Wikipedia Cofounder Exposes the Encyclopedia’s Biased Treatment of Religion

Larry Sanger, cofounder of Wikipedia, has emerged as one of the platform’s sharpest critics, including its coverage of religious topics. Once the architect of the encyclopedia’s core principle of “neutral point of view” (NPOV), Sanger now contends that this policy has been skewed, resulting in a perversion of its original mission. He accuses Wikipedia of biased and distorted editing of articles on religious beliefs and practices.

Sanger became particularly vocal on this aspect of Wikipedia’s defects when his own religious journey brought it into focus. In 2020, Sanger embraced Christianity. Seen through that lens, he became aware of the bias with which religion was presented in Wikipedia articles, particularly those related to Christianity and Islam. It became clear to him that the platform favored secular and liberal perspectives over traditional or orthodox ones.

In a detailed critique published on May 14, 2020, on his blog, Wikipedia Is Badly Biased, he wrote, “Wikipedia’s ‘NPOV’ (Neutral Point of View) is dead.

“Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call ‘false balance.’ The notion that we should avoid ‘false balance’ is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science.”

In an interview on Epoch Times, Sanger said, “Wikipedia made a real effort at neutrality for, I would say, its first five years or so. Then… it began a long, slow slide into what I would call leftist propaganda. … But that’s because they follow the news media.” He claims editors have gotten rid of all conservative news sources and as the media and establishment have shifted left, “the content of Wikipedia has followed suit.”

Sanger attributes this shift to a betrayal of his NPOV framework, which he claims editors have abandoned for a dominant editorial line, as outlined in a 2021 blog post larrysanger.org. 

He poses the question: What does neutrality mean?

“This is easy to misunderstand; many people think it means the same as ‘objective.’” But neutrality is not the same as objectivity. If an encyclopedia is neutral about political, scientific, and religious controversies—the issues that define the ongoing culture war—then you will find competing sides represented carefully and respectfully, even if one side is ‘objectively’ wrong. From a truly neutral article, you would learn why, on a whole variety of issues, conservatives believe one thing, while progressives believe another thing. And then you would be able to make up your own mind.”

Is that what Wikipedia offers? Sanger says “No.”

He faults the reliable sources policy. In the same Epoch Times interview, he blames this on a cadre of entrenched administrators, whom he describes as often skeptical of religion, for enforcing this tilt. 

Sanger cites examples like the “Abortion” entry, which he says favors pro-choice sources, and “Jesus,” which leans on historians rather than scripture. 

“The power to declare what is known is nearly the power to rule the world,” he says “No small group—no person, corporation, oligarchy, or cadre of insiders—should wield such power.”

“Wikipedia has become an arrogant and controlling oligarchy,” Sanger wrote in a 2019 blog. 

“We believe in democracy: we believe that political power is best spread out, not concentrated in the hands of a few, where it is apt to be abused. We should also believe, therefore, in epistemic democracy: the power to declare what is known should also be very widely distributed.” 

“The history of publishing, including Internet publishing, makes all too clear that the authority to declare what is known is wielded by selfish, powerful interests to advance their own agendas, which always unsurprisingly have the effect of consolidating their own power.”

Sanger proposes a solution to this conundrum: “We should build a totally decentralized network,” which he calls an “Encyclosphere.” He describes how this would give everyone an equal voice in expressing knowledge (or claims to knowledge).

Unlike Wikipedia, where the power and control of “knowledge” is in the hands of a small corps of senior editors and administrators, “There would be no single, central knowledge repository or authority.”

As to how to create such an Encyclosphere and who will lead its generation, he invites anyone wishing to participate in wresting the power of defining “truth” from the Wikipedia editors and admins to join him in its creation at encyclosphere.org.

Do you agree with Sanger’s description of Wikipedia, its denigration of religion and its furthering the vested interests who set the agenda for the left-leaning media? Email us at wrn-info@proton.me to share your views or suggest other topics for this Wikipedia series.

Image credits: photo of Larry Sanger from Wikimedia Commons, with background altered. CC BY-SA 2.5.