Close Menu
The Politic ReviewThe Politic Review
  • Home
  • News
  • United States
  • World
  • Politics
  • Elections
  • Congress
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Money
  • Tech
Trending

‘Shame On You’: Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy Heckled at Synagogue Attack Vigil

October 3, 2025

Leavitt: Shutdown Layoffs Are Necessary Because U.S. Is $37 Trillion in Debt

October 3, 2025

Joe Rogan Praises Pete Hegseth Ending ‘Identity Politics Bullsh*t’: He Needed to Fix ‘What the F*ck was Going on’ Under Biden

October 3, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
  • Donald Trump
  • Kamala Harris
  • Elections 2024
  • Elon Musk
  • Israel War
  • Ukraine War
  • Policy
  • Immigration
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
The Politic ReviewThe Politic Review
Newsletter
Friday, October 3
  • Home
  • News
  • United States
  • World
  • Politics
  • Elections
  • Congress
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Money
  • Tech
The Politic ReviewThe Politic Review
  • United States
  • World
  • Politics
  • Elections
  • Congress
  • Business
  • Economy
  • Money
  • Tech
Home»Tech»Wikipedia Co-Founder Calls Site ‘Mixture of Oligarchy and Anarchy’ During Tucker Carlson Interview
Tech

Wikipedia Co-Founder Calls Site ‘Mixture of Oligarchy and Anarchy’ During Tucker Carlson Interview

Press RoomBy Press RoomOctober 3, 2025No Comments13 Mins Read
Share Facebook Twitter Pinterest Copy Link LinkedIn Tumblr Email VKontakte Telegram

Earlier this week, commentator Tucker Carlson’s podcast aired an interview with Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger where he discussed his criticism of the online encyclopedia and introduced his “nine theses” advocating reform. Describing the site as a “mixture of oligarchy and anarchy” during the interview, Sanger criticized many issues he identified with Wikipedia since his departure from the site.

Among the issues raised was the site’s sourcing blacklist, the result of an ongoing purge of conservative media on the site, including Breitbart News. The revelations during the interview provoked social media outrage and an announcement from Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk about a Wikipedia competitor.

Sanger has previously criticized Wikipedia and specifically focused on left-wing bias in recent years. This has included interviews with Fox News, such as an interview with Carlson where he mentioned being embarrassed by the site. His criticism has led to retaliation from the site’s editors at times. Editors have also sought to exclude mention of his criticism of the site from articles relating to bias on Wikipedia. The site’s left-wing bias has been reported on extensively at Breitbart and confirmed in multiple studies.

Before introducing Sanger, Carlson described Wikipedia’s importance “in shaping our collective memory” and America with its content affecting people worldwide. He stated the site has become a weapon to destroy the left’s political enemies. Carlson confessed to having believed in Wikipedia, even donating significant money to the project, but lamenting how it was now a “leading source of . . . disinformation” that lies and omits crucial details. He noted articles will label a conservative a “far-right conspiracy theorist” before telling readers anything else about the person. Over the course of more than an hour, Sanger and Carlson discussed many issues regarding Wikipedia, while touching on Sanger’s reform proposal.

Left-Wing Bias and Jimmy Wales

One natural point was Wikipedia’s left-wing bias. During the interview, Sanger talked about admins often banning accounts for ideological reasons and stated it was “very difficult for conservatives to get into Wikipedia” as they have to “walk on eggshells” to avoid sanctions. An academic analysis confirmed this assessment by finding that conservatives were six times more likely to be banned. Sanger stated the bias got worse “around 2016” when Donald Trump first won the Presidency as the “media landscape changed” and “mainstream sources became totally biased” towards the left. Sanger likened the change on the site to the “march through institutions” of far-left activists.

Sanger stated fellow co-founder Jimmy Wales was essentially allowing leftists to take over back when he departed. Eventually, some time after Sanger left, he says they “consolidated their power” on the site. When Carlson asked what views he thinks Wales has Sanger said he didn’t know. He notes Wales “used to be broadly libertarian” before, the two first knowing each other from Ayn Rand discussions online, but Wales now had a “lot of lefty pals” as Sanger put it. He said it wasn’t clear to him if Wales really approves of the site’s current direction.

Sourcing Blacklist

During the interview with Carlson, Sanger mentioned “the perennial sources page” blacklisting numerous conservative sources as part of an ongoing purge. His and Sanger’s reciting of the entries on the blacklist and Carlson’s reaction went viral on social media. Trump’s Crypto and AI czar David Sacks suggested an alternative Wikipedia powered by AI could simply use the blacklisted sources to provide a more neutral perspective and Musk later responded to Sacks by announcing plans for a “Grokipedia” using the billionaire’s AI platform:


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Donald Trump Jr. also reacted to the blacklist discussion by criticizing Wikipedia:


Sanger noted the the blacklist was initially created by editor “MrX” on Wikipedia, an editor who has a long history of left-wing activist editing. In 2016, he removed the Orlando Pulse Club shooting from the list of Islamist terror attacks. He was one of numerous left-wing editors who repeatedly removed entries from Wikipedia’s CNN controversies page after pushing to delete an article on CNN’s blackmail controversy and sought to purge sources criticizing the 2016 Russia hacking narrative. MrX also made edits protecting former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and maligned efforts to exonerate Russiagate smear victim Michael Flynn.

Tucker Carlson’s Wikipedia Page

Early in the interview, Carlson mentioned never reading his Wikipedia page and checked the first paragraph to see what it said, noting the final line in the opening paragraph called him a “leading voice of white grievance politics.” The line linked to a section of another article, citing late Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson with a tag noting that a better source was needed (the section was expanded following Carlson’s interview). Expressing amusement about the term, Carlson dismissed it as an undefined propaganda term meant to make him seem scary.

Reviewing the history for Carlson’s page, the mention of “white grievance” politics was first added to the article by editor “Thenightaway” in a section on Carlson’s immigration views. Previously, he edited as “Snooganssnoogans” and had been prolific in smearing Carlson, along with numerous other conservatives, including Trump. Snooganssnoogans also smeared media outlets later added to the sourcing blacklist, once spreading a hoax about Breitbart. In many blacklisting discussions Snooganssnoogans directly participated. When supporting Fox News being blacklisted, one admin cited an academic whose prior work copied content the editor added to Wikipedia. Snoogansnoogans also smeared Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) for investigating the Hunter Biden scandal, linking it to “Russian disinformation” claims.

Another editor was the first to mention “white grievance politics” in the introduction, citing site guidelines. Those guidelines specifically state the introduction should not put more emphasis on material in the introduction than in the article body, referring to the site’s neutrality policy on giving views undue weight. Material in the introduction should instead be included based on the significance attached in sources deemed reliable on the site. Both then and now, the only other mention of “white grievance” politics on Carlson’s page is in one ten-word line cited to one source.

Nearly two years later, the intro line was moved by the previous editor to the start of the third paragraph and the intro re-arranged to place details maligning Carlson for various views ahead of material about his general politics. A year after that, another editor moved the line to its current position at the end of the first paragraph. The same editor also tried to add content mocking Carlson’s facial expressions, citing a Medium blog post, Uproxx, and Jezebel. However, the latter detail was removed. Following the interview with Sanger, an editor attempted to remove the “white grievance” line, but left-wing editor “Aquillion” restored it.

Anonymous Leaders

Discussion also focused on the “Power 62” Sanger mentions in his theses, referring to the site’s most powerful editors, of whom Sanger stated 85 percent cannot be easily identified by real names. He further noted the Section 230 law means the Wikimedia Foundation can’t be sued for content added by users. Carlson questioned why people couldn’t know their name, suggesting they were the most powerful people in the country due to their influence over Wikipedia, but couldn’t be held personally accountable. Sanger attributed this to the “zeitgeist of 1990’s hacker culture” and likened it to them playing a game where they pretend to be harmless and trivial figures.

Carlson argued they should be pressed more, asking “who has more effect on . . . the world’s understanding of history” than Wikipedia. He compared it to the professors at the seven history departments of Ivy League universities declaring they would not tell anyone their names. Carlson and Sanger both supported anonymity as a matter of free speech, and Sanger made clear he opposed doxing any of them, but they agreed people with such influence should be identifiable. Sanger said they could resign if unwilling to identify.

Paid Editing and Spies

Part of why Sanger argues knowing names is important is to know whether any of them possess conflicts of interests or are getting paid. He speculated that a number of anonymous editors on the site, potentially influential ones, “probably are working full-time for somebody” and noted there are public relations firms that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia. He stated that this is “not allowed officially” when it isn’t disclosed, but a lot do not disclose. Such paid editing, both disclosed and undisclosed, is a serious problem on the site.

Government involvement in editing Wikipedia is another related concern, particularly spy agencies. Sanger noted a tool called WikiScanner that tied IP addresses to organizations found a “whole bunch of edits coming from Langley” in one example. He stated Wikipedia was a “gold mine for the intelligence agencies of the world” as a “one-stop shop” for influencing the public whose opinions they would naturally want to shape. Sanger mentioned asking DOGE to investigate whether any government employees were editing Wikipedia, which got a response from Musk, though Sanger doubted it had an effect.

Defamation

Carlson stated Wikipedia had “libeled a lot of people I know” during the interview and Sanger brought up the Seigenthaler incident. That referred to a journalist who a Wikipedia editor falsely accused of being a suspect in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. He mentioned Seigenthaler calling him and blaming him personally for the smear. Sanger said the incident “opened my eyes to just how reputations can be harmed” and he had since heard from dozens of people with grievances who don’t know what to do about it. He said that feeling of responsibility is one reason he wrote the nine theses to fix Wikipedia.

Google Favoritism

Further discussing the power of Wikipedia, Carlson discussed how Wikipedia was the first result for a Google search of his name, asking “Why would a bunch of anonymous editors get to be the first result on my name?” Sanger suggested one reason why Wikipedia took off so quickly is because of a feedback loop as articles covering topics not covered before would be favored by the search engine’s ranking algorithms at the time. In fact, Google at one point did adjust its algorithm in favor of Wikipedia over “content farms” that had come to frequently appear in results. Google and other Big Tech sites have heavily favored the site.

Organizing a Response

Regarding how to respond, Sanger mentioned how many Hindus and Jews were asking him to speak out against the bias on Wikipedia against them. He suggested people get organized and edit the site to “test the waters” and “make some real efforts” to edit in good faith and build credibility. Sanger argued that there had never been an attempt to organize all the various political groups critical of Wikipedia to “try to make a change” on the site directly as editors.

Carlson agreed, stating that trying to “take back the institution” was not something conservatives often considered. He said it doesn’t occur to them “why don’t I fix Wikipedia” and said the problem was “most non-liberals have no patience for bureaucracy” unlike the left. Sanger noted that organizing off Wikipedia regarding articles is also prohibited, which presents an obstacle to such an effort. For example, he stated he could get banned for organizing people to go and edit his article on Wikipedia. However, left-wing groups have organized “edit-a-thons” and other editing campaigns focused on “equity” issues that have biased the site.

Reform Proposal

At the end of the interview, Sanger went over his nine theses, stating it was probably the first time someone made a thorough reform proposal for the site, which he stated he worked on over about nine months. His first proposal entailed ending consensus decisions, calling Wikipedia consensus a “cynical institutional fiction” that doesn’t represent real consensus if they claim to be a global open project. Second was having multiple articles representing different views, suggesting there could be multiple articles on Trump with people deciding for themselves. His third proposal was to abolish the sourcing blacklist.

Fourth among his proposals was reviving the original neutrality policy, which he emphasized meant refusing to take sides, saying “Wikipedia should be a big tent” of people “from radically different points of view” about issues. He described the current bias as “globalist, academic, secular, and progressive” or GASP for short. Carlson noted this represented the views of a small elite and questioned whether editors realize they are essentially the “praetorian guard protecting the powerful.” Sanger responded that he thinks many of them take pride in representing that viewpoint.

His fifth proposal was to repeal the “Ignore all rules” policy Sanger introduced as a joke to encourage new editors intimidated by the site’s structure, but has since been used to protect insiders and advance establishment views. Sixth was ending anonymity for the “Power 62” Sanger mentioned, suggesting they receive legal and financial protection from the site’s owners over any increased risk. Carlson argued such risk was the price of having influence. Discussing his seventh suggestion for a public rating system, Carlson approved given there were articles he liked and things he enjoyed learning with Wikipedia, which he said made the site’s issues frustrating.

Regarding his eighth proposal for ending indefinite bans, Sanger noted it can be an important hobby for people, citing an editor nearly being driven to suicide following a ban. He noted a Wikipedia essay stating “Wikipedia is not therapy” was invoked regarding the case with Carlson saying it was cruelty. On his ninth proposal for democratic governance, Sanger argued Wikipedia was a “strange mixture of oligarchy and anarchy” that was “hard to change from within” and had “nothing like an editorial council” to change policy. He suggested a constitutional convention with the Foundation that owns Wikipedia funding it. Carlson responded that he would donate to such an assembly.

At the end of the interview, Carlson remarked that he believed Sanger was saying Wikipedia was important and worth reforming because it matters. Carlson said he believed “the idea of Wikipedia is a beautiful idea, an important idea” and it was “imperative to save it.” He said without safeguards it “just makes you prey, of course, to the worst people in the world: PR firms, intelligence agencies, paid liars.”

(Disclosure: The author has been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article)

T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.



Read the full article here

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email Telegram Copy Link

Related Articles

Tech

OpenAI’s Video Generation App Sora 2 Is ‘Hollywood’s Most Terrifying Nightmare’ — Here’s Everything We Know

October 3, 2025
Tech

Caught on Camera: Chicago Woman Smeared Dog Poop on Tesla Cybertruck with Pro-Trump Wrap

October 3, 2025
Tech

Cyberattack Shuts Down Production of Asahi, Japan’s Most Popular Beer

October 3, 2025
Tech

Netflix Children’s Show ‘Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous’ with Teenage Lesbian Kiss Scene Goes Viral Amid Mass Cancellations

October 3, 2025
Tech

Exclusive — Dr. Ben Carson: Artificial Intelligence and the Erosion of Trust

October 3, 2025
Tech

Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger Publishes Extensive ‘Hail-Mary’ Site Reform Proposal

October 2, 2025
Add A Comment
Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

Editors Picks

Leavitt: Shutdown Layoffs Are Necessary Because U.S. Is $37 Trillion in Debt

October 3, 2025

Joe Rogan Praises Pete Hegseth Ending ‘Identity Politics Bullsh*t’: He Needed to Fix ‘What the F*ck was Going on’ Under Biden

October 3, 2025

Typhoon Bualoi leaves 51 dead in Vietnam

October 3, 2025

BREAKING: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Sentenced to More Than 4 Years in Prison

October 3, 2025
Latest News

Wikipedia Co-Founder Calls Site ‘Mixture of Oligarchy and Anarchy’ During Tucker Carlson Interview

October 3, 2025

Report: Nicaragua Signs Massive $57 Million ‘Wind Farm’ Deal with Communist China

October 3, 2025

Kentucky Cheerleader’s Roommates Allegedly Heard Her Give Birth, Found Dead Newborn in Closet

October 3, 2025

Subscribe to News

Get the latest politics news and updates directly to your inbox.

The Politic Review is your one-stop website for the latest politics news and updates, follow us now to get the news that matters to you.

Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram Pinterest YouTube
Latest Articles

‘Shame On You’: Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy Heckled at Synagogue Attack Vigil

October 3, 2025

Leavitt: Shutdown Layoffs Are Necessary Because U.S. Is $37 Trillion in Debt

October 3, 2025

Joe Rogan Praises Pete Hegseth Ending ‘Identity Politics Bullsh*t’: He Needed to Fix ‘What the F*ck was Going on’ Under Biden

October 3, 2025

Subscribe to Updates

Get the latest politics news and updates directly to your inbox.

© 2025 Prices.com LLC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • For Advertisers
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.