Co-Founder of Far Left Wikipedia Shares Webpage that Ranks Conservative News Outlets as ‘Unreliable” and Green Lights the Fake News Far Left Outlets

This week Tucker Carlson interviewed Larry Sanger a internet project developer and co-founder of Wikipedia.

During their discussion, Tucker Carlson burst out laughing as Wikipedia’s Co-Founder Larry Sanger shows him the website’s BLACKLIST of banned sources.

“It’s so funny. This is amazing.”

Once you see which websites count as “reliable” and which are excluded, you’ll be laughing alongside Carlson.

Wikipedia has the list posted here at their reliable sources entry.

BLACKLISTED:

•  Breitbart
•  Daily Caller
•  Epoch Times
•  Fox News
•  New York Post
•  The Federalist
• The Gateway Pundit

Green Lit:

• New York Times
• Washington Post
• CNN
• MSNBC
• The Nation
• Mother Jones
• GLAAD
• TV Guide

Vigilant Fox posted the segment from Tucker’s interview.

For years now The Gateway Pundit has been reporting on Wikipedia’s leftwing bias.

T. D. Adler at Breitbart News in December 2019 reported the Wikipedia blacklists now include The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit for our truthful reporting on Russiagate.

Wikipedia used Gateway Pundit reporting that was true and factual and used it against us as an excuse to censor The Gateway Pundit.

China critics the Epoch Times and conservative outlet the Gateway Pundit have been banned from use as reliable sources on Wikipedia in the latest cases of news outlets that support President Trump being banned from the online encyclopedia. The Epoch Times ban proposal cited NBC’s hit piece on the site over its coverage of improprieties in the Russia investigation, commonly called Spygate, which prompted smear efforts against the outlet on Wikipedia. Gateway Pundit was proposed for a ban shortly after Epoch Times.

The Epoch Times Wikipedia ban proposal was apparently prompted by one of its articles being cited on the Wikipedia page for Joseph Mifsud, a key controversial figure in the origins of the discredited Russia investigation. Gateway Pundit’s ban was in response to the outlet being cited for past media silence over Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

Over the past year, Wikipedia editors have been on a banning spree targeting conservative news sources. Having previously banned the Daily Mail as a source, the following year marked the beginning of an acceleration of the process. Since then, editors have imposed similar bans on fifteen other sites aside from Epoch Times and Gateway Pundit. While some data-focused sites and state-owned outlets in Venezuela and Iran have also been banned, the bulk of the sites banned have been conservative-leaning news outlets. Breitbart News was blacklisted as a “reliable source” on Wikipedia in 2018…

…Gateway Pundit’s ban came from a proposal soon after the proposed ban for Epoch Times. The ban proposal came in response to editor “BullRangifer” removing a 2017 piece criticizing media silence on Ukraine colluding with Democrats to influence the 2016 election. The article was originally added to frame Gateway Pundit as “fueling conspiracy theories” related to the impeachment inquiry over Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In fact, the piece correctly noted Politico’s coverage of DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa soliciting Ukrainian interference and then-Democratic minority leader of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff expressing concerns about the reported interference.

Criticism of Gateway Pundit was harsher during the ban discussion, though still predominantly from left-wing editors. Some regarded the outlet as unreliable, but argued against a full sourcing ban as they believed some legitimate uses may exist. In addition to Simonm223, who also voted for the ban, editors advocating a ban included “Snooganssnoogans” and “Volunteer Marek” who each have a history of smearing the outlet on Wikipedia.

Editor “Snoogansnoogans” previously added a description to Gateway Pundit’s Wikipedia article stating the site “is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.” Marek a year later labeled the outlet a “fake news website” and each description persists to this day in some way despite initially not being based on any sources considered “reliable” on Wikipedia. However, those labels and descriptions subsequently made their way to major media outlets. Those outlets were later cited to back up the material on Wikipedia, in an apparent “citogenesis” case, referring to a form of circular sourcing.

Wikipedia, a very far left outlet has been censoring, targeting and smearing The Gateway Pundit and other prominent conservative websites and voices for years.

The Gateway Pundit is one of the leading conservative publishers in America and the world. Our website averages over 3 million page views a day. The left hates TGP because we constantly break stories, shape narrative, and because we are more trustworthy than any of the major liberal outlets.

Guest contributor T. D. Adler in November explained how Wikipedia works using “citogenesis” or “circular reporting” to smear and damage conservative outlets like The Gateway Pundit.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Hill reported that House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has launched an investigation into far-left Wikipedia.

Chairman James Comer, (R-KY) and Rep. Nancy Mace, (R-SC) chair of the panel’s subcommittee on cybersecurity, information technology and government innovation, sent an information request concerning the issue to Maryana Iskander, chief executive officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia on Wednesday.

The letter demands that CEO Maryana Iskander provide information on foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion.

The Committees are requesting the following information from Wikipedia in their ongoing investigation.

1. Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination by nation state actors in editing activities on Wikipedia.
2. Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination within academic institutions or other organized efforts to edit or influence content identified as possibly violating Wikipedia policies.
3. Records of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) including but not limited to all editor conduct disputes and actions taken against them.
4. Records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors subject to actions by ArbCom.
5. Documentation of Wikipedia’s editorial policies and protocols including those aimed at ensuring neutrality and addressing bias as well as policies regarding discipline for violations.
6. Any analysis conducted or reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation (or by a third-party acting on its behalf) of patterns of manipulation or bias related to antisemitism and conflicts with the State of Israel.

Here is a full copy of the demand letter sent to Wikipedia on Wednesday.