Wikipedia Co Founder Admits Site Has Become Mired in Left-Wing Bias

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger admitted that his creation has become mired and corrupted by rampant left-wing institutional and editorial bias.

Sanger pointed to Wikipedia’s increasing bias in a blog post last week, plainly titled “Wikipedia is Badly Biased.” The Washington man had played a crucial role in the 2001 formation of the open-access online encyclopedia, but later left the project, citing the increasing inaccuracy and abuse of the platform by those who he deemed as “anarchist types.”

Sanger points to former President Barack Obama’s Wikipedia page as an example of the leading editor’s bias. Obama’s article presents a glowing account of his presidency, declining to so much as even mention his pervasive corruption scandals.

“Examples have become embarrassingly easy to find. The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal—or, of course, the developing “Obamagate” story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump.”

Sanger goes on to compare Obama’s glowing article with the article for Donald Trump. Trump’s article is filled with reaching accusations of impropriety, recycling nearly every fanatic left-wing political hit theory utilized by the mainstream media against Trump. Sanger points out that a significant portion of the article itself is dedicated to various political grievances, as opposed to a presentation of vital information about Trump.

“Meanwhile, as you can imagine, the idea that the Donald Trump article is neutral is a joke. Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the “Presidency” section. By contrast, the following “Public Profile” (which the Obama article entirely lacks), “Investigations,” and “Impeachment” sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words—in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency.”

Sanger goes on to point to articles such as that regarding Jesus Christ as examples of the site’s liberal bias.