Does Left-Wing Tendency of Wikipedia Editors and Admins Contribute to Bias in the Platform’s Coverage of Religion?

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who parted ways with the platform in 2002, is outspoken about Wikipedia’s left-leaning bias, telling Fox News in a 2021 interview, “The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone,” and that “Wikipedia’s ideological and religious bias is real and troubling, particularly in a resource that continues to be treated by many as an unbiased reference work.”

A June 2024 study by the Manhattan Project confirmed his views. The study’s executive summary states:

“In general, we find that Wikipedia articles tend to associate right-of-center public figures with somewhat more negative sentiment than left-of-center public figures; this trend can be seen in mentions of U.S. presidents, Supreme Court justices, congress members, state governors, leaders of Western countries, and prominent U.S.-based journalists and media organizations. We also find prevailing associations of negative emotions (e.g., anger and disgust) with right-leaning public figures and positive emotions (e.g., joy) with left-leaning public figures.”

Does this left-leaning tendency relate to Wikipedia’s coverage of religion?

By extrapolation, there is reason to be concerned. A 2023 Gallup Poll found that among “nones” (theists, agnostics, and those who say their religion is “nothing in particular”), 63 percent tended to be Democrats versus 26 percent Republicans. This is consistent with a 2023 analysis published by Religion Unplugged, which found that U.S. political parties have seemingly polarized on matters of religion.

Whether this tendency holds true among left-leaning Wikipedia editors and admins has yet to be surveyed, but with a 2024 study published on the Cornell University website finding that Wikipedia articles appear in 67-84 percent of all SERPs (Search Engine Results Pages) for common and trending queries, any religious bias among them has considerable impact.

A 2021 Washington Times article quotes Sanger as tweeting that leftist activists gradually move in “to take control of any influential institution not explicitly conservative … and they just work harder, and in more subtle ways, on the ones that are explicitly conservative… And then, when the rest of the media and tech became insanely far left, Wikipedia naturally went along with the trend,”

“Can you trust it to always give you the truth? Well, it depends on what you think the truth is,” added Mr. Sanger.

A sampling of Reddit users on the subject shows concern:

• “Wikipedia will use the most skeptical, secular sources as references,” writes one.
• “I’ve seen the most biased answers from wikepedia about biblical topics. They dont even acknowledge proven archeological finds, let alone any science giving tribute to biblical truth.”
• “The anti-Christian bias is off the charts. Read the Talk section of an article and you will see what I mean. A well written and modest proposal to tone down comments like ‘all scholars believe x’ will be shot down with no consideration of facts. I would strongly suggest not using Wikipedia for any Bible information.”
• What is “neutral” in the presentation of religion? Is it not the direct quotes from the religion itself. How the policy of not using primary sources makes a mockery of the concept of neutral point of view in presenting religion.
• I had a spat with Selfstudier over misleading claims about private Arab ownership of ‘Palestine’. I was not making edits, but rather, using the talk pages to suggest edits. He deleted my comments and said I was “not permitted to engage in discussions at all, you may only file uncontroversial edit requests…then in that case he was “wikilawyering,” using the rules as harshly as possible against you for to benefit his own side. this is common. wikilawyering is against the rules.”
• “ATTENTION! The Wikipedia (which millions visit daily) article about Ram Mandir that the temple complex is exactly where Ram was born is insultingly described and appropriate action must be taken.

We want to hear from you! If you are a religious leader, a parishioner, or a Wikipedia editor who has come across biased and skewed religious coverage in Wikipedia, we encourage you to submit an article or a write-up of how Wikipedia has misrepresented religion; send this to our editors at wrn-info@proton.me. Your insights are very valuable for ensuring accurate and comprehensive information is available to the public.

Photo credits: by Three Spots via iStock.