The Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia this month released three promotional videos in its “A Wiki Minute” series, which provide one-minute elaborations on topics related to the site. One video bluntly rejects political bias claims and asserts Wikipedia presents neutral and reliable information, despite numerous controversies, particularly regarding its left-wing bias. Another video supports the site being used by students for schoolwork, while the last defends its reliability over AI, which often relies on Wikipedia as a source of training data.
Videos in the “Wiki Minute” series in previous years have vigorously argued in defense of Wikipedia’s reliability and emphasized its status as a largely volunteer-run site. Just one video acknowledges site criticism as legitimate, specifically pointing to “equity” issues using left-wing ideological rhetoric.
Associate Creative Director at the Brand Studio of the Wikimedia Foundation Marina Ramos-Smith announced the release of the latest videos on July 14. The headline of the announcement describes the videos as “debunking myths” and Ramos-Smith states they are “tackling some of the biggest misconceptions” about Wikipedia. After introducing the topics of the latest videos Ramos-Smith stated they are shared with the press and donors, among others, and topics chosen based off the most common and pressing questions raised with the Foundation. She concludes by stating the videos have “been proven to build understanding and even affinity” for the Foundation and the sites it owns.
While the links provided in the announcement are to Wikimedia Commons, a media repository that hosts files for use on Wikipedia and affiliated sites, the videos have also been posted to Wikipedia’s official YouTube account. Keeping to the series name, each video is roughly a minute total. Versions of each video uploaded to Commons include versions in different aspect ratios and those without a voice-over. Although the latest videos are in English only, older videos have been translated into multiple languages.
In the video entitled “Does Wikipedia push a political agenda?” that addresses allegations of bias, a confused female voice asks “Is Wikipedia biased?” and is immediately answered “Nope” followed by an explanation denying Wikipedia is trying to convince anyone to hold a particular viewpoint. Claiming Wikipedia provides “reliable information from many sources” to allow readers to decide on their own, attributing this to site editors coming to agreement on how to represent claims from sources, the video mentions site policies requiring a “neutral point of view” and prohibiting personal opinions in content. It concludes its explanation by stating content also improves over time with new information.
Stating “this is how Wikipedia stays independent, factual, and free from biased agendas” at the end, the video provides no counter-point and makes no acknowledgement of studies and independent commentators identifying a left-wing bias in its contents, including the site’s own co-founder Larry Sanger who has repeatedly criticized Wikipedia for its political bias. Claims of pushing a political agenda are instead identified in the video description as “myth” with the “fact” being presented as “Wikipedia allows everyone to share what they know, as long as they follow established guidelines to keep information reliable.”
Despite this “open-door” claim, Sanger himself was banned from Wikipedia last month after attempting to reform the site so it allows a greater diversity of ideological views to be represented. Under Wikipedia’s “verifiability” policy, in fact, only certain approved sources can be used for factual claims with a sourcing blacklist restricting use of most conservative news outlets in an ongoing purge. The “neutrality” policy also includes rules prohibiting “undue weight” with editors having exploited both policies to exclude information from major conservative media outlets verifying the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop prior to the 2020 election even as views of related Wikipedia articles spiked before the vote.
Most recently, Wikipedia has faced criticism over anti-Israeli bias, including from Congress and the Donald Trump Administration who have also criticized political bias. This is best represented by Wikipedia claiming as fact that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Originally, genocide claims were treated as allegations, including in the relevant article’s title. However, the title was eventually changed to simply “Gaza genocide” and allegations later stated as fact following discussion filled with anti-Israeli editors. Admins closing both discussions in favor of these changes also pushed anti-Israeli commentary on social media, with one calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to stop “ethnic cleansing” in Gaza. Co-founder Jimmy Wales faced intense backlash after criticizing these changes.
Regarding use of Wikipedia in school, the video on the subject insists as fact in its description that the site “is a great place to start learning.” Once again emphasizing site policies and its content deliberation process, the video suggests referring to the page’s sources only to “dig deeper” into the topic after describing site contents as “trustworthy” and concludes with a video of a clock character featured in the videos waving a paper with a perfect score. Particularly, the video insists “inaccurate information, facts that can’t be verified, and personal opinions” get “quickly removed” in as little as seconds by editors.
The truth is Wikipedia frequently disseminates outright hoaxes, sometimes for years with some remaining up as of this report. One example came just a day before the video’s release, when a World Cup referee for the elimination match between Argentina and Egypt was falsely labeled “Jewish” on Wikipedia for hours. Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories citing the claim went viral on social media. Shortly after Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination, his Wikipedia article’s introduction claimed as fact for nearly two days without supporting sources that Kirk “sought to fire or silence professors for sharing opinions” even as co-founder Wales and influential admins monitored the high-traffic page.
Use of AI over Wikipedia, the subject of the third video released this month, noted how AI and other Big Tech platforms routinely rely on Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation even set up a commercial service to charge large firms for dedicated high-speed access to site content, funneling profits into the Foundation with deals announced this year with major AI firms. Contrasting Wikipedia with AI tools, the video states that Wikipedia editors do not “let content get mixed with bad information or provide answers without sources” and claims without Wikipedia online information would be significantly worse, arguing people should therefore continue supporting the site.
Concerns about AI have recently plagued Wikipedia as new Foundation CEO Bernadette Meehan acknowledged in a recent New York Times interview with it reportedly driving large declines in readership. Yet there have also been allegations of AI tools being used to edit Wikipedia such as by paid editors and during a Pride Month editing contest last month. That editing contest, in contrast to the boastful claims in the “Wiki Minute” video, saw numerous articles created with poor sourcing and bad information. Many were deleted as a result of these issues, which also occurred in the previous year’s contest.
On a page dedicated to the “A Wiki Minute” video series, it is described as “a collection of short, reusable video explainers about key Wikimedia elements, concepts, and principles for the public to better understand our projects and our movement.” While Wikipedia is the most recognizable name associated with the Wikimedia Foundation, numerous other sites exist under the Foundation’s umbrella and in many different languages with the contributors to these varied sites generally referred to as the “Wikimedia community” by the Foundation. Several older videos were specifically created to explain this network of sites and groups associated with them, including the Foundation itself.
However, most videos pertain specifically to Wikipedia and the English Wikipedia particularly. Much like the videos released this year, they routinely focus on promoting Wikipedia as a trustworthy source of information with some pushing the need for donations to the Foundation to maintain the site. Videos often emphasize that editors are volunteers. One regarding “Who is in charge of Wikipedia?” notes there are “no paid writers on staff” at Wikipedia. Though editors are not paid by the Foundation itself and its Terms of Use prohibit undisclosed paid editing, which remains common regardless, disclosed paid editing is permitted despite a history of biased editing.
Unlike most videos, which seek to rebut criticism of Wikipedia or promote it, one of the earliest “A Wiki Minute” videos covering the issue of “diversity” on the site recognized the criticism as valid and sought to only explain why this was the case. Stating the site was “vulnerable to historical biases” and “missing out on knowledge” representative of the world population, the video insists this was changing as contributors were “working to achieve knowledge equity” for those “left out by structures of power and privilege.”
This invocation of left-wing ideological talking points was not coincidental as the Foundation has played to such criticism by promoting ideological editing campaigns, such as the “Wiki Loves Pride” event last month and feminist edit-a-thons to address a perceived “gender gap” on Wikipedia, which one study found introduced bias towards woman on certain topic areas. In 2020, the Foundation went so far as to endorse the Black Lives Matter movement and declare there was “no neutral stance” on the topic. Citing the same “knowledge equity” term the video invoked, the Foundation then cited its imposition of a “code of conduct” as supporting diversity and inclusion.
Brooke Camarda, a Senior Marketing Specialist at the Wikimedia Foundation, highlighted the claimed effectiveness of the video series in a 2024 release. Camarda stated that surveys the Foundation conducted in the United States and Nigeria found those who watched the videos were significantly more likely to recommend Wikipedia to others and actively encouraged contributors to Wikimedia sites to share the videos widely.
Focusing on Wikipedia as a counter to “fake news” online and pushing more political messaging on “diversity” issues is in keeping with a public relations strategy proposed in a 2016 communications audit conducted for the Wikimedia Foundation by Minassian Media, a firm run by Craig Minassian, who served as the Clinton Foundation’s Head of Communications. Many Foundation staff are associated with left-wing causes, including past Chief Executive Officers. This includes the current CEO Meehan, who served in the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administrations and as an executive in the Obama Foundation. Her Wikipedia page, created by a paid editor, for years had numerous issues involving content mixed with bad information or providing answers without sources.
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