I co-founded Wikipedia, but an anonymous mob runs the show – and now I'm banned
washingtonexaminer.comWikipedia is just some kind of tertiary aggregator of source information. It's true that it's got a blue tribe slant to many articles where it's not relevant, but that's sort of regional. Indian articles have their own very-different flavour and all that. Anyway, here's the WP that canvassing for got him banned for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Larry_Sanger/WikiProject_...
I don't see it now but I could have sworn he said that the climate change article should have more information on how it is contested. Personally, I don't think that's reasonable because it wouldn't accurately summarize the state of knowledge and reputable sources around the subject.
I chafe as much as anyone about overly propagandist texts in Wikipedia (and I've deleted or edited a fair few) but the climate change article seems overall fine. It's not slanted or anything. I'm sure one could interpret "intellectual diversity" to include outright nonsense but I don't think there's much point to it. In any case, considering he has the Citizendium project and has only sporadically contributed to Wikipedia over the last two decades, I don't get why he's back here.
For some reason, back in 2025 he decided to archive his previous user page describing his resignation in 2002[1] and start this Wikiproject and do not much else.
I don't know, man. At some point, one no longer retains any authority as founder. The whole thing just seems like some kind of culture war nonsense.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Larry_Sanger...
The fact that he could only get this story published in the Washington examiner of all places should be a signal that more reputable places don't want to attach their name to this
The thing that rubs me the wrong way about WP (and one of the core issues in this controversy) is "taxation without representation".
Wikipedia is perfectly happy to promote the grand narrative that they are the thankless sacred keepers of humanity's knowledge. They'll take your edits. And they are perfectly happy to take your money for this divine goal. Just take a look at the marketing they plaster onto every page during the fundraising drive.
But the second that someone commits the grave sin of "canvassing" outside of Wikipedia to bring attention to an issue they care about, they get banned, and the discussion is ended. There's just a total lack of accountability for anything unless you play by the thick codex of online governance rules they made up.
It's why I haven't ever donated anything to Wikipedia.
I think it's rather positive that Wikipedia editorial decisions are entirely independent of the foundation which accepts (and begs for) donations because nobody has to care about your decision not to donate.
It's not as if donations go to editors anyway, and there are plenty of the editor community who are rather more severe in their dislain for how the foundation conducts fundraising (I wouldn't say it's a majority, most probably don't care, but certainly a sizable minority) and would probably prefer you not donate anyway. On the other hand, I do think a majority of the community supports the policy of being resistant towards non-neutral outside coordination used to manipulate and undermine the integrity of internal decision making processes.
[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48643407
Yep, this has long been an issue. Wikipedia articles on even slightly political topics are very one-sided. The rules that govern Wikipedia reinforce a certain set of views, and those who hold power in that community also share certain sets of views. Larry Sanger has talked about this trend for many years, but I am not sure there’s a way to stop the increasing bias in Wikipedia. The activists running it have too much time.
Facts aren't views.
If we take a contested issue like the origins of COVID-19, the facts are detailed, complex, contradictory and ambiguous. They also don't make narrative sense without some degree of interpretation.
Interpretations of complex webs of facts often diverge along tribal lines and bias can easily leak through when editors need to decide which interpretations are authoritative.
By definition, facts cannot be contradictory or ambiguous. Otherwise, they are not facts.
Any example articles to look at that demonstrate your point?
Anything controversial will have this issue. But COVID, BLM, and things relating to the current administration often have those biases. To see how rules get weaponized, see the talk pages. You find that a lot of reasonable editors are basically blocked using one technicality or the other, and it is used to keep balanced views out of Wikipedia. The rules sound benign until you see how they favor one side.
Such as?
For example?
For instance?
You know we're using, right now, this very cool thing called the Internet. And there's a somewhat new capability in it that lets you link directly to other documents!
Archive/avoid trackers:https://megalodon.jp/2026-0709-1615-43/https://www.washingto...
He technically co-founded but left the project in 2002. he hasn’t been involved with Wikipedia for the vast majority of the project life. He’s actively using his cofounder title to push his anti-vaccine, pro-maga agenda.
Wikipedia has become a toxic place, at least for most political/partisan topics.
But if it really wants to be a community build site, it makes sense that a Co-Founder doesn't have any special rights. ("The irony is that not even a co-founder can edit it if he is attempting to implement his program of reform.")
Which one?
Few people can acknowledge or even realize that there are hundreds of Wikipedias. Mostly language-based, but some are language-neutral.
But they all boast their own unique communities and unique internal rules. Never judge WMF based on enwiki alone!
Sure, but it's pretty clear that the topic of this English language article is the English language Wikipedia
Which is also the biggest. By far. So big in fact that you very much can judge WMF based on it alone.