Wikipedia Co-Creator Reveals All: CIA Infiltration, Banning Conservatives, & How to Fix the Internet

The Birth of Wikipedia

Larry Sanger recounts how Wikipedia emerged from the ashes of Nupedia, a publicly contributed encyclopedia project launched by Jimmy Wales in the early 2000s. Initially slow-moving, Nupedia's fate changed dramatically when Sanger discovered the wiki concept—allowing anyone to edit and contribute in real time. Inspired by Ward Cunningham's invention of the first wiki, Sanger recognized that this model could exponentially accelerate content creation. He coined the name "Wikipedia" and contributed many foundational policies, including the principle that no original research should be published, emphasizing that the platform was supposed to summarize human knowledge neutrally and comprehensively.

Sanger situates Wikipedia as a cultural and civilizational project, crucial to answering the human question "Who are we?" and argues that its role in collective memory is unparalleled. For many years, it was a neutral repository of knowledge used worldwide, foundational not only for casual fact-finding but increasingly for AI and search engine algorithms, which further amplified its significance.

Neutrality Disintegrates

Despite the noble intentions, Wikipedia's ideal of neutrality did not endure. Sanger details how the policy of "neutral point of view" (NPOV) was gradually twisted by the inclusion of vague and loaded terms such as "fringe theory" or "minority view" to silence dissenting voices, especially conservative, libertarian, and religious perspectives. The conceptual neutrality was subverted into a biased editorial stance aligned with a "center-left establishment." Beginning around 2012 and solidifying by the mid-2010s, Wikipedia's editorial decisions mirrored mainstream media outlets like The New York Times and the BBC, which themselves adopted increasingly partisan positions.

This shift turned Wikipedia into an ideological battleground, weaponized to undermine political opponents and marginalized groups under the guise of "neutrality." Sanger is particularly critical of subjective political labels—like "white grievance politics"—being weaponized in biographies without fair representation or context, resulting in defamation and character assassination. Critically, he underscores that this ideological capture is deliberate and protected by mechanisms that exclude opposing views through source blacklists and censorship of so-called "unreliable" or conservative media.

The Shadowy Power Structure

One of the most alarming revelations in the interview is Sanger's description of Wikipedia's internal power dynamic. The platform's editors and administrators wield tremendous influence over global knowledge but remain overwhelmingly anonymous—he estimates 85% of the most powerful editorial accounts conceal their real identities. These editors form a hierarchy of administrators, bureaucrats, and arbitration committees who can unilaterally ban contributors, control content, and shape narratives without transparency or accountability.

This anonymity shields them from legal accountability and public scrutiny, raising concerns about corruption and manipulation. While Wikipedia officially prohibits paid editing, the reality is murkier, with PR firms and other actors engaging in covert modifications for clients, some possibly including intelligence agencies. Sanger recounts research like the WikiScanner project, which revealed IP addresses linked to government agencies making strategic edits, demonstrating that Wikipedia is embedded in intelligence-driven propaganda and information warfare.

He argues that intelligence communities worldwide exploit Wikipedia's authoritative status to disseminate favored narratives and suppress inconvenient facts. However, the site's terms about paid editing and orchestrated campaigns only apply selectively, disadvantaging ideological minorities who seek to participate openly and honestly.

The Role of Source Blacklists and Censorship

Sanger exposes the existence of "perennial source" blacklists that effectively censor major conservative and right-leaning media outlets such as Breitbart, Fox News, and the New York Post from being cited as reliable sources on Wikipedia. In contrast, left-leaning entities such as The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN enjoy full credibility. The criteria for this blacklist are opaque, lacking objective justification, and function mainly as ideological gatekeeping, further skewing the platform's content.

This selective sourcing creates an echo chamber where only "approved" perspectives are represented, severely limiting Wikipedia's claim to neutrality. Those blacklisted media sources' viewpoints are effectively erased or minimized, undermining the platform's supposed role as a democratic compendium of knowledge.

The Human Cost of Wikipedia's Editorial Practices

Sanger relates heart-wrenching stories of individuals defamed or personally harmed by Wikipedia's editorial policies and decisions. Famous figures like Philip Roth or John Seigenthaler Sr. found their biographies violated by inaccuracies or unchallenged slanders with little recourse. Even ordinary editors face permanent bans for minor infractions, sometimes leading to severe emotional distress or near-suicidal despair.

The platform's "ignore all rules" policy, originally intended as a tongue-in-cheek encouragement, has devolved into a tool to protect insiders and justify arbitrary blocking. Sanger calls for humane treatment of contributors, recognizing that many invest significant time and passion in building Wikipedia.

How Wikipedia Became the Dominant Media Power

Sanger explains that a feedback loop with Google's search algorithms vaulted Wikipedia to the top of search results, embedding it as the primary source of knowledge online. This elevated status far exceeds traditional media outlets' influence and solidified Wikipedia's authority over public knowledge, self-reinforcing its reputation regardless of editorial quality or bias.

This symbiotic relationship between search engines and Wikipedia ensures that the content shaped by anonymous editors reaches billions, shaping politics, culture, and collective identity. Yet, there is no accountability akin to real-world editors or journalists whose identities and reputations are public.

Proposals for Reform: The Nine Theses

In an inspired and thoughtful call to action, Sanger outlines nine comprehensive proposals aimed at restoring Wikipedia's integrity

First, he advocates ending "decision-making by consensus," which has been exploited to silence minorities and dissenters under the pretense of unanimity.

Second, he suggests allowing "competing articles" on controversial subjects from different declared perspectives, recognizing that genuine neutrality might be impossible but plurality essential.

Third, he insists on abolishing source blacklists and adopting a more inclusive approach to diverse media perspectives with transparent credibility assessments.

Fourth is a return to Wikipedia's original neutrality policy, rejecting editorial bias despite prevailing academic or media consensus.

Fifth, he proposes repealing the "ignore all rules" policy to prevent it from shielding corrupt insiders.

Sixth, and perhaps most urgently, is demanding transparency: all Wikipedia leaders and powerful editors should publicly reveal their identities for accountability.

Seventh, he urges creation of a public article rating system to crowdsource trust and highlight quality contributions.

Eighth, he calls for ending indefinite or permanent bans without fair, multi-person review and an opportunity for appeal, fostering kindness toward contributors.

Finally, Sanger envisions establishing a formal legislative process—a constitutional convention for Wikipedia's governance—an elected editorial legislature with real power to enact reforms, ensuring Wikipedia is not an oligarchy or chaotic anarchy but a responsibly managed public resource.