Current Events > Wikipedia Founder says DON'T Trust the Site because LIBERAL MODS Took Over!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

52 y/o Mr Potato Head, Larry Sanger, who co-founded Wikipedia in 2001 alongside Jimm Wales is warning the world to NOT trust the site anymore for "unbiased information" because he claims the LEFT-WING volunteers have taken over the site and cut out any edits meant to provide balance!!

He says the crowdsourcing project has betrayed its original mission by reflecting the views of the "establishment" and says the democratic volunteers remove content that isn't to their liking including information on scandals of Joe Biden and his son, Hunter

When asked if the site can be trusted, he said "You can trust it to give a reliably establishment poin tof view on pretty much everything. Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is"

He cited Joe Biden's entry that doesn't include arguments from a GOP perspective and said "The Biden article, if you look at it, has very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have about him. So if you want to have anything remotely resembling the Republican point of view about Biden, you're not going to get it from the article. And tehre is a paragraph and it is a quite a long article so there should be at least a paragraph about the Ukraine scanal. Very little can be found on Wikipedia. What little can be found is extremely biased and reads like a defense counsel's brief, really"

He says it also does't mention Hunter's 600,000 a year salary to serve on the board of the Ukrainian energy firm in Burisma

Sanger says plenty of Republicans use Wikipedia and would be eager to go into articles and make editors to bring balance to the stories but claims the site moderators won't allow it which he says allows a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up power and that's not the wikipedia he founded.

He believes it's unfair that Conservative perspectives are not allowed on the site and says their voices are important and valuable to today's political dicussion.

Do you think conservative voices are trustworthy?

https://i.imgur.com/m3rZBqN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4mi40sY.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/xV69GAT.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/pcCB6mh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/qhQzlNn.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/4RnhAdu.jpg
---

Is this why conservatives made conservapedia, because they weren't allowed to edit wikipedia with falsehoods and their own perception of reality?

---

There is no "GOP perspective". There is reality and the GOP is completely fucking detached from it.

---

i have a feeling all the animal pages and stuff i like will be just fine

---

I dropped the site when they killed all the Pro Wrestling moves people had. Fuck Wikipedia

And yea, what others have said - Every "side" you can imagine has edited Wikipedia to their own agenda's liking. Just like all News stations are only telling you what they believe to be true.

---

Why should their be any "points of view" on a fucking encyclopedia website?

---

That is so ironic that the guy who invented Wikipedia, of all websites, is talking about truth being subjective based on your political views. I'd like to think that the political climate has radicalized people, but it's probably more likely that people are just more comfortable publicly voicing their crazy. I dunno, something about this makes me really, really sad.

---

he sounds like an angry ceman

---

So a crackpot who hasn't been involved with the site in years is making waves because he thinks they should talk about Hunter Biden's emails?

---

I'm proud that I can say I never donated even a single penny to Wikipedia.
---

Djijdjs62hs posted...

I'm proud that I can say I never donated even a single penny to Wikipedia.

Are you proud of that keysmash of a username though? yikes

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_Biden?wprov=sfla1

?

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Why should their be any "points of view" on a fucking encyclopedia website?

That's the point, but there is. Well, I guess, lol. If you allow anyone to make an Edit, they're going to. But what if that Edit, while true, isn't very PC? Well, who gets to decide what is PC and what's not? The mods, but each mod as their own person opinion, and they're going to either remove it or keep it based on that.

But that's everything

---

MrMallard posted...

Are you proud of that keysmash of a username though?

Yes, sir!
---

Definitely not surprised this dude looks like a thumb

---

From what I've seen, Wikipedia still maintains a pretty neutral POV on just about everything, so I'd have to assume this is one of those cases where it's just someone trying to masquerade obvious bullshit as a controversial but plausible idea.

---

I trust Wikipedia. That founder seems like a loon. It's good he lost his grip on the site

This guy has not been associated with Wikipedia in 13 years.


---

LightningAce11 posted...

Is this why conservatives made conservapedia, because they weren't allowed to edit wikipedia with falsehoods and their own perception of reality?

Yes that is exactly why. So its funny seeing the Wikipedia founder say this.

---

MistyKnight posted...

This guy has not been associated with Wikipedia in 13 years.

Yes, we understand what "founder" means too.
---

Since Sanger's departure from Wikipedia, he has been critical of the project, describing it in 2007 as being "broken beyond repair".

It would be like CJayC coming back and saying "GameFAQs is dying" ...in 2009.

---

Wokpedia
---

They can totally put their conservative ideas out - Anti-abortion, limited government, etc etc. Crackpot conspiracy theories just ain't it though. That deserves its own article about conspiracy theories related to the presidency.

---

Article camping editors can be a huge problem too. It has flaws but it's still a pretty useful site. Just don't expect it to be an arbiter of neutral information on controversial subjects. That's not it's purpose.

---

Yeah, the site as a whole is mostly left leaning, I've noticed.
---

it's funny how many so called "truth seekers" and "history enthusiasts" end up having a problem with transparency and opt into cherry picking the type of information available.

if there is misinformation, we can break it down and find out why it's wrong.
---

MrMallard posted...

Are you proud of that keysmash of a username though? yikes

it's an obvious throwaway alt, watch him get banned in a week after posting some shit.

---

Remember when Wikipedia had spoiler tags?

that guys head looks like an overripe melon

---

He's not wrong though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_misinformation#Wuhan_lab_origin

You can watch them brush their earlier gaslighting under the rug too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COVID-19_misinformation&oldid=1025171649


---

To be clear, I still like it, but parts of them have been compromised.

The people who do it out of loyalty to truth are great and the foundation of the site, but I do think activists have infiltrated to some extent. Or activism has infiltrated the minds of formerly fair people.

---

joe40001 posted...

To be clear, I still like it, but parts of them have been compromised.

The people who do it out of loyalty to truth are great and the foundation of the site, but I do think activists have infiltrated to some extent. Or activism has infiltrated the minds of formerly fair people.

are you guys using this as a pejorative now?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

are you guys using this as a pejorative now?

yes

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

There is no "GOP perspective". There is reality and the GOP is completely fucking detached from it.

Establishment point-of-view = Things that 90% of humans agreed happened

vs things OAN says.

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

are you guys using this as a pejorative now?

In the context of writing an encyclopedia, yeah.

Report the truth, don't try to shape it to your narrative.

---

joe40001 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

are you guys using this as a pejorative now?

In the context of writing an encyclopedia, yeah.

Report the truth, don't try to shape it to your narrative.

you can't misuse a term and claim it's within any sort of "context" lol.

but I agree that the truth should not be shaped by a narrative. since truth comes out stronger than lies in the end, I guess there was no choice but for alternative facts to find a new home
---

Okay. I mean I hate Wikipedia too but not having unfounded conspericies treated like facts is a good thing.

---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

you can't misuse a term and claim it's within any sort of "context" lol.

What I mean is that tackling somebody in football is fine, tackling somebody in a library is not. So in the context of a library tackling is not ok.

In the context of encyclopedia editing, activism is not ok. In other contexts (like a protest) it's very appropriate.

but I agree that the truth should not be shaped by a narrative. since truth comes out stronger that lies in the end, I guess there was no choice but for alternative facts to find a new home

Agreed

---

creativerealms posted...

Okay. I mean I hate Wikipedia too but not having unfounded conspericies treated like facts is a good thing.

But what about facts being treated as unfounded conspiracies?

---

creativerealms posted...

Okay. I mean I hate Wikipedia too but not having unfounded conspericies treated like facts is a good thing.

yeah thats what Foxnews,Oann,newsmaxx is for

I knew it would be Sanger. Say what you will about the questionable stuff Wales has done, but he's way better than that blowhard.

---

This guy has been bitching about Wikipedia literally since I was in high school. I remember there used to be crazy forums and stuff dedicated to Wikipedia drama and he was always their favorite dude

---

joe40001 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

you can't misuse a term and claim it's within any sort of "context" lol.

What I mean is that tackling somebody in football is fine, tackling somebody in a library is not. So in the context of a library tackling is not ok.

In the context of encyclopedia editing, activism is not ok. In other contexts (like a protest) it's very appropriate.

that's not activism. you keep throwing the term around and that's got little to nothing to do with "activism." biased Liberal and "activist" are not interchangeable.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

that's not activism. you keep throwing the term around and that's got little to nothing to do with "activism." biased Liberal and "activist" are not interchangeable.

I'm not saying they are interchangeable. My assumption is they are making these changes not because they are biased and believe them to be true, but because they feel like doing so is "the right thing".

Trying to effect political change by rewriting the history books or other books of facts is something I'd call activism, you can use a different term if you prefer.

---

you shouldn't make broad assumptions on this level. if you can't articulate somebody's stance without resorting to speculation, you're most likely just completely misrepresenting them in a slanderous way.

Wikipedia is not a history book nor was it ever promoted as such.

false pretenses, misuse of terms, straw man talking points... keep that on the conservative site, lol. keyboard warriors don't count as "activist" and not all activist are Liberal.

in other words, find another term lol. you can say "activist" 1,000 more times and still not change its actual meaning.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

you shouldn't make broad assumptions on this level. if you can't articulate somebody's stance without resorting to speculation, you're most likely just completely misrepresenting them in a slanderous way.

Wikipedia is not a history book nor was it ever promoted as such.

false pretenses, misuse of terms, straw man talking points... keep that on the conservative site, lol. keyboard warriors don't count as "activist" and not all activist are Liberal.

in other words, find another term lol. you can say "activist" 1,000 more times and still not change its actual meaning.

I'm not saying all activists are liberal. You just seem to have a more limited definition of what activist means.

If you want to call them "keyboard warriors" whatever that's fine. But lots of people would consider "keyboard warriors" to be a type of "activism" not a meaningful type mind you, but many people would call it activism. Like "twitter activist" or whatever.

---

Well, it depends on what you think the truth is

That says everything.
Truth is a matter of opinion now for some people.

"Twitter activist" is a condescending term to people speaking on social justice on the internet/Twitter. it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that they're genuinely considered activist, lol.

what do you think an activist is? misusing terms and truth just to fit your own narrative or definition of it is something that we should be correcting people on.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

"Twitter activist" is a condescending term to people speaking on social justice on the internet/Twitter. it's intellectually dishonest to pretend that they're genuinely considered activist, lol.

what do you think an activist is? misusing terms and truth just to fit your own narrative or definition of it is something that we should be correcting people on.

Activist is a multipurpose term, depending on context it can either be a good or bad thing.

A "warrior" is generally seen as brave but a "social justice warrior" not so much.

Look, I like pedantry as much as the next person but I think we just have a slight disagreement about the functional range a term like "activist" can have. It seems like to you it is only a positive term, and I am not using it in that way.

I'm not saying "wikipedia activists" are "genuine activists" but they are activists in the same faux way that a twitter one would be.

---