Wikipedia's ex-founder here. Four consequential policy discussions are happening on Wikipedia right now. Three of them…

Wikipedia's ex-founder here. Four consequential policy discussions are happening on Wikipedia right now. Three of them would empower mainstream media to control what the encyclopedia says, and more importantly, what it doesn't say. A thread. 🧵 👇

1. A formal Request for Comments proposes requiring "independent sourcing" for all political endorsements reported on Wikipedia. What that means is that if the mainstream media don't report an endorsement, it simply doesn't appear in Wikipedia. This has obvious political implications, because people often simply read the Wikipedia articles about candidates before deciding who to vote for. This one rule change could actually sway the outcome of elections. Powerful politicians around the world (and their staffers) would do well to consider! The debate: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia… For now, Wikipedia can report an endorsement of a candidate simply by linking to endorser's own website. This proposal would ban that. Only endorsements covered by mainstream news outlets would count. As one supporter put it, "If reliable and independent secondary sources can't be bothered to cover an endorsement, neither should we." Sounds so reasonable. But an opponent saw the problem: "If an endorsement isn't mentioned in an independent article, I don't think it inherently means that they aren't notable, especially in elections like state legislatures that do get far less media coverage than national or statewide ones." State legislatures, local primaries, nonpartisan elections are races that the media often ignores (this is a massive scandal in itself, by the way). So, what if a union endorses a candidate for state senate? What if a conservative organization backs someone in a primary? Well, if some Wikipedia-blessed "reliable source" didn't cover it, it won't be able to be included in Wikipedia. The superior encyclopedia of American politics is @Ballotpedia—one that is truly committed to neutrality, as I confirmed when I consulted for them about ten years ago. They have no such rule. But fewer people know about Ballotpedia.

2. Wikipedia editors have opened a formal vote on whether @CBSNews is still a "reliable source"—whether it can be cited in Wikipedia articles at all. The reason? @bariweiss is the new editor-in-chief. Yes, really: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia… The vote asks, literally: "How reliable is CBS News under the leadership of Bari Weiss?" LOL. The options range from "generally reliable" all the way down to deprecation, meaning CBS could no longer be used as a source on Wikipedia. One editor proposed to declare CBS "Generally Unreliable for any and all United States political (Federal, state, local), United States geopolitical, and related U.S. geopolitical matters." Another defended the news outlet: "'Causing chaos' and declining ratings are not an indicator of source reliability." Of course, CBS News is one of the oldest broadcast news organizations in America, and one of the most reliably left-wing. And 143 anonymous Wikipedia editors have been debating its reliability since June 23. And all because its new boss, a Jewish lesbian and former New York Times op-ed editor and writer, is considered right-wing. (By the way, sane people would call her a centrist; she calls herself center-left.) The case is extremely eloquent, I find. @TheFP should report on this side-show circus act.

3. Wikipedia's front page has a section called "In the News," seen by hundreds of thousands of people every day. Editors are now debating whether certain countries' elections should be labeled "sham" or "not free and fair" right there on the front page, based on what Western media say. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia… Isn't this reasonable, though? Aren't some elections shams? Well, of course they are. The problem is that—as we have seen in the debate over recent *American* elections—reasonable people can disagree about this question. This policy, then, would have Wikipedia exercise another kind of influential political power: The increasingly radical, anonymous left-wingers that run Wikipedia become the arbiters of when there is legitimate democracy. All around the world. One editor argued that "free" and "fair" are "prerequisites for something to even be an 'election.' We shouldn't use the word 'elect' when the reality is 'appoint.'" Another made a comparison that reveals the whole game: "Writing 'Vladimir Putin wins the Russian presidential election' with no asterisks as though it were a totally normal and legitimate election is just as much of a [Due Weight] violation as 'Joe Biden is declared the winner of the United States presidential election amid allegations of fraud'; both unduly promote a [Fringe] perspective." You can see, here, how Wikipedia has radically expanded the idea of "fringe" and that no "fringe" views may be articulated on Wikipedia. In effect, the consensus of the more left-wing elements of the Western mainstream media would decide which countries' elections are legitimate. And this is on the most-visited reference site on the planet.

4. Andrew Lih edits Wikipedia under the username "Fuzheado." He wrote what is probably the best-known book about Wikipedia, *The Wikipedia Revolution.* He's been an administrator—meaning he has special powers including the ability to delete pages and block other users—for many years. He actually interviewed me back face-to-face in 2005, and I met him a few years later when he was a media studies professor in Hong Kong. Apparently, he was caught using an AI tool called "Wiki Bio Helper" to generate articles and publish them straight into the encyclopedia. Oh, Andrew, say it ain't so. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's own ban on AI-generated content. So the case was taken up by the same body that blocked me: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia… One editor pointed out: "Any new editor faced with this edit history would receive a swift block" and immediate deletion of their articles. And, um. Yes. That is true. LOL. Very, very true. Another asked: "I understand that Fuzheado is a celebrity of sorts, but why is his Autopatrolled status not being pulled, as would be the case for any other flagrant, serial LLM violator?" (Autopatrolled status lets your articles bypass review.) Result: a warning and a request to disclose which articles were AI-generated. No block. No loss of privileges. The discussion thread was closed. Then it had to be unclosed because editors wouldn't stop protesting. On Wikipedia, rules are for the little people.

I discovered these discussions with the PolicyScanner, a part of WikiCritic. We hope to launch WikiCritic next month. For now, you can join the beta by writing a review of a Wikipedia article. Just reply to this with a link to it!

Larry Sanger@lsanger · Aug 3, 2026

WikiCritic now has ten beta-testers. Want to join them? 1. Think about the Wikipedia articles you hate (or love) the most. 2. Go to the article and write down some critical remarks. Add grades according to our rubric if you like (larrysanger.org/wikicritic/sub…), or not. 3. Post the review with the statement "This comment is CC-by-sa licensed for #WikiCritic use." on X (if you have checkmark), your blog, academic website, Reddit...anywhere our AI agent can reach. 4. Let me know below (as a reply to this). 5. Follow me, I'll follow you, and I'll send you access info.

👀

Larry Sanger@lsanger · Aug 6, 2026

You want to fix—or just talk back to—Wikipedia. I hear you. In September, we'll launch my latest project: WikiCritic. It will compile reviews (human and AI) of WP articles, and you'll be able to "talk back" to WP editors without fear of banning. But I need YOUR help. 👇