedia’s editors and administrators systematically blacklist conservative media sources while favoring left-leaning ones, thus affecting the neutrality of its content.
Rindsberg’s analysis begins with an example from July 2024, when a debate erupted over Kamala Harris’s role as the Border Czar after President Biden’s exit from the presidential race. Despite the initial inclusion of Harris’s name in the Wikipedia page on Border Czars, it was quickly removed following the political controversy. Rindsberg highlights how this led to an edit war on the Talk Page, with sources disputing Harris’s appointment being cited, while counter-evidence was ignored. This incident exemplifies how Wikipedia’s consensus often aligns with the priorities of the Democratic Party and its supporting media.
The research critiques Wikipedia’s reliance on “reliable sources,” emphasizing that conservative news outlets are often categorized as unreliable or deprecated. Rindsberg notes that Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines favor mainstream and left-leaning media, such as ABC, CBS, NBC, The Atlantic, Vox, Mother Jones, and The Guardian, which are marked as reliable. In contrast, conservative sources like Fox News, The Federalist, and The Post Millennial are deemed unreliable. Rindsberg also points out that even state-owned media like China Daily and Xinhua, which promote government propaganda, are given a “yellow” rating for “no consensus,” while Al Jazeera, owned by the authoritarian state of Qatar, receives a green rating for reliability.
How Wikipedia Works
Wikipedia, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, functions through a structured hierarchy that influences its content. The Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization, oversees Wikipedia, which is governed by a ten-member Board of Trustees, with Jimmy Wales as Chairman Emeritus. Despite Wikipedia’s claims of non-control over content, Wales has historically held significant influence, as noted in a 2002 letter where he stated that final policy decisions rested with him.
Wikipedia’s content management involves various levels of authority:
- Editors: These are the general contributors who can make changes to Wikipedia pages. Editors may be registered users or contribute anonymously via IP addresses. They hold the lowest level of authority and can be banned or overridden by higher authorities.
- Bureaucrats: Introduced in 2004, bureaucrats (or Crats) have a limited role, primarily appointing or removing administrators and other bureaucrats based on Arbitration Committee instructions. There are currently 15 anonymous bureaucrats.
- Administrators: With 855 administrator accounts, 435 of whom are active, administrators have substantial control over Wikipedia content. They can alter content, ban users, protect pages from editing, delete pages, and resolve disputes. Their real identities are mostly anonymous.
- Arbitration Committee (ArbCom): ArbCom functions as Wikipedia’s supreme judicial body, handling complex disputes that the community cannot resolve. Established by Jimmy Wales to extend his former decision-making role, ArbCom members, or Arbs, can impose binding decisions, including bans and blocks on users. The current committee consists of 10 active members, who often remain anonymous.
Historically, Wikipedia evolved from Nupedia, a project co-founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Nupedia’s rigorous content approval process was less effective than Wikipedia’s more open model. Sanger has criticized the transition from Nupedia to Wikipedia for prioritizing volume over authenticity, leading to a shift in editorial control to largely anonymous individuals.
The Wikimedia Foundation’s funding is a fraction of its revenue, with a significant portion allocated to salaries and grants for Wikipedia’s editors and administrators. This expenditure impacts the platform’s neutrality and control.
The selective blacklisting of sources, including prominent conservative and non-left media, reinforces Wikipedia’s ideological bias. For example, Indian sources like OpIndia are blacklisted, while left-leaning sources such as TheWire, despite documented issues with misinformation, are cited favourably. This selective citation and source deprecation ensure a left-leaning bias in content, as Wikipedia’s editors and administrators shape articles to reflect a specific ideological stance.
Despite Wikipedia’s claim of a neutral point of view, its hierarchical structure and biased source management contribute to a skewed representation of information. The platform’s reliance on a limited pool of “reliable” sources, combined with its editorial control, ensures that content often aligns with left-leaning perspectives, impacting its neutrality and accuracy.
Conclusion
Wikipedia’s editors wield significant control over the content and perspectives that shape the platform’s vast repository of knowledge. The dossier highlights how the free encyclopedia’s editorial policy fosters a notable Left bias, vandalising its purported commitment to neutrality. By systematically restricting right-wing sources and privileging left-leaning perspectives, such admins and editors have skewed the representation of information, challenging the notion of the platform as a truly impartial encyclopedia.
As these admins continue to exert their influence and enforce these biases, it becomes increasingly crucial to scrutinize the accuracy and balance of the content presented, questioning whether Wikipedia can genuinely uphold its claim of being a free, unbiased source of information.
(With inputs from OpIndia)
Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.