Posted on 06/25/2026 1:55:05 AM PDT by Milagros
Left-leaning website Wikipedia has taken the drastic action of permanently blocking one of its founders from editing pages — after he had campaigned to make it more balanced and fair.
Last month, Larry Sanger launched WikiProject Intellectual Diversity (WID), a group designed to help reinforce the online encyclopedia’s “original, firm commitment to intellectual diversity,” by emphasizing neutrality and transparency.
However, Sanger — who coined the name “Wikipedia,” drafted the site’s foundational set of rules and guidelines, and launched the site alongside Jimmy Wales in 2001 — is now indefinitely blocked from editing, the most drastic action the site can take against an editor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia—
Ideological bias on Wikipedia has been the subject of both academic analysis and public discussion.
The English Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which has the goal of representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias, the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.[1] Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer—or more ideologically homogeneous—contributors are more likely to reflect the editorial bias of those contributing.[2]
State of research
I’m not surprised at all
Well it’s the perfect analogy to describe the left isn’t it.
No tolerance for any thought or point of view other than their own.
And we’ve all witnessed that they are more than willing to commit murder to silence anyone with a dissenting opinion.
Sounds a little like islam if you ask me.
After initially writing more than 100 articles on European art and architecture. I have been banned for 5 years for criticizing an administrator. They do in fact have their own “Lord of the Flies” type fiefdom.
They will say that “John Smith” hates “purple people” by having a friend write in a left wing publication that “John Smith” hates “purple people”. And then cite that article. It is a microcosm of a left wing authoritarian government.
All while begging for money from its readers.
Hey NY Post: Correction:
Left-WING website Wikipedia
Trying to make it more meaningless all the time while calling that “difference”?
They never got money from me in the past & that prospect is getting more hopeless all the time.
LOL
I don’t trust HOW Wiki writes about criticism of its own site.
ProgRacism
OK - raise your hand if you still use Wikipedia for information. The only time I even see it is during a search where it appears on the right of the screen - and I ignore it.
I eagerly await all of you making accounts over at Conservapedia so that we can have an alternative.
/sarc
Not.
I eagerly await all the complaints from the do-nothing crowd. Somebody should do something, just not the complainers.
Where are all the builders at? Why doesn’t anybody do anything anymore?
https://grokipedia.com/
As always, read the sources (links)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.