Wikipedia is “Wokepedia,” complains Elon Musk. That’s because it’s become so left-wing.
“It’s designed to push an ideological agenda that you can’t see,” says journalist Ashley Rindsberg in my new video. He runs “Neutral Point of View,” a Substack publication that exposes Wikipedia bias.
“So what if it’s biased?” I ask. “It’s just one website.”
“Wikipedia’s information spreads into everything online,” he replies, “ChatGPT, … Siri, Alexa. Ask a question, it is all Wikipedia.”
As a result, “a few thousand powerful editors determine what gets counted as information.”
Those editors sure hate President Donald Trump. When he put undocumented immigrants in what people called “cages” at detention centers, Wikipedia editors listed the centers under “concentration camps.”
Since Wikipedia says, “anyone can edit,” I tried to put that in perspective, adding, “President Obama built these cages.”
Within a day, my edit was taken down.
“Wikipedia has definitely been taken over by woke activists,” says Rindsberg.
An editor of my page even posts pictures of Lenin and Che on his website profile!
To make sure the content stays leftist, Wikipedia labels conservative media “unreliable.” Editors should not cite Fox News, The Federalist, The Daily Wire, the New York Post …
By contrast, Wikipedia labels CNN, and even MSNBC, VOX, Slate, The Nation and Mother Jones, “reliable.”
That’s nuts. Fox sometimes gets things wrong, but MSN and Slate don’t?
Another example: After years of leftist media labeling the claim that COVID leaked from a lab a “conspiracy theory,” most eventually acknowledged on the new evidence.
“COVID-19 likely originated from a laboratory leak in Wuhan, China,” summarized the “Today” show.
But Wikipedia still says there’s “no evidence supporting laboratory involvement.”
My own Wikipedia page is filled with not just mistakes but smears. Wikipedia editors make me look cruel.
They claim that when I anchored “20/20,” I complained that AIDS research gets “too much funding.”
But all I’d said was that AIDS research gets disproportionate funding compared to other diseases — diseases that kill more people.
Former President Bill Clinton said the same thing: “We’re spending 10 times as much per fatality on people with AIDS!”
They don’t trash him, just me.
Wikipedia’s socialists sure hate libertarians.
It’s not fair.
“There’s no recourse, there’s no accountability,” says Rindsberg. “Nobody for you to talk to and say, ‘This is wrong.’ If this was a news organization, there would be an avenue or a channel for you to at least address it. In Wikipedia’s case, that is not true.”
At least things may be changing now, because there are new options, like SciencePedia and Justapedia covering science and law.
“Justapedia,” says Rindsberg, “was founded by a veteran Wikipedia editor who couldn’t handle the left-wing bias. … This is exactly what we need … people to be able to choose among different sources, so we’re not all forced into the Wikipedia information funnel.”
Most important, since he has an extraordinary track record of success, is Elon Musk’s Grokipedia. It’s new and AI, so it makes mistakes, but Grok currently leads AI intelligence tests.
When it comes to topics I checked out, such as the probable origins of COVID, and my page, Grokipedia does better.
“Is there any way to fix Wikipedia?” I ask Rindsberg.
“The best chance we have is for dedicated people who are really interested in these topics to get in there and become an editor that can make those kinds of changes. We only need a few dozen, maybe even fewer, to make an impact … If enough people say … ‘I’m going to give it a go.’ … they actually can make an impact. The question is, are enough people going to take that leap?”
I hope you who read this column will!
Photo by Oberon Copeland @veryinformed.com on Unsplash
Always check multiple sources when seaching for information. I’m not sure if Elon Musk’s site would be any better given his polital leanings.
I think wikipedia would need serious, substantial changes in their leadership for any change to have a chance to take hold. I was an minor editor almost a decade ago and almost every single time I updated a page with current, empirical information, another ‘higher-level’ editor would reverse my changes in less than five minutes. Not exaggerating, less that five. I should tell you that this happened on a page where Boy Scout camps were listed, by council, and I updated the local council’s camp information. That’s all I did and that other editor reversed my edits without explaining why. When I messaged them to understand why they did it, the response was something like, “That page is within my domain” or some such nonsense. Apparently, some editors have their personal fiefdoms and I was an interloper.
Several years ago, I attempted to edit the Wiki post about Tony Robinson who was shot by police while high on mushrooms his Grandmother gave him. Robinson was jumping in front of cars and running and when the police arrived, Robinson punched one of the cops. Go read the post. If you read the Wikipage, it makes it look like the police were totally out of line and at fault while not once stating that Robinson was high on mushrooms. At the very end of the post, it states that drugs and mushrooms may have caused Robinsons erratic behavior.
Noticing that I could edit the post, I simply went in and at the beginning of the page added something that Robinson was high on mushrooms at the time of the shooting. Within minutes, someone came in and removed my post so a little while later, I put it back in. Within a few more minutes, they removed my edits again and this time left a message, something about if you want to play, go play in the sandbox.
I would never ever contribute to this whacked out website. I do refer to it but know exactly where they stand on so many issues so I only pay attention to the things I know are true. I wish they would allow me to comment when they are running around with their hand out looking for donations. I would never contribute anything to that woke website!