Wikipedia is more one-sided than ever,” Sanger said.
“It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree.”
“Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions. I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”
“There are a lot of people who would be highly motivated to go in and make the article more politically neutral but they’re not allowed to,” Sanger said.
“If only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power.”
“Biden’s article, if you look at it, has very few concerns Republicans had about it. So if you want to have something that remotely resembles the Republican take on Biden, you’re not going to get it from the article,” Sanger said.
“And there is a paragraph – and it’s quite a long article, so there should be at least one paragraph – on the Ukrainian scandal. Very little of this can be found in Wikipedia. The little that can be found is extremely biased and really reads like a defense attorney’s brief.”