Since Sanger’s departure from Wikipedia, he has been critical of the project, describing it in 2007 as being “broken beyond repair”.[8] He has argued that, despite its merits, Wikipedia lacks credibility and accuracy due to a lack of respect for expertise. Since 2020, he has also accused Wikipedia of having a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles.[9][10] Sanger’s effort to change Wikipedia was seen by some as part of a right-wing attack on Wikipedia.[11][12]
Of course Wikipedia is biased (probably western/liberal biased), astroturfed, and such. I was taught that in middle school. But calling it something like a CIA misinformation op falls into “perfect is the enemy of good” at best, and sounds more like the efforts of bad actors trying to tear down information sources they can’t control.
I really don’t like that.
For all its flaws, Wikipedia is one of the last “free” information oases on Earth. It’s critical to humanity’s survival. It should improve, yes, but we don’t need any more conspiracies undermining it.
On the contrary, to quote Wikipedia’s article on him:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Sanger
Which lines up with external articles written by him that I’m reading, including his take on Grokipedia: https://larrysanger.org/2025/10/grokipedia-a-first-look/
Of course Wikipedia is biased (probably western/liberal biased), astroturfed, and such. I was taught that in middle school. But calling it something like a CIA misinformation op falls into “perfect is the enemy of good” at best, and sounds more like the efforts of bad actors trying to tear down information sources they can’t control.
I really don’t like that.
For all its flaws, Wikipedia is one of the last “free” information oases on Earth. It’s critical to humanity’s survival. It should improve, yes, but we don’t need any more conspiracies undermining it.