Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger early last week published his “nine theses” to fix the online encyclopedia on his blog and Wikipedia itself. His collection of essays on Wikipedia criticizing the site was subsequently subjected to multiple deletion attempts with editors censoring content over criticism of specific editors. Some editors appreciated Sanger’s criticism, but many viciously attacked him, accusing him of fascism, and suggesting he could be banned from the site.
The “nine theses” were introduced by Sanger during an interview on Tucker Carlson’s podcast where he criticized the site he co-founded as a “mixture of oligarchy and anarchy” and noted numerous problems due to the site’s current bias, which he described as “globalist, academic, secular, and progressive” or GASP. Sanger has previously published numerous critiques of Wikipedia’s issues, including its left-wing bias. His interview with Carlson went viral last week following a segment where they went over the “perennial sources page” that blacklists numerous conservative sources, including Breitbart, in an ongoing purge on the site.
Early responses on Wikipedia were relatively modest. On Sanger’s personal discussion page, several editors expressed support. At the “village pump” discussion board, reception was mixed with editors differing on the worth of his proposals and others suggesting Sanger was too unfamiliar with the current state of things on the site. The biggest pushback was over his statements on left-wing bias with many editors insisting “facts have a liberal bias” and criticizing him for advocating more inclusion of conservative views along with some snarky quips about his failed efforts to establish viable competitors. Similar commentary occurred at a noticeboard for raising disputes about “fringe theories” on the site.
At the discussion page for the nine theses, though there was still support and genuine discussion, some greater hostility was present. One editor accused Sanger of supporting an alleged doxing effort of the Heritage Foundation and intended his thesis opposing anonymity for the site’s most powerful users to have a chilling effect. The comment claimed to be supporting the effort only stated his belief that site leaders should not be anonymous. Several editors expressed concern regarding that thesis and suggested it would be dangerous to have them identified. Another editor accused Sanger of antisemitism because he favorably cited the example of Martin Luther’s “95 Theses” without calling out the centuries-dead Protestant leader’s antisemitism.
Some non-account users directly edited the theses page with one instance of vandalism attempting to make the content appear racist and further vandalizing edits attacking Sanger. Others engaged in vitriolic attacks on the discussion page with one editor accusing Sanger of wanting a “fascist MAGApedia” and another attacking him as a disgruntled employee out for revenge. An editor responded to this commentary that the “intense hostility and contempt seen on this talk page showcases a broader issue seen on Wikipedia.” Editor “consarn” launched into a lengthy tirade filled with deranged mockery, arrogantly claiming Sanger didn’t know what “theses” meant by falsely insisting it referred strictly to academic papers.
Numerous established users objected to Sanger’s theses referencing specific editors. One section discussing the Yahweh article’s secular bias, claiming the God of the Abrahamic faiths was from a polytheistic pantheon, was repeatedly removed by editors claiming harassment. Among them was an editor suggesting Sanger included the paragraph so “his troll army will know whom to harass” with the repeated removals eventually getting the page temporarily locked so only administrators could edit the page. The editor the section was about, self-identified “neoliberal” Tudor Georgescu, had already been replying extensively on the discussion page of the essay regarding the subject, claiming critics of the Yahweh article were “ignoramuses and cult apologists” in response.
Particular objection was raised regarding Sanger’s sixth thesis regarding the anonymity of the “Power 62” and his desire to see them identify themselves or resign. An editor objected to this thesis on the discussion page, citing policy regarding polemical content in the profile space of editors and claiming it was too divisive. Rather than continue discussion there, though, the editor decided to nominate the entire page for deletion. In the subsequent discussion, editors overwhelmingly supported keeping the page, though several voted to delete it. Among those voting to delete or censor the page was editor “Tbhotch” who previously proposed deleting the page on Ukrainian refugee Iryna Zarutska’s murder.
Despite the result, this would not be the end of the efforts. Almost immediately, after the Signpost community newsletter wrote about Sanger’s reform proposal, editor “Ahri Boy” commented on the piece that Sanger’s criticism of progressive bias “may be a call for exclusion of queer people participating in editing” and argued opposing the sourcing blacklist “may indirectly enable fascism to unwary readers.” Ahri Boy, who identifies as left-wing to far-left on his profile page, immediately initiated another deletion discussion about the theses using these arguments. He cited “No queerphobia” and “No Nazis” essays as arguments for deletion, which admins often cite to ban users for “offensive” speech.
While the second deletion attempt was quickly shut down due to the previous discussion being closed mere hours earlier, other attacks were made in the Signpost comments. Brian E. Logan, who edits as “Bearian” on Wikipedia, claimed Sanger’s use of “globalist” was antisemitic. One editor claimed Sanger went “full fascist” and called him a moron with another calling him a troll. Yet another argued for the page to be deleted. Although no further deletion attempts were made, editors have proposed deleting various redirects Sanger created to point people to specific theses, claiming it was “canvassing” in reference to policy on attempting to rig discussions.
Sanger’s listing of the “Power 62” prompted particular hostility as one editor described it as an “enemy list” and “tool for intimidation” claiming the list was “harmful to the health and safety of the community.” Others agreed and began fighting to remove the list and other references to powerful editors on the site claiming it was a call for “mass doxing” by Sanger, despite his express statements opposing such actions. In a discussion about the removals, several editors claimed the list violated site policy on claims about living people, which is applied both to claims about article subjects and site editors.
Among those claiming the list violated policy on claims about living people was Paul Lee, who edits as “Valjean” on Wikipedia and invoked the “facts have a liberal bias” narrative to Sanger. Lee is notably the primary author of the article on the discredited Steele dossier, which informed much of the Russiagate hysteria. Lee has desperately sought to validate the dossier, including the reputed “pee tape” of Trump with prostitutes widely believed to be fabricated gossip. Objecting to the “Power 62” list, Lee stated Wikipedia’s owners should “make urgent preparations for several types of legal and illegal attacks from the current bloodless coup junta.”
Lee’s obsession and paranoia is evident in numerous draft articles and essays he has maintained in his own profilespace. Despite criticizing Sanger for content violating policies on living people, Lee’s essays include content suggesting Trump would start disappearing journalists and implying his involvement in the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, though Lee states he didn’t explicitly say Trump had him killed. Ironically, his lengthy essay attacking Trump and his supporters likens himself to Luther posting his 95 Theses, which also inspired Sanger’s proposals. He also authored numerous pages attacking Trump and Steele dossier critics, many of which have been deleted, some accusing Trump of criminal treason.
Commenting on the discussion page, Sanger warned people that many eyes were on them at the moment to advise better behavior. Aside from hostility, there was constructive input. One editor highlighted that there already was a “legal fees assistance program” run by the Wikimedia Foundation that owns Wikipedia, though it is not as expansive as the kind of backing Sanger was suggesting for the “Power 62” to protect them upon disclosing their identities. Jonathan Cardy, one of the “Power 62” Sanger mentioned who edits as “ϢereSpielChequers” on Wikipedia, argued not everyone involved in a newspaper is readily identified so anonymity for them was not unreasonable, though noting he was readily identifiable due to work with the Wikimedia UK chapter organization.
One response to Sanger’s calls for anonymity appeared in Politico. Will Nicholes, one of the “Power 62” who edits as “28bytes” on Wikipedia, questioned whether Sanger was calling for people to be fired or arrested for disagreeing with him. Nicholes was previously subject to controversy regarding his anonymity in 2013 after being elected to the site’s Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court. Following the election, he revealed he wrote an article on a game he created without disclosure, breaching conflict of interest guidelines, and secretly was a member of Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy, where editors have frequently been doxed (Disclosure: this author is also a member). Nicholes resigned following the revelations.
Wikipedia critics have faced retaliation many times from the site’s editors. Sanger has previously been attacked as editors suppressed his criticism. Editors smeared Acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin after he requested information about Wikipedia’s bias. House Oversight Committee member Nancy Mace was gratuitously insulted by one editor over the Committee’s Wikipedia investigation. Slate writer and site critic David Auerbach was harassed by a former Arbitration Committee member with support from Wiki Education Foundation and Wikimedia Foundation staff. An Arbitration Committee member was suspended partly for informing an editor he was banned over false suspicions of involvement with a piece criticizing Italian Wikipedia. Last week Committee members censored a Tablet Magazine report on the site’s anti-Israeli bias.
(Disclosure: The author has previously been involved in disputes on Wikipedia with some parties referenced in this 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
