The Myth of Wikipedia’s Neutrality: Unmasking its Leftist Bias

• Wikipedia’s co-founder Larry Sanger has often acknowledged the platform’s ideological bias.
• Several research studies have analyzed Wikipedia’s leftist bias, including a major study by the US-based Manhattan Institute and Indian media publication OpIndia.
• The Manhattan Institute study has discovered that Wikipedia content has mild to moderate leftist bias.
• The Opindia research highlights the editorial structure of Wikipedia, wherein a few privileged administrators call the shots.
• The OpIndia study also exposes the anti-India and anti-Hindu bias of Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia’s ideological bias is dangerous because it is highly probable that the bias will spread to various AI platforms, including large language models like ChatGPT.

 Digital technology platforms are far from being neutral as they claim to be. Instead, a small group of powerful companies dominates this space, quietly reinforcing the power structures and hierarchies that exist in the offline world. In his influential book, Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Power, author and researcher Rajiv Malhotra highlights how the control of a few big tech companies amplifies the divide, making the strong even stronger and the weak weaker. [1] He also stresses the importance of countries like India developing their own artificial intelligence systems, rooted in a Dharmic approach, to counter the monopoly of Eurocentric narratives promoted by these companies. [2]

The biased nature of AI platforms is especially evident in platforms like Wikipedia. While it claims to be a neutral, objective, and censorship-free source of information, Wikipedia often fails to live up to these ideals.

Wikipedia defines itself as “A free content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration and the wiki software Media Wiki…. Wikipedia has been praised for its enablement of the democratization of knowledge, extent of coverage, unique structure, and culture.” [3]

But is Wikipedia really as neutral and unbiased as it claims to be? According to its co-founder Larry Sanger, the answer is no. Sanger has repeatedly spoken about Wikipedia’s ideological bias. In an April 2024 interview with writer and activist Christopher F. Rufo, Sanger pointed out that Wikipedia’s bias is not a new issue. He was responding to a question about former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Catherine Maher, who, according to the interview, is now the CEO of NPR. Maher has been accused of rejecting the principles of a “free and open” internet and allegedly working with government officials to censor dissent while abandoning “objective truth” in favor of left-wing relativism. Sanger also suggested that multiple groups might be involved in manipulating and censoring information on Wikipedia. He mentioned the Wikimedia Foundation, governments, and even the CIA as possible players in this process. [4]

In 2021, Larry Sanger openly criticized Wikipedia, stating it cannot be trusted to present the truth. He pointed out the platform’s ideological bias, arguing that it tends to promote only one version of the truth on controversial issues. Sanger warned that this approach enables the wealthy and powerful to manipulate information to align with their own interests and agendas.[5]

Wikipedia claims to be an intermediary rather than a publisher, a stance that helps it avoid legal responsibility for the content on its pages. However, this position is increasingly being questioned by governments. Recently, India’s Ministry of Information and Broadcasting issued a notice challenging Wikipedia’s intermediary status and asking why it shouldn’t be treated as a publisher. The Ministry also raised concerns about centralized editorial control and frequent complaints about bias and inaccuracies on the platform. [6]

Adding to its troubles, Wikipedia is facing a defamation lawsuit from Indian news agency ANI. ANI accused Wikipedia of publishing false and defamatory content to damage its reputation and seeking monetary compensation. ANI alleges that Wikipedia relied on biased sources to make baseless allegations against the organization.[7]

This raises a critical question: How can Wikipedia claim to be a neutral intermediary while making such value-laden allegations against established media outlets?

These challenges appear to be just the beginning, as more research studies expose Wikipedia’s ideological biases and bring them to public attention.

Let’s find out more about these in the next section.

Unmasking Wikipedia’s Ideological Slant

Manhattan Institute released the findings of a research study investigating Wikipedia’s political bias in June 2024. The study undertook a sentiment analysis of a set of target terms with political connotations selected from Wikipedia content (e.g., Names of recent US Congress Members, Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, Western Countries’ Prime Ministers).

The study used the methodology of computational content analysis using a Large Language Model for content annotation. The main findings of the research are:

• Wikipedia has a mild to moderate tendency to associate public figures with right-of-center ideological leanings with more negative sentiment than those exhibiting left-of-center ideological leanings.
• The positive correlation between right-of-center ideological leanings and a greater degree of negative sentiment was found to be apparent for the names of recent US Presidents, senators, Supreme Court Justices, state Governors, House of Representatives Congress members, prominent US-based journalists and media organizations, and prime ministers of Western countries.
• The study also found evidence of prevailing associations of negative emotions like anger and disgust with public figures of an ideologically “right” orientation and positive emotions like joy with public figures of an ideologically “left” orientation.
• The study also discovered that some of the value-laden political associations embedded in Wikipedia’s content also made their way to OpenAI’s language models, thus creating further concern regarding the probability of biases in Wikipedia content spreading to various AI systems. [8]

In a June 2024 New York Post opinion piece, columnist Bethany Mandel cites a Manhattan Institute study confirming Wikipedia’s leftist bias. Mandel also shares her personal experience of encountering this bias firsthand:

Being a conservative with a Wikipedia entry means that everyone who meets you has already read a hit piece about you, crowdsourced by potentially hundreds of people who are determined to promote the worst possible vision of you for the world to see. If you look at my Wikipedia entry, for example, there’s an outsized emphasis on a single tweet I posted ten years ago about nuking Hamas in the wake of a particularly brutal attack against Israeli teenage boys – framed to paint me as a genocidal lunatic. It’s part of a well-documented trend: Conservative public figures, as well as right-leaning organizations, regularly fall victim to an ideological bias that persists among Wikipedia editors.[9] (Bethany Mandel for the New York Post).

Indian media outlet OpIndia recently published a study highlighting Wikipedia’s alleged leftist bias, particularly in the Indian context. The detailed dossier, titled “How Wikipedia Has Become a Left Propaganda Tool Against India,” draws on open-source information from Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation, including financial disclosures from the Foundation’s official pages.

Key findings from the OpIndia research include:

• Wikipedia is far from the open and collective resource it portrays itself to be. Instead, significant control lies with 435 active administrators worldwide, who can blacklist sources, ban editors, and make final decisions on edits.
• A small group of administrators and editors allegedly skew content with an anti-India and anti-Hindu bias. Notably, one editor has been accused of inciting discord in Manipur. Efforts to present alternative perspectives are reportedly blocked.
• The Wikimedia Foundation receives substantial funding from organizations like the Open Society Foundation, Tides Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. It notes George Soros’ critical statements against India, emphasizing the relevance of these funding sources.
• Foundations like Tides and Wikimedia are accused of supporting groups working against India’s sovereignty, including organizations like Equality Labs and Hindus for Human Rights.
• Although Wikimedia Foundation closed its registered society in India in 2019, it continues to collect significant donations from the country and allegedly funds left-leaning NGOs.[10] [11]

Other notable studies on Wikipedia’s alleged leftist bias include The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia by two American academicians, published in the British magazine The Critic, and Ashley Rindsberg’s Pirate Wires research, How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda.[12]  While a detailed discussion of these findings is beyond the scope of this article, they highlight a growing body of research analyzing Wikipedia’s perceived ideological slant.

Wikipedia’s Bias against Hindus

Wikipedia’s left-leaning bias is evident in its treatment of right-leaning individuals and organizations in India. Many lack pages entirely, while existing entries often convey a negative tone, potentially influencing readers’ perceptions. Below are examples of how such entries appear biased or distorted.

1. Rajiv Malhotra – Rajiv Malhotra is a well-known author and researcher whose website describes him as “a best-selling author and pioneer in the research on civilizations and their engagement with technology and media from a historical, social sciences, and mind sciences perspective.” However, his Wikipedia entry presents him differently, describing him as “an Indian-born American right-wing Hindutva ideologue and the founder of Infinity Foundation, which focuses on Indic Studies.” [13]

The Wikipedia description immediately frames Malhotra in a specific ideological light by labeling him a “right-wing Hindutva ideologue.” This choice of words aligns with a broader narrative often seen in leftist discourse, which creates a stark distinction between “Hinduism” and “Hindutva.” Hinduism is portrayed as peaceful and inclusive, while Hindutva is framed as dangerous, divisive, and intolerant. By calling Malhotra a “Hindutva ideologue,” the entry subtly influences the reader to view his work through a negative lens.

While the Wikipedia page does discuss Malhotra’s scholarship, it introduces biases throughout the article. These biases seem aimed at undermining his credibility, suggesting his works should not be taken seriously or evaluated solely on their scholarly merit because of his ideological label.

2. Madhu Purnima Kishwar – Madhu Kishwar is an Indian academic, writer, and feminist scholar who has been highly vocal against the left-liberal cabal. Her latest book, “The Girl from Kathua: A Sacrificial Victim of Ghazwa-e-Hind,” was launched in 2023.

The Wikipedia entry for Madhu Kishwar describes her as “an Indian academic and a Hindutva commentator.” After a brief introduction, it quickly adds, “Whilst her earlier work was favorably received by the academia and fellow activists, her counterparts dissociated from her post the 90s once she embraced the ideology of Hindutva.” [14]

These lines seem biased, portraying both Madhu Kishwar and Hindutva in a negative light. The editorial tone appears far from neutral, suggesting that Kishwar is no longer credible because of her association with Hindutva and shift to the right.

Additionally, the article frequently cites left-leaning media outlets like Scroll, The Print, and Alt News, known for their critical stance against non-left figures and organizations. This reliance on such sources raises questions about the entry’s objectivity.

3. Asia News International (ANI) – Wikipedia’s entry on India’s well-known news agency ANI is quite vitriolic. It accuses the agency of acting as a mouthpiece of the Indian government:

“Investigations by The Caravan and The Ken into the company have alleged that the ANI has been closely associated with the government of India for decades, including under Congress rule, but especially after the election of the Bharatiya Janata Party in 2014, with its reporting alleged to favor and serve as a “propaganda tool” for the government agenda”.[15]

One of the sources cited by the Wikipedia article for its claims about the so-called investigations is The Caravan, a far-left publication known for its history of promoting anti-India narratives.

The Wikipedia write-up, which makes serious accusations against a credible media outlet like ANI, seems heavily reliant on the narratives of just two publications, including The Caravan. Wikipedia seems rather miffed at ANI’s balanced coverage, which includes diverse perspectives, and criticizes it for not aligning with far-left propaganda.

4. Hindutva – Perhaps the most virulent of all is Wikipedia’s definition of “Hindutva.” It describes Hindutva as “a political ideology encompassing the cultural justification of Hindu nationalism and the belief in establishing Hindu hegemony within India.” [16]

Wikipedia entries on organizations like the VHP, RSS, etc. follow a similar pattern, blatantly accusing these organizations of being intolerant and divisive, instead of giving an objective analysis of their philosophy and work.

The entry goes further, stating, “The Hindutva movement has been variously described as a variant of right-wing extremism, as ‘almost fascist in the classical sense,’ adhering to a concept of homogenized majority and cultural hegemony, and as a separatist ideology.”

While these claims are attributed to various sources, this doesn’t absolve Wikipedia of responsibility for promoting a heavily negative portrayal of Hindutva. By selectively citing opinions, the article creates an exaggerated and hostile narrative, portraying Hindutva as divisive, hateful, and violent.

Though the entry does include references to alternative definitions of Hindutva, such as “the essence of being Hindu” or “Hinduness,” it predominantly emphasizes a fabricated and negative depiction, framing it as a divisive political ideology.

Holding Wikipedia Accountable

The OpIndia study reveals that Wikipedia operates more like a publisher, with a select group of privileged administrators controlling its editorial voice. Despite this, Wikipedia avoids accountability for its content by claiming to be an open platform where anyone can contribute.

The research further uncovered that many of these administrators and editors receive grants from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects, undermining the platform’s claim of being free-for-all and entirely community-driven. [17]

As a result, there is growing demand in India for Wikipedia to be held accountable as a publisher under the country’s laws. The OpIndia study offers several suggestions for ensuring the platform’s legal accountability in India:

• Declare Wikipedia a publisher—The OpIndia study suggests the Indian government classify Wikipedia as a publisher due to its editorial control and payments to administrators and editors. This designation would require the Wikimedia Foundation to establish an official presence in India, implement grievance redress mechanisms, and comply with Indian laws governing media publishers.
• Scrutinize Wikipedia’s financial transactions—The study recommends that the Indian government examine the Wikimedia Foundation’s financial activities in India. Funds raised and spent in India should comply with laws such as the FCRA and IT regulations governing NGOs and financial transparency.
• Evaluate Under the Competition Act 2002—OpIndia proposes that Wikipedia be assessed under the Competition Act 2002 to address potential anti-competitive practices. The study argues that Wikipedia, aided by Google’s dominance, unfairly tilts the market, harming local competitors and Indian websites that conflict with its editorial stance. It calls for investigations into the Wikimedia Foundation and Google for alleged anti-competitive behavior. [18]

Wikipedia was founded with a noble vision, but over time, it has evolved into a powerful tool for leftist propaganda, as evidenced by numerous research reports. Its immense influence is undeniable, often being the top result on Google for searches about individuals, organizations, or events, highlighting its dominance in shaping public narratives.

Concerns about Wikipedia’s ideological bias are not limited to India; similar studies have emerged from countries like the US and UK. This underscores the need to address the platform’s accountability on a global scale. The time has come to push for legal measures to classify Wikipedia as a publisher.

Closing Remarks

As Wikipedia continues to dominate the digital landscape with little competition, there is growing concern about its biases influencing other Artificial Intelligence platforms.

The Manhattan Institute’s research highlights this issue in its study of Wikipedia. It analyzed the association between specific political terms and “sentiment terms” in word embeddings derived both from Wikipedia and from OpenAI. The findings revealed a mild to moderate correlation in how sentiment is embedded across these platforms.

The study warns that an even greater concern than Wikipedia’s inherent bias is its potential to permeate widely used AI systems. Wikipedia’s authoritative status and significant influence on digital platforms, including large language models (LLMs), present a serious risk of propagating its biases across the broader AI ecosystem.[19]

‘Stop Hindudvesha’ previously published a series of articles highlighting the anti-India and anti-Hindu biases observed in Large Language AI models such as Google Gemini and ChatGPT. Examples from these studies show how these AI models were perceived to exhibit deep-seated bias in their responses to questions about Indian political figures, Hinduism, Hindutva, and Hindu deities. Drawing parallels, Wikipedia appears to reflect similar biases against India and Hindu culture, as identified in these AI models.

These concerns hold particular significance for India, where a coordinated network of anti-Hindu and anti-India forces is said to operate through sophisticated discourse. The goal of such efforts is often perceived as an attempt to undermine Indian culture and civilization, potentially destabilizing the nation and threatening its integrity.

Given these challenges, it is imperative that Wikipedia be regulated and held accountable for its content.

Citations

 [1]  Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Power by Rajiv Malhotra

[2] Ibid.

[3]   Wikipedia – Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia%20is%20a%20free%20content,and%20the%20wiki%20software%20MediaWiki.

[4]  Larry Sanger Speaks Out – Christopher F. Rufo; https://christopherrufo.com/p/larry-sanger-speaks-out

[5] Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia | The Independent;     https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html

[6]   Why has the Indian government issued a notice to Wikipedia? Explained in 5 points – India Today;        https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/features/story/why-has-the-indian-government-issued-a-notice-to-wikipedia-explained-in-5-points-2628947-2024-11-06

[7]  Govt asks Wikipedia why it shouldn’t be considered a publisher: Read what it means and how OpIndia dossier had highlighted this aspect; https://www.opindia.com/2024/11/govt-asks-wikipedia-why-it-shouldnt-be-considered-a-publisher-read-how-opindia-dossier-had-highlighted-this-aspect/

[8]   Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? | Manhattan Institute;  https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased

[9] Wikipedia’s lefty bias measured in study – but I’ve felt it firsthand;    https://nypost.com/2024/06/25/opinion/wikipedias-lefty-bias-measured-in-study-but-ive-felt-it-firsthand/

[10]  Wikipedia War on India: A detailed research paper;  https://www.opindia.com/2024/09/opindia-wikipedia-full-research-paper-left-bias-financial-links-india-law/#google_vignette

[11]  Wikipedia Dossier_by_OpIndia pdf – Google Drive;  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bkwkylx0KcfSGnyVkhEApeJfIkTwVdjf/view

[12]  Ibid.

[13]  Rajiv Malhotra – Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajiv_Malhotra

[14]   Madhu Kishwar – Wikipedia;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhu_Kishwar

[15]  Asian News International – Wikipedia;  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International

[16]    Hindutva – Wikipedia; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindutva#:~:text=According%20to%20Merriam%2DWebster’s%20Encyclopedia,this%20’Hindu%2Dness‘.

[17]   Wikipedia War on India: A detailed research paper; https://www.opindia.com/2024/09/opindia-wikipedia-full-research-paper-left-bias-financial-links-india-law/#google_vignette

[18] Ibid.

[19]  Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? | Manhattan Institute; https://manhattan.institute/article/is-wikipedia-politically-biased