{"id":184080,"date":"2021-07-22T16:47:27","date_gmt":"2021-07-22T20:47:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/z3news.com\/w\/?p=184080"},"modified":"2021-07-23T14:09:44","modified_gmt":"2021-07-23T18:09:44","slug":"wikipedias-co-founder-says-he-no-longer-trusts-the-site-he-helped-create","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/z3news.com\/w\/wikipedias-co-founder-says-he-no-longer-trusts-the-site-he-helped-create\/","title":{"rendered":"Wikipedia\u2019s co-founder says he no longer trusts the site he helped create"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Natural News<\/a>) Anyone who has ever looked something up online has probably come across the collaboratively modified encyclopedia Wikipedia. After all, it is the world\u2019s fifth biggest website. While some people may consider it authoritative simply because it is so vast, attracting an estimated 6.1 billion visitors each month and making up the most-read work of reference in history, it is so prone to error and bias that many people now simply click right past it and many reasonable teachers won\u2019t accept it as a source for reports. One person who\u2019s especially distrustful of Wikipedia, however, is one of its own co-founders, Larry Sanger.<\/p>\n

At first, Wikipedia was written and monitored by a community of volunteers who worked together and raised flags when information was not backed up with facts. This battle of ideas was at the heart of the platform\u2019s original commitment to neutrality. However, times have changed, and it has now become an increasingly biased source, in many cases taking a liberal viewpoint that often comes across as propaganda.<\/p>\n

In 2007, Sanger left the site and said that it was \u201cbroken beyond repair.\u201d<\/p>\n

Sanger gives examples of Wikipedia\u2019s bias<\/h2>\n

He recently sat down with Lockdown TV\u2019s Freddie Sayers to discuss the sad state of the site<\/a>. For example, he pointed out, \u201cYou can\u2019t cite the Daily Mail<\/em> at all. You can\u2019t cite Fox News<\/em> on socio-political issues either. It\u2019s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it\u2019s not going to appear on Wikipedia.\u201d<\/p>\n

This can be demonstrated by looking at the site\u2019s coverage of COVID. According to Sanger, its articles on the topic parrot the viewpoints of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the CDC, the World Economic Council and Dr. Fauci. He said, \u201cThere\u2019s a global enforcement of a certain point of view, which is amazing to me, amazing to a libertarian or a liberty-loving conservative.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Natural News)
\n Anyone who has ever looked something up online has probably come across the collaboratively modified encyclopedia Wikipedia. After all, it is the world\u2019s fifth biggest website. While some people may consider it authoritative simply because it is so vast, attracting an estimated 6.1 billion followers each month and making up the most-read work of reference in history, it is so prone to error and bias that many people now simply click right past it and many reasonable teachers won\u2019t accept it as a source for reports. One person who\u2019s especially distrustful of Wikipedia, however, is one of its own co-founders, Larry Sanger.
\nAt first, Wikipedia was written and monitored by a community of volunteers who worked together and raised flags when information was not backed up with facts. This battle of ideas was at the heart of the platform\u2019s original commitment to neutrality. However, times have changed, and it has now become an increasingly biased source, in many cases taking a liberal viewpoint that often comes across as propaganda.
\nIn 2007, Sanger left the site and said that it was \u201cbroken beyond repair.\u201d
\nSanger gives examples of Wikipedia\u2019s bias
\nHe recently sat down with Lockdown TV\u2019s Freddie Sayers to discuss the sad state of the site. For example, he pointed out, \u201cYou can\u2019t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can\u2019t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It\u2019s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it\u2019s not going to appear on Wikipedia.\u201d
\nThis can be demonstrated by looking at the site\u2019s coverage of COVID. According to Sanger, its articles on the topic parrot the viewpoints of the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, the CDC, the World Economic Council and Dr. Fauci. He said, \u201cThere\u2019s a global enforcement of a certain point of view, which is amazing to me, amazing to a libertarian or a liberty-loving conservative.\u201d
\nHe went on to support the notion of the establishment view being espoused by many of Wikipedia\u2019s pages by citing the example of Eastern medicine, which he says is dealt with in a dismissive and judgmental tone. In addition, he said that the viewpoint of Christianity is a very liberal one that one might find in mainline denominations rather than from the point of view of people who believe in the Bible.
\nWriters and editors paid to change Wikipedia entries to suit special interests
\nHe also discussed how Wikipedia\u2019s entries are distorted, with companies like Wiki PR paying writers and editors to change articles and not identifying them. He believes that the site\u2019s ubiquity in the world is what has led to so much undue influence, saying, \u201cSo there\u2019s a very big, nasty, complex game being played behind the scenes to make the article say what somebody wants them to say. \u201c
\nHe also explained why neutrality is so important online, saying that we need to give people the tools required to think about issues. When someone is trying to find basic information about topics, they don\u2019t want to be led by the nose, he said. \u201cWe are free individuals who want to make up our own minds,\u201d he added.
\nSanger also pointed to the entry for U.S. President Joe Biden, which he said includes very little about the concerns many Republicans have about him. He said, for example, that there should have at least been a paragraph about the Ukraine scandal in his entry. A few days after the interview, someone moved information about the scandal into the same paragraph, but the message remained that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Biden.
\nAlthough Wikipedia likes to position itself as \u201cthe encyclopedia anyone can edit,\u201d it is really just a powerful medium for special interests to control the flow of information to the public and influence people\u2019s opinions. Unfortunately, like many sources of information online, many people don\u2019t realize they are not getting the full story and are making decisions based on biased information.
\nSources for this article include:
\nUnherd.com
\nFuturism.com<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":677,"featured_media":184333,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"sfsi_plus_gutenberg_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_show_text_before_share":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_type":"","sfsi_plus_gutenberg_icon_alignemt":"","sfsi_plus_gutenburg_max_per_row":"","_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":"","_ppma_block_editor_authors":""},"categories":[295],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[931],"class_list":["post-184080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-media-control","entry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t