Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia/Archive 4

"Conservapedia" and "Infogalactic" listed as the only claims of ideological bias on Wikipedia
As has been mentioned numerous times above, both the co-founder Larry Sanger as well as numerous studies have come out to point towards an ideological bias on Wikipedia. I can't help but feel that the inclusion solely of two websites which are characterised as 'right-wing' is a fallacious attempt at painting Wikipedia's critics as right-wing ideologues. Does anyone even use Conservapedia? PeaceThruPramana26 (talk) 08:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd like to provide some reliable sources or studies that you particularly think should be included in the article? –– FormalDude  talk  08:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to me we use a lot more than just this two websites.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is Catch-22 logic: if Wikipedia does not mention those "critics", it is called "biased" for omitting them, and if it does, it is called "biased" for mentioning them. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ??? Are you insinuating those sites aren't right-wing?
 * Otherwise, at the very least, due weight for mention is established by mention in RS. Absent such mention, we are not allowed to mention sources of criticism that don't meet that low bar for inclusion. We're happy to include such content when allowed, so please provide such sources we can use. -- Valjean (talk) 15:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

FreeWiki
This isn't WP:RS, but says it rather well: Wikipedia is an attempt to collect the knowledge of a materialistic and mechanistic world view and to present the ideological view of neoliberalism and state-conformist western politics. https://www.freewiki.eu/en/index.php?title=Welcome_to_FreeWiki

Btw, I side with Wikipedia, not with FreeWiki. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia and neoliberalism disagree strongly on things like climate change. But since "materialistic and mechanistic" are superstitious people's nicknames for "scientific", "neoliberalism" and "state-conformist western politics" are probably also superstitious people's nicknames for something. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, neoliberalism is a philosophy of political economics, while global warming is a scientific fact. Even Al Gore was just an ecologically-minded neoliberal. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Still feels yucky for me to be accused of working on a neoliberal project. Eugh. But I will now stop with the off-topic. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And this is from a poster representing the views of quacks: Worse than 1984 Jimmy Wales Wikipedia Runs an industry-organized, coordinated smear engine to discredit and suppress all independent scientists, naturopaths and journalists.
 * It's the first result at https://www.google.com/search?q=jimmy+wales+techno-fascism&client=firefox-b-d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&dpr=1 It seems that believing in mainstream science is considered techno-fascism.
 * So, while these are not WP:RS, it is good to know what others think about us. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this a reply to me?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily to you, but to all readers of this talk page. The poster looks like a product of professional propaganda. We just need to be aware of what people are talking. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What poster?Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.deviantart.com/kombizz/art/Worse-Than-1984-867205775 tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed you mean a poster here in the thread, not A poster.Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Attribution
Copied content from Ideological bias on Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia; see former page's editing history for a list of contributors. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia community
I've been reading Wikipedia for years, and it's been incredibly useful to me sometimes, but these days, while it seems pristine on the outside, there is honestly a lot of toxic hostility beneath the surface, reading some of the discussions here, makes me truly sad and tired, how I be part of something filled with so much conflict and hatred? Wikipedia talks about civility, yet lots of people are extremely emotional, judgemental and toxic here, and even admins do nothing or little to stop them. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how such a beautiful project could have changed into this place of very little objectivity and joy. LaurenSullivan32 (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Larry Sanger
With regards to this edit I made, I disagree with the reversion. I have read the RfC, which didnt include reference to his views being covered by Reliable sources such as the Telegraph and the Independent, and several commentators commented that their view would depend on this. This section is about a claim someone has made being reported in RS, not about presenting his views as fact. Pinging User:Aquillion as they reverted but open to hearing other editors' views as well Vanteloop (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem (which is one of the main objections) is he has not been employed by Wikipedia for a...wee..while. There is also the fact he has tried to set up rivals, thus there is a free od wp:mandy about him slagging off Wikipedia. I am unsure what this really adds.Slatersteven (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to decide whether his criticism is valid. I don't think it is either. It's our job to determine whether that criticism was covered and commented on by Reliable Sources, which it has. Vanteloop (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Being verifiable in RS is not a guarantee of inclusion. I think it is undue as he is one person who no longer has anything to do with Wikipedia. Now there may be an argument for one line, but a whole section is undue/Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Maybe a line in the section related to US politics since he used the coverage of Biden as an example? Vanteloop (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, might be valid, but we should not make much of his former position here.Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's valid to mention as his position as 'co-creator' is mentioned in the title of the articles but agree it shouldn't be talked up. How about In July 2021 Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger claimed that Wikipedia has a 'left-leaning bias' and used a perceived lack of due coverage of the "Ukraine Scandal" as an example. and then the refs Vanteloop (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree as this also does not say he has not been part of Wikipedia for years.Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fair. How about Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger (who left the project in 2002) blah blah blah ? Vanteloop (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I have read the RfC but didn't see "The outcome of the discussion was Do not include" right up top? soibangla (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "The outcome of the discussion was Do not include – the general consensus both in numbers and in arguments is that these views should not be included.", yes it does. But as my "no" was based upon the question asked my view was and is "as long as it's not too big". Others may have rejected it for other reasons.Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also the question asked was 'should we include his comments?' without any mention of them being reported on by multiple relaible sources Vanteloop (talk) 18:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC was clear: no. soibangla (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "as long as it's not too big" matters not. The outcome was a flat no. soibangla (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know, its why I will not revert. As to why did the RFC not include the fact RS mentioned RS, it did. An RFC can't be worded so as to say "and here is why", that is for the follow-up comments (which was done).Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You are now edit warring in violation of RfC consensus. soibangla (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour has been very disruptive. Remember WP:CCC Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor You have failed to provide any counterarguments to the proposed edit Vanteloop (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My edit summary: "'Sep 2021 RfC: "The outcome of the discussion was Do not include.'" You chose to ignore that obvious RfC consensus and proceeded to edit war. soibangla (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Given how recently the RfC was, you should excuse us for pointing you there as shorthand. Why restate the points when they're right there? For the record, Sanger has no expertise here, his ancient connection to Wikipedia isn't a qualifier, his involvement in other similar projects is a potential disqualifier, his views in overlapping or adjacent areas are cringey fringe, etc. Please do not restore this content without either very strong local consensus or a brand new RfC, which I advise against. Firefangledfeathers 18:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * We discussed this in June to September 2020, then again December 2020 to May 2021, then again July to September 2021. When you are reverted, you should assume that the reverter had a good reason, follow any links supplied in the revert, and consult the archives. And do not break my irony meter by calling other people's behaviour "disruptive" after trying to edit-war already-discussed content into articles. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You left out the second part of that part of the policy: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). I'd already provided you with a link to the previous discussion, where the arguments were discussed in-depth. When you repeat the same edit multiple times after someone has already pointed you to an RFC against it, it's unreasonable to expect every single revert anyone does to point you to the same detailed explanation, since at that point you are plainly aware of it. And my edit wasn't even terse, since I also explained why I thought it unreasonable to assume that the consensus has changed since then. Part of the point of an RFC is that the same discussions do not need to be repeated every single time - consensus can change, but you have to actually produce evidence that it has changed if you want to go anywhere; see WP:ONUS. If you have any new arguments that weren't presented previously, go ahead and present them; or if you think consensus may have shifted regardless, start another RFC (though I'm certainly not seeing evidence of that in this discussion.) But you can't just repeat the same arguments that have been made over and over again, then get upset when people refuse to engage in-depth after you've been pointed to a previous RFC. Also, you are incorrect when you imply that the The Independent and the Telegraph sources were not brought up in that discussion - The Independent was discussed directly, and the Telegraph article, if you look closely, was linked by one of the comments arguing for inclusion. Neither of them made any impression then, so there's no compelling reason to think they suddenly will now. --Aquillion (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of communism subsection
The current version of this subsection is not neutrally written and does not at all follow due weight. Why should we dedicate an entire section to one event on one article on Wikipedia? This is about systematic bias on Wikipedia, not one anecdotal case. –– FormalDude  talk 23:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article's title does not seem to indicate that this is about systemic bias in particular, but I guess that would make more sense to cover than anecdotes. Also, would you mind explaining why and how the section is not neutral and does not apply due weight? I'm entirely open to hearing your perspective on this. X-Editor (talk) 05:56, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Ideological" is defined as "based on or relating to a system of ideas and ideals, especially concerning economic or political theory and policy." That is where the scope being systemic bias comes from–the topic is about ideology rather than specific instances.
 * And that largely ties into why this section gives undue weight. We cannot single out every instance of racism, misogyny, or other bias that has occurred on Wikipedia and list them here. We can possibly do it for some of most prominent instances, but only if reliable sources claim they relate to the broader ideological bias on Wikipedia.
 * This particular event is so recent that I don't think we can say it is already one of the most prominent instances. Especially when we don't even have a subsection on Wikipedia's bias relating to communism in the first place. This event is something that perhaps in the future could be listed in a communist subsection of this article.
 * As it stands though, it's not suitable. A neutrally written section about Wikipedia's communist-related bias would go into depth on the issue, and not provide one particular instance. The section doesn't even make clear why or how this one event is ideological bias.
 * Hopefully that sheds some light on my perspective. Let me know if you have any questions, I'm fine with continuing discussion. –– FormalDude Emojione 1F427.svg talk 06:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with your analysis. Thanks for giving me your full thoughts on this. X-Editor (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What's the ideolgical bias that this shows? TFD (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing it would be anti-communism. X-Editor (talk) 01:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In the news, this event was portrayed largely as censorship of communist atrocities, so I would assume it is pro-communist bias; historical revisionism to paint communism in a better light. Having read most of the discourse though, I'm fairly certain the news has got it completely wrong. –– FormalDude  Emojione 1F427.svg talk 01:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Not to sound like a broken record, but this is yet another example of how terrible this article is -- a WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. The same editors went around to add content about this to multiple overlapping articles about Wikipedia. If anywhere, it belongs at the controversies or as a footnote/item in a list at the criticism article. Again, this article shouldn't be a "list of times someone with a megaphone said 'this specific thing is biased on Wikipedia'". If it's going to exist, it needs to be about not specific instances but about the broader phenomenon of ideological bias on Wikipedia. i.e. not a list of Wikipedian-curated examples of bias, but research about bias (which is scarce and very poor, but that's just my opinion). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 19:40, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No Nazi policy
Would it be an improvement to add that some ideologies (no nazis) are not acceptable on WP? Weagesdf (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No. No Nazis is an essay, not a policy or guideline and refers to editors not article content. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to endorse any ideology and must be written according to due weight. TFD (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be inappropriate breaking of the fourth wall. No project links in article space. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as bias or being wrong is not a reason to block users, or even (in the case of bias) soruces.Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's Criticism
A simple google search shows that there are a wide variety of news outlets that covered Larry Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia's ideological bias. Hence, per Wikipedia's rules, this is notable and should be included in this article. Any help with this would be welcome! - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see above, we head discussed this. Slatersteven (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no connection between the discussion above and what I said. To restate, there are plenty of news outlet which covered this. Hence, it is notable. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 19:51, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * wp:v does not guarantee inclusion, you need to make a batter case. Sanger has had no connection with Wikipedia for a long time, so in effect he is just another person. So lets see some of these srouces. Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx ^ Considered reliable per WP:RSP 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html ^ Considered reliable per WP:RSP  3. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jul/16/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-claims-left-lean/ ^ Considered suitable for political topics, with other sources preferred when available, per WP:RSP  4. https://www.foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-propaganda ^ Considered usable for political topics, with care only to be taken when used for contentious claims (which Larry Sanger having made a statement is not) per WP:RSP - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So we have a couple of RS, I am unsure therefore that this passes wp:undue as (as I said) he has had nothing to do owrui WP for years, and (I will add) has a COI as he has tried to set up numerous rivals. So (At best) we could add to the line we have using one of the RS we already use "In responseto Sangers accusation of bias". Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you be so kind as to link me to the rule page stating that statements by a notable person covered by several sources that, as per Wikipedians' consensus, are considered reliable are only allowed inclusion when the individual in question "has had [something] to do with [Wikipedia]" during the last few years? Thank you. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be argued it is coved by wp:v, just becasuse it can be verified to RS does not mean it has to be included (note it is not covered by wp:n). You need to convince us this is not wp:undue and that his views are not wp:fringe. Slatersteven (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because you see no connection, does not mean that none exists. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 20:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making comments on talk pages that do not serve the purpose of discussing how to improve an article, as per WP:TALK section "Do not use the talk page as a forum" and WP:NOTFORUM. Thank you. - 2A02:810A:13BF:9584:94D0:961:396:A743 (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * fox news and Washington times are not reliable sources in regards to political issues. Dronebogus (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see a good reason why Larry Sanger's criticisms, sourced to e.g. The Times, The Independent, and The Telegraph (all greenlit at RSP) should be kept out of this article, beyond silly stuff like "I disagree with him". Endwise (talk) 04:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We include commentary from reliable sources, considering the publication, the publisher and the author in the assessment of reliability. We do not include the opinions of kooks, cranks and creeps. Larry Sanger has been consistently and repeatedly proven spectacularly wrong and deeply biased on every single significant issue regarding free, online encyclopedias in general, and Wikipedia in particular, for 20 effing years. Every one of his apocalyptic predictions has failed to occur. He had zero credibility except for his quite brief involvement during the very early days of this encyclopedia. Plus, in recent years, he has descended into the cloud coo coo land of peddling bizarre and utterly unsubstantiated  conspiracy theories. Maybe he is a nice person in real life but I consider his commentary to be pernicious online.  Sad but true. Cullen328 (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reliability in question here is that of the secondary sources: The Times, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph, all of which are undoubtedly reliable. We do not include the opinions of kooks, cranks and creeps. Larry Sanger has been consistently and repeatedly proven spectacularly wrong and deeply biased on every single significant issue regarding free, online encyclopedias is – to put it bluntly – "I disagree with him" in a lot more words. We're all more than welcome to disagree with him, but our personal opinions are not what is relevant for encyclopedic content.
 * This article is not about claims of ideological bias on Wikipedia that you (or Wikipedians at large) happen to agree with, it's about claims of ideological bias on Wikipedia that have been reported on in reliable sources. Which this is. Endwise (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Our job as Wikipedia editors is to evaluate the reliability of sources when deciding whether or not to include their claims. Minor public figures make strange undubstantiated assertions all the time. That is why Elon Musk just paid $44 billion for Twitter - the economic power of people shooting off their mouths. Some have credibility built carefully over the years, and others have no credibility because they repeatedly made predictions that did not come true, or made absurd statements that were debunked by actually reliable sources. Sanger is firmly in the second group. Next, you might be telling us that we need to include the ravings of Alex Jones about Wikipedia in the article. He is surely far better known than Sanger. Cullen328 (talk) 05:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If Alex Jones' criticisms of Wikipedia's bias were a significant aspect of the topic of "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" then they should be included here. As it turns out they aren't. Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are a significant aspect of the topic of "Ideological bias on Wikipedia", which is a fact decided by secondary reliable sources, not by our opinions on who's correct and who's incorrect in their criticisms. Endwise (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:ONEWAY says, However, meeting this standard indicates only that the idea may be discussed in other articles, not that it must be discussed in a specific article. We have reliable sourcess that connect Immanuel Velikovsky with Venus, and we mention Venus in the Velikovsky article, but not the other way around. We have reliable sourcess that connect Erich von Däniken with Egyptian pyramids, and we mention Egyptian pyramids in the Däniken article, but not other way around. This is pretty much the same situation. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the claim "Wikipedia is unreliable" or "Wikipedia has a political bias" really fall under WP:FRINGE? Endwise (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have opened a discussion at NPOVN: Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard. Endwise (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sure that Velikovsky said one or two uncontroversial, non-fringe things about Venus. We still do not mention him in the Venus article. Sanger is a far-out figure who has kinky opinions on everything and the kitchen sink. He is simply not needed if we have far, far better sources for the same statements. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Endwise, the short answer is "yes". Those are fringe views voiced by unreliable sources (such as Sanger) and editors who don't understand these things (see below).
 * Wikipedia is generally quite accurate, but it is not reliable "as a source", just as any other crowdsourced content is deemed unreliable "as a source", even when it is extremely accurate.
 * Does Wikipedia "itself" have a political bias? No, but sources do, and we use them. If more left-leaning than right-leaning sources have a more accurate and reliable view of reality and facts (at this point in history that is the case, but not at other points in history), then it will appear that Wikipedia "itself" has a left-wing bias, but it does not. It just has a bias for accurate and reliable sources. As Stephen Colbert so accurately put it: "Reality has a well known liberal bias". Paul Krugman wrote: "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias"
 * Visitors and many editors fail to get this point, and that makes them fringe, because around here, believing POV found in unreliable sources makes editors "fringe" and unreliable, and their reputations deservedly suffer. Those editors are at odds with our RS policy, and that's very unwikipedian.
 * The views of Sanger and Alex Jones belong in their own articles, per ABOUTSELF, but not necessarily here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are many reliable, independent sources reporting on Sanger's comments, then those sources care what he has to say about Wikipedia (as opposed to what Alex Jones says about anything). It's because those sources care that Wikipedia should care for the sake of this article. Because, as you know, we follow the reliable sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO co-founder Sanger's views deserve a sentence or 2 per WP:DUE. I'd even say FOX is an ok source in context (as a source of his views), but if there's better, use those. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But then again, there was an rfc less then a year ago, so it's fine if that settles it for now. Talk:Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia/Archive_3. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We do in fact include "the ravings of Alex Jones" and "the opinions of kooks, cranks and creeps." See for example, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Reporting what someone says is not the same thing as endorsing them. We rely on secondary sources to determine how credible and how noteworthy fringe views are. TFD (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's confusing have this continue here and at NPOVN. Doug Weller  talk 14:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point, this is where the conversation should be, the notice board thread should just be a request for others to come here. Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * OK: How do we do this objectively? Sanger appears to have supported a number of conspiracy theories. Can we use his tweets for instance? If we can't, I don't think we can give his views their proper context, and without context they shouldn't be included. I don't support Rational Wiki but this article has a lot of possible sources. Here he's supporting claims that the election was stolen, retweeting something based on the Epoch Times, a source we of course rarely use. A lot of the current news articles are actually the same article in different sources. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that Sanger has become a right-wing conspiracy theorist. We need to avoid giving him any more credence than we would anyone else with the same views. Doug Weller  talk 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't do this objectively, because the sources don't provide context or analysis. Since only two respected news sources have run articles and they were brief, it seems to lack significance for inclusion. As I said before, no one's opinion is significant because of who they are, but because of the coverage it has received in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * He's also been giving interviews to OpIndia supporting their campaign against us. A few more Tweets. Doug Weller  talk 10:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or a massive conflict of interest, thus this would need far too much space to do justice. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think objectively was a response to sone at NPOVN. I copied from there. My bad.  Doug Weller  talk 18:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it would be UNDUE to mention everything Sanger has said. So what I propose is that we create the sub-section "Larry Sanger" under the "claims of bias" section. Under this subsection, we could start off by saying "Since 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has criticized Wikipedia for what he perceives as a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles. " and maybe cite an example or two of bias according to him, but that's the most we should do. X-Editor (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No one has said mention everything Sanger has said. Again, to post just his criticism and examples of bias without any context showing where Sanger is coming from is not a service to the reader and probably an NPOV violation. Doug Weller  talk 09:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That four independent sources consider Sanger's input on the matter of bias as a co-founder of WP to be significant to devote significant coverage to would be reasonable to have a couple sentences at most to discuss those views as filtered through those articles. These sources are considering him an expert voice (not necessarily a subject-matter expert but one sufficiently close to the topic that their input is relevant), so it would improper to ignore. If there was only one such article, then yes, inclusion would be UNDUE, but four is definitely a point you shouldn't pass up just because there's a general editorial dislike of Sanger and his views. --M asem (t) 12:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not support the inclusion of this person's opinions of the Wikipedia. He was once an employee two decades ago, and also that the whole "cofounder" thing is highly disputed. Neither of those make him a expert on bias or on the Wikipedia, he is just guy-with-opinion. ValarianB (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some users seem to translate phrases such as fringe views voiced by unreliable sources (such as Sanger) into the word "dislike". Does that mean that WP:FRINGE is generally unconstitutional because it is just a special case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Or does Sanger get special treatment? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, and if you point to a person who worked for a company 280 years ago whose views of it now are being used, I will say the same thing. MAybe that is kind of the point, we do not do it that often. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

So, taking our name off for a moment, imagine that we have an article on alleged bias in immensely notable "organization X", and there is one individual whose allegations are widely covered in RS's and in fact the the most widely covered ones, in RS's, and also, way back in ancient history, was also co-founder of organization X. And we're talking about excluding or deprecating that RS-based coverage. And why is that?/ what is the basis for that? That some people at organization X don't like it? That some people at organization X decided that he should be deprecated? North8000 (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We are not deprecating them, we are saying it is undue as he in fact is speaking only as a private citizen, and not anyone with any official connection to Wikipedia. Again, do we do do this for anyone else, do we give anyone else's opinion of an organisation they have not worked for for 20 years? Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Undue is based on coverage in sources, not on editors' evaluation of / opinions on the person that the sources covered.North8000 (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And I am arguing that without context about Sanger's views this violates NPOV. He keeps starting competitors to Wikipedia and his views are right-wing fringe. Doug Weller  talk 14:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But is his view significant? Also is not the view of one man (by definition) a minority viewpoint, as only he holds it (and one with a COI)? The problem is (as I have said above) that his views at best warrant one line. But we either only say "Sanger has criticized (what he perceives) as wikipedias bias" (or somesuch) or we have to have a paragraph or two on the views of one person. That is why I say it is undue, as we can't give them enough coverage to have a balanced section. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanger is one of many WP critics calling it out for its apparent left-leaning biases, so this us not one person's solitary view (which would put it in FRINGE) Sanger may have certain specific arguments but his points broadly fall within same scope as many others. And it seems these RSes are using Sanger as a type of spokesman for that side of the argument of Wp biases. --M asem (t) 17:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Figuring out what material to include in this article continues to be a problem given it's still a mess of a coatrack/WP:POVFORK (just look at how much of the content is duplicated across the various Wikipedia criticism/controversies articles). There are scarce academic sources, and some of the most prominent that do exist are methodologically dubious (yes, that's my OR). But when we step away from scholarly sources it gets even harder. There's a constant fight to include "[some person] says Wikipedia is biased, so we should include that in the article". This shouldn't be a list of times anyone has said Wikipedia is biased. It should be limited to people with expertise about ideological bias on Wikipedia (or at least about ideological bias). Sanger might be said to have expertise about Wikipedia, but decidedly not on ideological bias. As such, his criticisms merit a mention on Wikipedia ... in the aptly named criticism of Wikipedia article (and Sanger's own article). But this article, if it's not a POVFORK, should not include opinions of people who aren't reliable on issues of ideological bias. There is a wealth of SPS showing Sanger frequently peddles conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas such that his take that neutrality should be interpreted as WP:FALSEBALANCE would not carry much weight. (How this has gotten so little media coverage continues to mystify me -- you'd think at least some group like Media Matters would cover it in order to undermine a frequent Fox guest if nothing else). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick assessment here, but I'm a bit concerned at the apparent possibility of synthy comments here, regarding allegations of Sanger's unreliability. Please note that the words “election”, “conspiracy”, "right-wing", and “fringe” never appear on Sanger's own wiki page. "Right" in that context is never applied. "Compete" only appears once in the lede, regarding citizendium. A cursory reading of Sanger's bio on wiki does not suggest that he is unreliable enough to exclude. His comments therefore rely on DUEness and I don't have much input there, maybe a couple sentences is warranted. Sanger's comments on wikipedia make up a significant portion of his bio. SmolBrane (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Assessments of a source's reliability aren't limited to what the Wikipedia biography about that person/publication says. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but if he were a right-wing fringe conspiracist I would expect at least one of those to be mentioned on his BLP. SmolBrane (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Like “ In September 2021, in response to U.S. President Joe Biden announcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, Sanger tweeted "Nor I.#IWillNotComply" in agreement with political commentator Tim Pool. In an earlier tweet, Sanger falsely claimed that COVID-19 vaccines are "not a vaccine".”? Doug Weller  talk 18:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources appear unpersuaded that these tweets make him a right wing fringe conspiracy theorist, or they would be cited I'm sure. Newsweek is the lone source on Sanger's 'false' mRNA comments. SmolBrane (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Have we lost our Wiki hats here? This is about coverage in RS's of what Sanger said. Sanger is not the wp:source, he is the object of the coverage by the sources. I see arguments that in essence say that If source A covers what Person B said, we can exclude it based on applying source criteria to person B. North8000 (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @North8000so you see no need for context?@North8000 Doug Weller  talk 18:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying context matters is like motherhood and apple pie. :-) Could you be more specific in Wiki terms? North8000 (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @North8000 I’ve made specific comments above about his views and of course he’s been involved in websites that compete with Wikipedia. Trying to watch tv now.@North8000 Doug Weller  talk 18:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanger is not the wp:source - When a publication writes "[person] said [thing]" rather than just "[thing]" (i.e. when they're quoting what someone said rather than making statements of fact), then we need to consider the expertise of the person they're quoting/interviewing (see Interviews). But yes, if source/person A covers what source/person B says, and merely presents it as "source B said this" then yes, of course who source/person B is matters for reliability purposes. Where is that wrong? &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I thought it was pretty obvious in Wiki terms. Source A covers opinions expressed by Person B, and advocating excluding that based on wiki-editor evaluations of Person B? <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So by that logic of "it doesn't matter who person B is", we could just cite "person on the street" interviews, random celebrity opinions, and lobbyists paid to promote a particular cause. Yes, of course it matters who person B is. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said that it overall "doesn't matter" ....a statement so broad that it is an obviously wrong statement.   I wandered in here from a noticeboard comment and saw a few specific things where I thought I could be helpful that I thought I'd point out.  This sub-thread is starting to wander and blend multiple factors.....getting in broader content debates on an article like this is not my dance. Happy to try to help if someone wants to ping me but otherwise I'm bowing out. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm new to this debate (I think), but I find uncompelling the argument that we should exclude Sanger's opinions on the basis of his other views (fringe or not) or potential conflicts of interest, or being "unreliable" (for his own views?), when this article prominently mentions the views of far-right activist Vox Day (who's been called alt-right, white-supremacist, misogynistic, etc. per his Wikipedia page), and conservative activist Andrew Schlafly, both of whom have founded competing websites. Is a white supremacist more reliable than a techy philosopher? Vice motherboard called Sanger Wikipedia's most outspoken critic in 2015. Sanger's views aren't in a vacuum amongst themself, rather they overlap views mentioned at Criticism of Wikipedia (some of which should probably be incorporated into this article for broader coverage and WP:SUMMARY, e.g. those of Sorin Adam Matei who literally wrote a book about Wikipedia editing). We of course shouldn't include everything Sanger's ever said about Wikipedia, but nor should he be scrubbed from the article: a couple well-sourced sentences from someone recognized as a prominent critic shouldn't be controversial. But alas, Wikipedia gonna Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * when this article prominently mentions the views of far-right activist Vox Day (who's been called alt-right white-supremacist, misogynistic, etc. per his Wikipedia page), and conservative activist Andrew Schlafly, both of who've founded competing websites - Agreed that this would be inconsistent. The other "[non-expert] says 'Wikipedia is biased'" items shouldn't be included either, IMO. WP:COATRACK and whatnot. Perhaps it's worth just renaming it "list of people who have said Wikipedia is ideologically biased" or "accusations of ideological bias on Wikipedia" rather than combine sources that actually study bias with random critics that happen to get picked up in the news. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's wise to avoid becoming a coatrack, but we shouldn't pretend coats don't exist, nor that all coats are the same brand. The appropriate number of coats on the rack is the heart of this debate. This is not a hard science topic where the only two outcomes are "yes there is bias" or "no there is not". Social commentary has a place alongside academic. And Sanger is far from a "random critic", even if his views are disliked. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, since my objections are really to the coatracky/povforky existence of this article from its POV beginning, and its [lack of] reasonable inclusion criteria (and since I've expressed those opinions many times now, and they've not found sufficient traction for anything to change), I think I'll go ahead and unwatch this. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 22:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC) How about this? "Since 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who departed from Wikipedia in 2002, has criticized Wikipedia for what he perceives as a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles. In May 2020, Sanger said that portions of the Donald Trump Wikipedia article are "unrelentingly negative", while the Barack Obama article "completely fails to mention many well-known scandals". In July 2021, Sanger said that Wikipedia's coverage of Joe Biden contained "very little by way of the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations. In 2021, Wikipedia denied Sanger's accusations of ideological bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become". " X-Editor (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion in the earlier thread was to simply start a one paragraph section with a sentence or two Ideological bias on Wikipedia in the Claims of bias section Ideological bias on Wikipedia and include the main template to point interested readers to Larry Sanger. Like this: I also acknowledge that his views seem quite fringey, and the competitive encyclopedia can be matter of factly mentioned so the reader can draw their own conclusions. But as a co-founder of Wikipedia, his opinions naturally become noteworthy, whether you agree with them or not. <b style="color:#7F007F">TimTempleton</b> <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If we have co-founder we also have to point out he has had not involvement with WP for 20 years, and that he has a clear COI. Again I think we we need to say is add to "In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations of having a particular political bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become"" "by Larry Sanger" after accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about starting the sentence "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who departed from Wikipedia in 2002, has criticized Wikipedia..." SmolBrane (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That still does not mention he has set up multiple rivals, and thus he has a COI. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * COI should be observed in sources, no? I understand the difficulty here.  We could also call Sanger "co-founder and longtime critic", perhaps... SmolBrane (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Or "Cofounder and founder of rivals such as...", as I said this is the issue. This neds too much for more than just what U have suggested above. We just say "In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations by Larry Sanger...", and that is it. We do not imply specialist or inside knowledge, we just say he has accused WP of bias (if we must include him). Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Due to the lack of agreement despite a large amount of discussion, I think an RfC would be best. I'll start one in a sec. Endwise (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's statements about bias on Wikipedia
Larry Sanger, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia, stated that Wikipedia is badly biased. Shouldn't this be included in the article? The current article only mentions that Wikipedia denied recent accusations of 'having a particular political bias', without mentioning any of Sanger's statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seaml (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * RationalWiki has some pretty disturbing stuff. Not just the claim Antifa was behind Jan6, but BillClintonisaPedo, his friends and followers in Qanon, etc. so if we use him to bash Wikipedia, we’d need to make some of his views clear for context. He seems to have somehow become some sort if right wing conspiracy theorists. Doug Weller  talk 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's extremely unhinged, far worse than what I originally saw about Sanger around a year ago. If he wasn't the co-founder of Wikipedia, no one would take him seriously. The RationalWiki article also seems to show that he's had questionable beliefs for a while now, such as him defending alternative medicine and completely dismissing women's studies during the peak of Citizendium more than a decade ago. X-Editor (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There was a legend of a contest between Muslims, Christians and Jews. One question: what's your favorite book? Answers: Koran, New Testament, Old Testament. Another question: if you didn't have that book, which book would you choose. Answers: OT, OT, OT. A professor of mine elaborated this into political theory: there are conservatives, liberals, socialists, but their underlying choice is the same. Similarly, all mainstream media support democracy, freedom and capitalism as their underlying choice. Wikipedia is based upon mainstream science, mainstream scholarship and mainstream media, so Wikipedia supports democracy, freedom and capitalism as underlying choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did we not discuss this when it was first published?Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sanger features in archives 2, 3, and 4. He will probably be in 5, 6, and 7 too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The eternal tl:dr of this topic should be “Sanger is a fringe nut and his opinions are not relevant anywhere except his own page”. He helped make Wikipedia. Great, Mussolini supposedly made the trains run on time, doesn’t mean I trust his opinions. Dronebogus (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. Sanger's central argument is that WP should never have accepted the idea of WP:false balance.  He thinks we should include points of view strictly on the basis of the number of people that hold them.  This would require changing the whole idea of a WP:reliable source; the most reliable source on any topic would be whatever the most people believed, whatever had the largest circulation, and factual evidence would be irrelevant.
 * The Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita would be the main "reliable sources" for our articles about the Earth's origin, cosmology, evolution, and ancient history. The idea that the Democratic party is run by a secret cabal of pedophiles, that Trump won the 2022 election, that Covid is no worse than a cold, would have to be written as possible facts, given equal credibility with the truth, since about half the US population has swallowed these lies.  Our biographies of celebrities would have to include, as facts, the fake scandals published in the National Enquirer, as it is a main source of celebrity info.  Our medical articles would have to include, on an equal basis, not only alternative medicine cures, but curses,  the evil eye, faith healing, witchcraft, and demonology, as worldwide these are 'medical' traditions believed by a large percentage of developing world populations.  Our articles on Woman and Feminism would have to include, as an equal theory, that women are inherently biologically inferior to men, because a large proportion of the developing world still believes this.
 * In other words, Wikipedia would become like the rest of social media, Facebook Groups without the content controls, a summary of whatever the lowest common denominator believes, because they are the most numerous. --Chetvorno<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i> 19:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Bible, the Koran, and the Bagavad Gita would be the main sources for our articles about the Earth's origin, cosmology, evolution, and ancient history." In my view, these trio are less reliable than National Requirer, and far more prone to presenting nonsense. Dimadick (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I kind of get what he is saying, as I think that is what the idea behind Wikiepdia was. A place that reflected "ordinary" and not "expert" knowledge. It's also why it was a byword for inaccuracy and unreliability where any POV pusher could break a page for years ([], this is not an isolated incident). Its why Wikipedia is still so poorly regarded. Stopping now before I start soapboxing. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do feel like wikipedia is a bit biased on some things, and it does get in the way of a good article, meaning that if you wanted to take away a perceived bias the person who holds bias will change it back because his authority is higher than yours.
 * Back with my old account back in January (before the war) I wanted to put in the fact that Ukraine posted a meme and a Russian nationalist wouldn't let me. That I perceived as bias, and then left and deleted the account (because I feared russian hacking, spamming and doxing)
 * One such example I feared
 * (I have no political opinion on this situation and I don't pick 'a team' and this was just one example out of many of what seem to see as a perceived bias in wikipedia and it's users.) Another Great Wiki Dude (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree with Slatersteven that WP has a bias toward the "expert" or "orthodox" or "insider" view. The editors that have a degree in a subject, or work experience, and know the buzzwords, bond together and can kind of exert authority to dominate an article, excluding outside views.  I have a BS in electrical engineering and have probably participated in that.
 * For example, there is a large popular global movement, including many scientists, that believes that the millimeter waves radiated by the new 5G cellphones are a health hazard. But on the 5G article this is characterized not only as unsupported misinformation, but as a conspiracy theory. I and several other "expert" editors have reverted more sympathetic accounts of these views as WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, since electromagnetic safety standards organizations say there is no evidence yet of dangers from current levels of radiation. I have some doubts whether that is a NPOV. --Chetvorno<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i> 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I think Wikipedia's expert bias is needed as a corrective to the extreme conspiracy theories, myths and lies that circulate out-of-control on social media. Facebook and YouTube have begun linking Wikipedia articles to the more controversial lies circulating on their cesspool platforms, to provide users "context" (i.e. truth), so we have a responsibility to make sure our articles are accurate.--Chetvorno<i style="color: Purple;">TALK</i> 21:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This no longer has anything to do with the topic of “is Sanger’s opinion notable” (tl;dr no). While I’m assuming good faith from everyone involved if this continues I’m hatting it as a minimally involved user. Dronebogus (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The most recent consensus was to not include Sanger's comments. –– FormalDude  talk  05:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Larry Sanger thinks Wikipedia is left-wing, but from his position on the political spectrum, even fascism is left-wing . So, he is really not a good reference point. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * “Sh*t our collective weird far-right uncle says part 18,563”, now on WikiTainment TV. Dronebogus (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Larry Sanger. Love the bit in the interview with Tucker Carlson (what kind of person does that?) about Wikipedia allowing anonymous contributors had resulted in the website being taken over by criminal bodies, as well as by corporations and governments. Doug Weller  talk 08:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting into WP:FORUM territory. If you don't have suggestions on how to improve the article, then don't comment. X-Editor (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly I was suggesting a possible source, am I not allowing to do it with levity? Doug Weller  talk 07:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't commenting at you in particular. I was commenting on this entire thread. X-Editor (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Should I collapse and summarize as “off topic discussion, tl;dr Sanger’s statements are not worthy of inclusion”? Dronebogus (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no need to make this discussion even longer. X-Editor (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * (removed material)
 * Strike to self-revert my reinsertion. I screwed up by missing that it was directed at an individual. My apologies.<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed to complete self-revert of my reinsertion. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, North8000 now takes responsibility for the above trollish comment. ValarianB (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I screwed up. I missed / failed to notice that it was directed at an individual. I struck to revert my edit.  My apologies to Doug Weller.  Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

John Stossel's YouTube video
Should this article cite and summarize this YouTube video uploaded by John Stossel? In my opinion, we needn't rely on self-published sources for this article. I know you're advocating for inclusion, but could you please self-revert until there's consensus for your changes? Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on those seeking to include new, disputed content to build consensus before restoring. In general, it helps to follow the steps outline at WP:BRD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sure you realize that on this topic, that asking for consensus is like asking the foxes about how the hen house should be guarded. Stossel provides direct evidence in his video of the EXTREMELY left bias on Wikipedia and covering that up serves only to prove his point. DarkHorseSki (talk) 03:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I am NOT going to watch a YouTube video. If there is direct evidence, present it here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Is John Stossel an authority on ideological bias? What relevant credentials does he have? Johnuniq (talk) 04:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The article right now seems to be mostly about studies that look at Wikipedia's bias and not about random journalists accusing the encyclopedia of bias. However, it is possible that might change in the future. X-Editor (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * He's a darling of groups like the Heritage Foundation, scoffs at climate change, thinks AIDS support got too much money, that second hand smoke is harmless. Of course he doesn't like Wikipedia. Meanwhile I see personal attacks and lack of good faith at User talk:DarkHorseSki and their post here. Going back through their talk page history, they look pretty much WP:NOTHERE. Edited up to 2011, then 2021 for a short period, then now - that is, with this account. In 2010 they said " I have no intention of making any more edits with this account. It's plenty easy to setup another account, and to switch IP's. But it is even easier to just send in the troops one or two at a time until the tsunami of truth takes care of things." Doug Weller  talk 10:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like he was threatening to sockpuppet. X-Editor (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * What for, his opinion? Why is that of note? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Are there any reliable secondary sources that point out his criticism? If so, we could include his criticism in the article. X-Editor (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A self-published YouTube video normally does not warrant special consideration in article content.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC on Larry Sanger's criticism of Wikipedia
Should Larry Sanger's criticisms of alleged ideological bias on Wikipedia be included in Claims of bias section? Sources discussing Sanger's criticisms include The Times, The Independent, and The Telegraph, among others. There has been discussion in the above section, at NPOVN, and a previous RfC on the matter. Endwise (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Logic. –– FormalDude talk  12:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

 * Yes, as proposer. Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are a significant aspect of the topic "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" (as determined by secondary reliable sources, not by us), so need to be mentioned as per WP:WEIGHT. Reservations editors have expressed about the reliability of Sanger (the man himself) are irrelevant; what is required of us is to represent the information that gets published in reliable sources. The reliability in question is thus that of the secondary sources discussing his criticisms: The Times, The Independent, and The Daily Telegraph, etc., all of which happen to be greenlit at WP:RSP. You're welcome to personally disagree with Sanger's views, or even the man himself, but our personal feelings on who we agree and disagree with are not what determine the suitability for inclusion of reliably-sourced information in Wikipedia articles. That is determined by reliable sources, not by us. Endwise (talk) 09:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No as this is too open-ended, we need to know what we will say. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it will be easier to workshop a proposed wording as a community once we've got past the initial question of whether mention of it should be included or not, which is what was dominating most of the discussion. Endwise (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Sanger's views should be included in some form. His claims are prominent and reported by high-quality sources, and they are particularly relevant because he was a co-founder of the project. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are continually reported in RSs and thus constitute DUE weight. Whether you think his criticisms are valid personally is irrelevant.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 11:55, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, this is a badly formed RfC. It's not just a question of whether, but also how. I and others have argued that if we do this we need to include context, eg that he's a competitor and evidence of his fringe/conspiracy views. Stating his views on Wikipedia without that context gives them too much significance. Doug Weller  talk 12:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How would you have preferred the RfC question to be posed? I realise that both "how" and "whether" are important, but "how" is quite an open-ended question, and I'm not sure how you'd address it in an RfC. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There could have been a question about whether it should be done with context or without context. Doug Weller  talk 14:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No. This is like asking the tech support desk guy who worked at Amazon 20 years ago what he felt about Jeff Bezos. A "philosopher" who once worked with Jimmy Wales (the co-founder bit is highly disputed) is in no recognized position to offer critiques of the Wikipedia. ValarianB (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes (Invited by the bot) The Wiki-rule-reason is that it is covered extensively in independent, secondary reliable sources.  The editorial reason is that he is highly visible (including from being co-founder), has written extensively and in-depth on this topic, is co-founder, and is about as wiki-knowledgable as it gets for a non-wiki person. Also, any "competing" things he starts are pretty clearly a response to his criticism rather than the reverse of the criticisms being a way to further those items.  On a structural note, an "include" result would be just the starting point of deciding how to do it.  As a whimsical side note, since this is about wiki, everybody here has a COI :-).<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 14:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC We should first make objective criteria for inclusion of someone's opinion on this page (which are lacking) and only then discuss Sanger; i.e. should we limit ourselves to scholars/SMEs, or can we include journalists or even activists like Sanger (sorry, but there's no better term for him at the present stage). Otherwise all of this discussion becomes too hard to close because each person has a different view on how this article should look like and there is no formalised consensus for the criteria of inclusion.
 * Only then, if we decide that we include activists, then OK but only if we group him among other conservative activists, and depending on wording. Sanger is not an expert in ideological bias, nor is he impartial when assessing Wikipedia, and he starts from a right-wing to far-right viewpoint (look at his Twitter - it reads like a strongly conservative blog with some QAnon touches at times).
 * Also, I echo other editors' concerns that "how" is an open-ended question and might be uncloseable as proposed here. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No/Bad RfC I find myself echoing the concerns raised above by, and . "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" is an incredibly amorphous subject that attracts shallow punditry. What are the criteria in the first place for inclusion here? If we don't have standards, then the page we produce will be worse than useless. I do not find "he was a co-founder" sufficient grounds on its own, per ; Sanger's involvement ended a long time ago, and arguably before many of the developments that have made Wikipedia what it is today (e.g., WP:BLP). Many if not most of the "secondary sources" echoing Sanger's opinions have been opinion columns themselves (though this is not always obvious from the way that British publications format their websites &mdash; for example, the Telegraph item above is an op-ed that links to another op-ed and provides no independent reporting or analysis &mdash; I wouldn't even say that an opinion from Jimmy Wales would be worth including given that kind of sourcing). Punditry echoing punditry is hardly a suitable basis for building an encyclopedia article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the sources offered so far, Fox News is yellow-flagged for American politics, which is definitely pertinent here, since the topic is Wikipedia's supposed bias regarding exactly that. The same goes for the Washington Times. The Telegraph item is basically a blog post; providing no independent reporting or analysis, it fails to be significant. Everything else is interviews and reposts of interviews, which we can't really take as secondary sources. If Sanger were saying that Wikipedia was the bestest thing ever, this kind of documentation would not suffice to warrant including his opinion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RfC As others above have stated so well. Without his tangential relationship to the project, would Sanger's opinion be notable? I don't see anyone arguing that. So then if we were to include it, it would need to be heavily contextualize to make clear just how tangential that relationship is –– and indeed make clear his COI as a business competitor and purveyor of alternative truth. Generalrelative (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad RfC, per comments above. Too open-ended a question to give a yes/no answer to. And, per comments I've made elsewhere, I'd have to ask whether a summary of claimed 'Ideological bias on Wikipedia' should even constitute a legitimate topic for Wikipedia article space in the first place. Pretending to be able to write neutral tertiary coverage of ourselves is, in my opinion, an exercise in navel-gazing, and so inherently problematic as to be best avoided. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to think that we (a) are generally principled people and (b) disagree with each other enough that there's no real "party line", but I do sympathize with your point and believe it should be taken seriously. Thank you for raising it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RfC. I'll echo the others that have said this, but we can't endorse or reject an idea without specific content to build consensus on. It does look like there are serious sourcing concerns with some being called secondary when they're really op-eds in newspapers. though, so without something to focus on, it does like like undue weight is going to be a major hurdle for check for any possible content. KoA (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this one should be easy. Criticisms from one of the co-founders in multiple, reliable, independent sources. It's hard to think of a more appropriate addition in terms of newsworthiness, than one of the co-founders talking to the independent press about it, over and over, year after year. We should be reader-focused about this, and let our personal feelings about Sanger be set aside. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - well sourced criticism from a major figure in the development of Wikipedia is noteworthy. This isn't to say that we need entire sections devoted to Sanger, but to include Jimmy Wales' views but not Sanger's seems odd, much less the fact that Wales' views are seen as a "Response from Wikipedia" when he himself isn't "Wikipedia". schetm (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, not mentioning Sanger's name in the "Response by Wikipedia" section is a blatant violation of MOS:WEASEL. schetm (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No: His involvement with WP ended two decades ago, his status as a "co-founder" is dubious (he may have merely been present at the inception and mentioned NPOV before someone else would have anyway, it's a stretch to say anyone "invented" an obvious concept for an encyclopedia), he has not been notable since leaving WP, and he clearly has a strong POV of his own, as seen in his essay that contains falsehoods barely distinguishable from conspiracy theories, as well as in his Twitter feed. soibangla (talk) 16:01, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No - No support for this proposal due to the lack of specificity. I also would not bind much authority to any RfC result flowing forth from the discussion in this state. I'd recommend including an example listing or even just a direction of how you'd wish the article to reflect on the given sources.  Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 16:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Amadeus1999: Sorry I've been a bit busy IRL so I'm responding to this quite late. In my mind when opening the RfC I didn't want to unilaterally decide the appropriate wording and have people oppose due to quibbles over wording etc, so I thought it would make more sense to just get past the opening hurdle of including vs. not including and then workshop the wording as a community afterwards. I understand the hesitancy to sign off on something if you don't know the specific proposed wording, but even in that essay you linked, it seems this kind of "should we include mention of X thing?" RfC is acceptable? A more practical question would ask whether to include information about a specific event. Maybe next time I start an RfC it would be better to have workshopped a proposed wording as a community before opening an RfC, but it seems to be a bit late for that now. Endwise (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can always self-close this RfC and make a new one that’s more descriptive. I don’t think the consensus here would be meaninful anyways, with the reasons given above. Amadeus22  🙋 🔔 17:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RfC Per above. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as many secondary sources cover this aspect, and therefore so must we. Simple as that. That we think his basis for saying this is bad, or that he wasn't involved enough with Wikipedia, is completely irrelevant, because relevancy is determined by sources. The RfC is plenty specific enough; there is absolutely no rule that RfCs have to be about pre-written exact text and many are about 'include or not' questions like this. Crossroads -talk- 00:48, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, His criticisms have been noted in multiple reliable sources and thus deserve a mention. However, information about Sanger setting up multiple Wikipedia rivals and his views on the COVID-19 vaccine should also be mentioned X-Editor (talk) 03:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No - though we should have a more general guideline on what gets included or excluded, I think any decent one ought to exclude this. As I've said on numerous other articles with similar problems, lists of examples or of people who hold specific views turn articles into dumping ground for competing opinions, WP:QUOTEFARMs, and the like. Rather than quoting or citing every person whose criticism of Wikipedia has ever received any coverage, or quoting blow-by-blow arguments between talking heads, we should focus on broad high-quality strands of criticism cited to highest-quality sources. If you look at other parts of the article, we cite in-depth peer-reviewed studies of Wikipedia's bias - it isn't due to weigh people's personal opinions equal to those. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cosigned. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not without context. What he says is empty of real content. I wish people would stop calling it "criticism". It's just disagreement. There are different ways setting up an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a different approach from Sanger. Wikipedia cares about weighting sources according to their reliability, while Sanger wants to indiscriminately collect whatever crap can be found. Since at the moment, most crap comes out of right-wing mouths like Sanger's, rejecting crap looks like unfair discrimination of the right to him. Journalistic sources that just quote him without any analysis have not done their homework. If his view is to be included, non-fringe comments on it are needed too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes per North8000. Adoring nanny (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes on the question of whether they should be included. A follow-up RFC may be necessary to figure out how to mention them. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but with some of HobGadling's logic. RS might be wrong but they have considered his views important enough to write up.  It looks odd that the article excludes info that RSes considered worth publishing.  Various people up thread and in the discussion section have pointed out flaws in Sanger as an information source, therefore when added some context may need to be given.  Red Fiona (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks odd that the article excludes info that RSes considered worth publishing But we exclude stuff from RS all the time. "Published in RS" is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of everything ever published in RS but a selection of the most relevant parts. So, it may look odd to you but not to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes but No. His comments should be included, as sources have obviously found them significant enough to cover. However we shouldn't simply recite them without context, Sanger's other views are also well know and commented upon. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes per North8000, proposer Endwise, Crossroads, Schetm, Pyrrho the Skipper and Mx. Granger. Crossroads' comments regarding !votes calling this a "Bad RfC" are, in my view, of particular importance. Jusdafax (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No - I agree with Doug Weller. I've been following Sanger for some time, and he definitely is unhappy that Wikipedia doesn't allow substantiation of fringe conspiracy theories. He's known for his pro-Trump, anti-CRT, QAnon, and anti-LGBT views. His definition of being unbiased includes giving DUE prominence to COVID conspiracy theories etc. -- WikiLinuz { talk } 🍁  23:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Whether, what and at what length to mention Larry Sanger's opinions depends largely on what reliable sources contain doesn't it? And it appears that reliable sources do cover his opinions. Wouldn't pointing out such things as Sanger's political positions and possible conflicts of interest, unless mentioned by reliable sources in relation to ideological bias on Wikipedia, amount to 'original research'?  <span style="font-family: Perpetua, serif; font-size:120%">    ←   ZScarpia  12:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RFC - Nothing substantial has changed on this question. We need significant secondary sourcing describing this criticism as notable and as important as the other parts of this page, and then even if we were to include, it would need to be contextualized. Per WP:DUE. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 21:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely – criticism is hard to swallow, but it can be a good thing. It would be rather ironic if we chose to scrub/censor criticism of WP biases from an article about WP's ideological biases, or worse, by a co-founder of WP who was a major contributor to the NPOV policy, especially criticism that has received widespread attention. I'm of the mind that censoring Sanger's criticism reflects negatively on WP and only serves to warrant the criticism. I have no doubt that many of our readers are already aware of WP's biases as it has been widespread by media, . And there's also the obvious flaws of RECENTISM in today's biased media/opinion journalism that WP editors tend to mirror. It's general knowledge that WP has scrubbed/whitewashed articles/BLPs, potentially influenced by biased beliefs that the negative material was tabloidy, unless it's about those on the right, then tabloidy is ok to include. Yet, when the media publishes facts that correctly reflect the seriousness of an investigation,, vs the weighted negativity in articles/BLPs about those on the right, , there's no hurry to update the affected articles. Instead, we go after the credibility of the center, center-right leaning RS that dared to publish negativity about anyone or anything that supports a left-leaning POV, all of which is heavily influenced by ideological bias, and WP's hegemony of, what has been termed as, the asshole consensus. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 12:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Adding to my comment: Following are more sources that have been critical of WP's bias, keeping in mind that WP doesn't edit itself so of course the criticism in those sources is directed at editors, myself included. Almost everything Sanger has said about WP bias is supported by multiple RS – it's a reality check: Sage Journals – Persistent Bias on Wikipedia: Methods and Responses, ACM DL – Bias in Wikipedia, Controlled Analyses of Social Biases in Wikipedia Bios, WaPo, Fast Company, The Guardian, The Critic, and on and on. We are long past simply denying that it exists; we need to fix it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 19:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful if you would cite from the sources how the specific biases they discuss are related to the specific biases Sanger discusses. soibangla (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, Soibangla – that's a good suggestion. Perhaps it would be a job more suitable for the OP along with other collaborating editors, once it's determined what they intend to include? I've got too many irons in the fire right now, and my allotted time here was focused only on this RfC. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 21:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What you have presented here (with the first few anyway) are great examples of what this article should cite, rather than non-experts throwing out anecdotes. Nobody is saying bias doesn't exist. Sanger's just not a good source for it (ditto Vox Day and Schlafly). Someone saying "Wikipedia is biased" isn't the same as scholarship about bias on Wikipedia. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 20:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rhodo - I agree with you in that the academic sources I listed above should be included, and that non-experts should not. I consider Sanger an expert and a scholar, particularly with regard to his role as co-founder of WP and what he has contributed to the initial NPOV policy for WP, and the other encyclopedias he helped create. I don't see them as competition. In the big picture, my thinking is based on the belief that criticism actually can be a good thing, and that by adding it in a constructive manner and taking the necessary action to improve, we will be well on our way to restoring the public's belief in our neutrality, which may involve admitting our mistakes, promising to do better, and following through on our promise. We can always update this article as improvements are made. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 21:19, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has excellent policies to ensure its accuracy. It should not care one whit, or compromise its integrity, or dilute its mission to satisfy the fringe. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Sanger is obviously not RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it matter what an editor considers Sanger to be?
 * Well, then let me do it too. Wales and Sanger started this thing, and they had different ideas about what it should be. Wales wanted it to be reliable, and Sanger wanted it to be indiscriminate: Science and stupid bollocks should be equal. Wales won, and his concept was good. Wikipedia is a success. Sanger, on the other hand, tried to incorporate his postmodern anything-goes concept again and again in other pedias, and it failed again and again. If he had managed to kick out Wales instead, Wikipedia would have failed too because it would have been like most of the rest of the internet. Yes, criticism actually can be a good thing, but if it is actually not criticism but only an badly justified opinion posing as criticism, and if the same opinion can be had in the same or better quality at every street corner, then why do we have to quote it? Sanger's "qualification" is that he tried to get his ideas realized here and failed. How does that make him an expert and a scholar? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No – Had to respond after reading Atsme’s broad attack against Wikipedia editors using the terms scrubbing, whitewashing, censorship, and asshole consensus. Firstly, I disagree with the general statement that "criticism is hard to swallow". Criticism from a QAnon, conspiracist is not at all a difficult meal. Now, if someone wishes to restart this RfC with a clearer request, like should we add that a claimed co-founder, QAnon aficionado opines that Wikipedia should not be trusted because it doesn’t match his personal worldview and should be based on field experts (like the failed Nupedia of which he was a part); perhaps we have a more palatable meal. OK, that’s not neutral. But, I’m certain someone could construct a neutral suggestion such that we aren’t dining with a blindfold. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No - Article is a WP:COATRACK/WP:POVFORK. Sanger's criticisms go in criticism of Wikipedia and Larry Sanger. The entire "claims of bias" section should go, with perhaps the Croatian Wikipedia section being retained under a different heading. That section, like similar articles like gender bias on Wikipedia, is backed by expert opinion. The rest of the "claims of bias" section is either unrelated to "ideological bias" or is "moderately noteworthy person who would never be considered a reliable source for issues of bias says 'Wikipedia is biased'". Sanger would be among the latter. Vox Day, Andrew Schlafly, and Larry Sanger. If we're going to include "X says 'Wikipedia is biased'" from outside academic literature, we need standards for expertise. Sanger doesn't have that. Being a noteworthy opinion about Wikipedia, which Sanger is, doesn't automatically make your opinion noteworthy on ever conceivable subject's intersection with Wikipedia. Again, there are other articles this can live in. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - as a co-founder. Yes I think he is a nutter and a conspiracy theorist but so what? so are the sources of most of the criticism and I wouldn't remove them on that basis. His criticism as a co-founder has been noted in major publications. NadVolum (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No/Bad RFC Previous discussion has explained why this shouldn't be included, and nothing substantial has changed. –– FormalDude  talk  12:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes - This RfC is not a good example of the class but the general principle is clear enough: WP:DUE actually demands that we have at least some coverage of Sanger's criticisms. The attempt to make out that Sanger's contribution to the success of Wikipedia is trivial is both ahistorical and besides the point. &mdash; Charles Stewart (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * . Something like, with citations for each. I would oppose a summary much longer than that. The small handful of RS presented justify a little weight. Some of the existing subsections should likely be folded into this summary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oooh, I like this as a way of doing it. Red Fiona (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree. If we include him, this is the way to do it. No need to quote him, only link to a reliable source which does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with this approach FWIW. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No The sources say nothing about ideological bias—they merely confirm what Sanger said. However Sanger has no special knowledge concerning ideological bias and is well known for making peculiar statements. Obviously someone who has been wrong about everything to do with online encyclopedias is going to vent about Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * there are several sources that put Sanger's comments in the context of ideological bias on Wikipedia  . Please strike your comment that there are no such sources otherwise your !vote will have to be discounted as WP:IDL. Source bias is a form of bias too. CutePeach (talk) 06:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Am I supposed to search those links to find what you are talking about? By the way, Andrew Orlowski has been a Wikipedia hater for years and confirmation bias is very much his specialty. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, please search those links or read to my !vote below, and then take the opportunity to strike your comment. As a general rule, if something is too much of a hot potato for American media, then British media will cover it more neutrally. I wasn't aware of Orlowski's longstanding criticism of Wikipedia, and I don't see what is wrong with it as WP:RSOPINION. CutePeach (talk) 07:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I can only read the 2nd link, the Independent, and there he claims there is nothing in Joe Biden about the Ukraine scandal from the Republican point of view. That was 16 July 2021. We do mention Trump's claims, see  the 13th of July, but we don't suggest they were correct, in fact we say the media pretty much dismissed them.  He does say you can trust Wikipedia to give you a reliable establishment viewpoint - and goes on to comment on not giving you the truth depending on what you think the truth is. So what I see is a Trump supporter complaining that we don't accept a claim by Trump as true. By the way, that source does not put his statements in context, it's almost completely statements by him. What I can see of the Telegraph sources is a headline calling us "Wokepedia".  Doug Weller  talk 10:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding to 's here claim that sources do not say anything about ideological bias, which is actually confusing. If Johnuniq meant that The Times and The Independent only attribute the ideological bias claim to Sanger, then I remind you that the section we are debating about including Sanger's claims is aptly titled Claims_of_bias. I dont like how you personalized this dispute by mentioning on AN that I do no good for Wikipedia just because you disagree with me. I'm not aware of any other dispute where we've interacted. CutePeach (talk) 15:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm confused. Him being a co-founder doesn't mean what he said is notable, but still, maybe a short sentence might be nice? Nythar (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes per North8000 and Spy-Cycle. It's covered in RS, and often when RS is discussing political ideological bias on Wikipedia, Sanger's views are brought up. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Good RFC as it attempts to settle the crux of the disagreement between editors in the linked discussions, and yes we should include Sanger's comments - with proper qualification and in the right context. One criticism from Sanger, quoted in the The Independent and  The Times  last year, was that Wikipedia's coverage of the controversy related to President Biden and his son's alleged dealings in Ukraine was not adequate. When I first created Hunter Biden laptop controversy to separate it from the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory, I had to deal with incredibly hostile pushback from several experienced editors  , and no less than three administrators delivered standard and non standard warnings on my talk page  . The article was immediately nominated for deletion, and during that process, it was edited in such a way that even neutral editors would not have seen anything worth keeping   , so it was deleted and redirected to the conspiracy theory page, as a WP:SNOWBALL close . Pressure continued to mount and the article was restored more recently  , and most of the sources cited in it are dated to 2020, showing that it could have easily been kept and expanded. This incident demonstrates that experienced editors, with the tacit approval of administrators, are able to bend and even violate WP:PAGs to support their ideological bias. Sanger's criticism is clearly WP:DUE here and the ideological bias of editors is on full display here, should there be any doubt. CutePeach (talk) 07:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What's WP:PAGs? And do you still think that the Hunger Biden laptop article isn't a BLP issue? And as I mentioned above, Sanger said that Biden's article "doesn’t include information from the Republicans’ perspective" and that "He argued that there should be at least a paragraph about the Ukraine scandal but there is very little of that." My link above shows two paragraphs. But please, what do you think the proper qualification and right context would be? Details would be helpful. Doug Weller  talk 10:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PAGs, like WP:NPOV, which Larry proposed in 2001. jp×g 21:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear to anyone reading this, it wasn't blue-linked when I wrote the post above, that's a new redirect. Doug Weller  talk 07:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't realize that made your post look dumb -- I saw it as a redlink and figured that was evidence enough that a redirect was needed, but should clarify that the redirect didn't exist when you initially made the comment. jp×g 23:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, it happens. Doug Weller  talk 08:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "This incident demonstrates that experienced editors, with the tacit approval of administrators, are able to bend and even violate WP:PAGs to support their ideological bias." How is this new information? Many of the discussions on which articles to keep and which to merge or delete reflect Wikipedians' bias on what is notable, rather than what is verifiable. Dimadick (talk) 05:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No Sanger's comments do not have the degree of coverage necessary for weight. The lack of significant coverage means that we cannot report his views with the proper context. I think though that we should try to find reliable sources that provide detail about various reactions to Wikipedia's policies. The way they are designed, more coverage is given to mainstream views than fringe ones. Sanger thinks that equal weight should be provided to mainstream views and fringe right-wing American views such as creation science. I would like to see a discussion in the article about why Wikipedia has its policy, which of course makes it biased toward mainstream views. TFD (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, unless accompanied by the facts that indicate Sanger's low credibility, such as his fringe POV against Covid vaccines and his COI running competing sites. The proposed texts I've seen omit this context. NightHeron (talk) 01:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No – it's not a learned opinion, the guy simply has no academic tools to assess bias, it's just a simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT coming from a quasi-public figure. Also, an interview is a primary source. We should strive to base our articles on secondary academic sources. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  15:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a shortcut to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I am not sure what you mean to convey by linking it here, since this is not a deletion discussion, nor are we discussing Larry's comments in deletion discussions. jp×g 21:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx, corrected. — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  13:57, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't think it makes any difference if his opinions are good or bad, or if he posts dumb crap on Twitter, or if he wears ugly neckties, or whatever. Why would that matter? The cofounder of an organization thinks the organization sucks. This is noteworthy whether he is right or wrong. Our job is not to decide what opinions are correct, but to present readers with objective facts ("such-and-such expressed this opinion") combined with adequate context to decide whether they agree or disagree. They are not infants. They can handle it. And of course they should be provided with context. Everything on Wikipedia should be provided with context, since that's literally the purpose of an encyclopedia. jp×g 21:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Where did Sanger say that the Wikimedia Foundation sucks? Why do you believe this discussion is about the Wikimedia Foundation at all?
 * The situation here is like Paul Allen hypothetically saying that he doesn't like certain features of Microsoft Windows. Would his opinion indeed deserve inclusion in Microsoft Windows? — kashmīrī  <sup style="color:#80f;font:'Candara';">TALK  14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes but briefly. Given that Sanger is known as Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic, a couple sentences (at most) summarizing but not extolling his views are warranted. I think slippery slope concerns of this becoming a coat-rack article are a bit unfounded: we need not and will not include every blog or Tweet complaining by every butt hurt rando who doesn't like a certain article. Indeed, few critics but Sanger get repeated attention. Sanger's role as co-founder and early departure could be mentioned briefly, as well as the fact he founded competing sites, so long as it is not belabored and not given undue emphasis to imply a narrative, which would lead to WP:SYNTH or NPOV violations. (NB: Citizendium appears largely defunct and Sanger apparently left Everipedia in 2019). I think Sanger's external views about vaccines or politics are largely irrelevant, and unless sources that report his criticism make that connection, Wikipedia should not. I definitely don't think Wikipedia should be trying to subtly undermine Sanger's views nor nudge the reader towards inferring Sanger is unreliable. I think something simple like "Co-founder Larry Sanger, who left the project in 2002 and founded competing websites, has criticized what he sees as a liberal bias."[3][4]5] would be appropriate and sufficient context. But something like "Sanger has said Wikipedia has a liberal bias but he founded competing websites and has supported conservatives and he also believes in space monsters and hates kittens" would be clearly out of line. People following the wikilink to Larry Sanger can view more about his background.   I recognize that Sanger may have bias and COI (as does Jimmy Wales), but biased opinions are not forbidden. The prominence of coverage of Sanger's views warrants brief mention. Can someone propose text on how his criticisms might be presented alongside his other fringe views without violating WP:OR or WP:NPOV? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I see no reson this shouldn't be included, in some form or another which can be discussed at a later date. Those editors saying that Sanger isn't a good source/expresses fringe views have failed to consider the fact that reliable sources quote Sanger and therefore these sources consider Sanger's views as noteworthy. After all, who are we to consider whether his views are fringe? I believe this is a case of several editors not liking what Sanger has to say and therefore opposing the RFC. Willbb234 21:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So you are accusing editors of bad faith? Let alone the issue of whether we have the knowledge to say that he's been promoting conspiracy theories, ie fringe views. Sure, we can include Sanger but with the proper context showing where he's coming from. Doug Weller  talk 15:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, Sanger's opinion is echoed in numerous publications and is relevant to the topic.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes per CutePeach. The section is called CLAIMS! The Pope is not an expert in geopolitics, but he said the Russian invasion of Ukraine was caused by NATO expansionism , so that is probably WP:DUE somewhere on Wikipedia… AS A CLAIM! Sheesh. Francesco espo (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - Sanger is probably the single critic most covered in RS. If we disagree with his assessment, then cool. If we think he's unqualified or unacademic, then cool. but it's not really about our opinion about the subject; it's about what RS determine is worthy of coverage. We're supposed to write articles dispassionately. This isn't a medical topic where we need to apply a standard above RS, and the sheer volume of coverage over such a long period of time wrecks any DUE argument. I don't agree with Sanger, but my opinion on the subject isn't important. Our role is only to evaluate the reliability of and consensus among the sources.   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I don't think many opposing inclusion here are saying his criticism shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. Criticism of Wikipedia is an obvious place for him. This isn't an article about anecdotal criticism, though -- it's about bias. If this isn't just a POVFORK of the criticism article, where we consolidate all the times someone (even very notable someones) said "what about Benghazi, Wikipedia?" "what about the laptop, Wikipedia?", or "what about vaccines and autism, Wikipedia?" ... or is this a place for actual research about what bias exists in Wikipedia (i.e. "list of claims of bias on Wikipedia" vs. "ideological bias on Wikipedia"). I'd argue if we're going to have this article, it should be the latter. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe this get's down to semantics at some level. Any accusation of bias is necessarily going to be a criticism. AFAIK, the majority of Sanger's criticism happens to be about bias. Regardless, the main article for criticism is near 200k. So are we really talking about a POVFORK or are we talking about a SPINOFF?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  13:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fine argument -- but then it should be something like "Political criticism of Wikipedia" or something that's clear it's about interpretation and judgment rather than description. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not what we do with Racial bias on Wikipedia or Gender bias on Wikipedia.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some issues with both articles, but both of those subjects have their roots in data and research. At the most basic, it's about the demographics of our editors, supported by several surveys, but there are also an awful lot of studies to work with evaluating topic/article coverage. There is no remotely decent data relevant to ideological bias among editors (unless you count, say, support of open culture) that we can correlate to article content. There's less research about ideological bias (some of it really shaky, but that's a separate discussion), but that's still what we should be basing this article on -- real research, not the anecdotes of individuals who do not have expertise/credibility on the subject of ideological bias. You'll note that the gender bias article doesn't cite, say, some manosphere writer who says Wikipedia is biased against men based on his opinion of the men's rights movement article (at least I hope not -- it's been a while since I've read that one). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The first citations in the body of the race article are HuffPo, a biweekly, and the SPLC. I agree that peer review is a higher standard than organizations or news outlets, but outside MEDRS, there's not a lot of policy to stand on there other than preference.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  18:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are some issues (much more so with the race article than the gender article), but many of the popular press citations' claims about bias on Wikipedia (as opposed to interventions, events, etc.) are at least partially based on data. Huffington Post, Wired, etc. start out by citing surveys/studies. Others, like the SPLC, are known to be experts on the subject of racial bias. That's not to say there aren't some sources that would be better omitted in there, too, but that's a topic for that article. Sanger's opinion that "Wikipedia is biased" isn't based on any study, extrapolation from any data, or any research of any kind other than "I know what neutrality is, and this isn't it". There is a preference for raising the bar for sourcing in many places on the project, not just biomedical information. Presidential approval polls have to come from one of a set of reliable pollsters, and we don't cite someone who says "everyone knows Americans hate Joe Biden" on the subject of public opinion even if the person speaking is a famous politician. Psychology articles, too, have a higher bar. Even some social science topics and humanities topics. For many historical topics, we want historians or other scholars, and not the opinion of someone with no credibility for historical scholarship. Many sensitive topics about race, statistics, sexuality, etc. don't rely on anecdotal opinion. A specific example of a social science topic that comes to mind is moral panic, a term that's prone to be thrown around by people describing something they don't agree with, so that article is restricted (last I checked) to academic research. This, too, is a claim that people throw around based on anecdotes and their own ideology, without any scholarship to back it up (which, again, isn't to say there isn't any out there -- but that's what this should be based on). The general preference is even right there in WP:RS: Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Other reliable sources aren't disallowed, and as I said, outside MEDRS, I don't know that an RS not being academic has ever really been a normal argument for exclusion, at least not when it isn't in favor of some other better source. We already use plenty of non-academic sources in the article, and for better or worse, Sanger is widely viewed in sources as having an exceptional connection to the subject.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
Note that the line

In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations of having a particular political bias, with a spokesperson for the encyclopedia saying that third-party studies have shown that its editors come from a variety of ideological viewpoints and that "As more people engage in the editing process on Wikipedia, the more neutral articles tend to become".

Is a direct reference to Mr Sanger's claims. So we "do include them in some form". Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All the more reason to include Sanger's criticisms that the quote is referencing in the article itself. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not including Sanger as the source of that particular criticism violates MOS:WEASEL. schetm (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, not naming Sanger as the source of that particular criticism makes it sound more respectable. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:08, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding solely to the idea what he says is not included in any way. This is why this is a badly formed RFC, as we do not know what should be added. Thus (in a sense) we already include his criticism, its just not attributed to him. Slatersteven (talk) 10:36, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I will explain why I said not. In the past, I have taken part in RFC's like this where the result was include. This was then used as a justification for users to push their wording as the "RFC has said include". All this will do (if the result is yes) is lead to another RFC to discuss the wording we chose. So we might as well have that RFC now. Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty simple - quote and use in-text attribution, and try not to inadvertently scrub/whitewash it. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is it? I think that is an assumption. If it were that simple why is this an open question and not about the really simple text? Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

What do editors think about these edits to a fairly similar article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 17:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

ON the subject of slippery slope, I may be wrong but I seem to recall we did have a couple of paragraphs on him here at one point. So its not so much a slope as a rise. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has posted anything in the survey for 5 days. Since 22 said yes and 19 said no, there seems to be rough consensus to include Sanger's comments. How this will be done, on the other hand, will still be up for debate after the survey is closed. X-Editor (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * From the Manual of Best Practices for RfCs section 602: if you have expressed a strong opinion on something in an RfC, have repeatedly added the content in question to the article (and been repeatedly reverted), your opinion that the RfC should be closed in your favor probably is not helpful. And from MBPR s. 602(a): this is doubly true if your entire basis for declaring which side has consensus is a headcount. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 19:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How long should we wait before getting an admin to close the vote? 7 days after the last vote? X-Editor (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RFCEND seem to imply that 30 days is somewhat of a default duration for an RfC, which would be in about a week or so. If it continues to go stale and no new !votes come in I don't see the harm of putting in a request at WP:RFCLOSE and stopping a few days short of 30 though. Endwise (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as Endwise says, 30 days is standard. There's even a bot that will come along and remove the RfC tag at that point. If nobody closes it, some people like to submit a request for closure. I don't think anyone's going to respond to such a request until the 30-day mark, though. More often, you see those requests either way after the 30-day mark (as a "will someone finally close this?") or if there are special considerations (some unusual time sensitivity, wide-reaching implications like policy changes, or an unusually controversial topic such that an admin or multiple admins closing it would help to put an end to disputes). IMO this is not a particularly unusual dispute, so no urgency to close early. But then, I'm a participant, too, so take that with a grain of salt. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I won't repeat the problems I have with this article, but an observation about an unusual dimension of this article, which is unlike nearly any other article: it attracts Wikipedians with grievances about Wikipedia. If someone has been topic banned, was nearly topic banned, got blocked, failed to push a particular POV, or -- assuming good faith -- people who simply object to the way wikipolicy is applied in certain articles, we have an article about that very grievance. That's not inherently a problem, and not in itself a reason not to have such an article, of course, but it's evident in all of the RfCs/discussions/AfDs we've had here, evident in the creation of the article, etc. Where it's a problem is when arguments about this article take the form of (or are clearly based on) "but Wikipedia is biased" or "he/they have a good point!", despite those arguments having no actual basis in wikipolicy. I would agree, on the most basic level, that Wikipedia does have various biases, but editors' knowledge of, experience with, or agreement with those biases are completely irrelevant to making decisions about this article. Obviously those arguments don't represent everyone arguing to keep/include material, but there's enough of it that it throws a wrench into any real discussion of this page. Case in point, the most recent !vote was "per CutePeach", whose !vote was basically a POV-pusher's jeremiad (as though reliable sources later justifying an article means that we should've had one all along, or that Sanger has a good point, or that any of this has anything to do with whether it should be included). I don't know what to do about this, or if there's anything to do. At least when people's personal ideologies get wrapped up in other articles unrelated to Wikipedia, everyone knows to discount "but it's true -- I know from personal experience" and frame arguments solely in terms of applications of policy. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO it clearly (despite best efforts and intentions) has a bias in certain areas but even then I tend to worry about it only when it impacts informativeness or goes to the point of being misleading. Sadly, I think that the latter often happens in certain areas. I think that some updates and tweaks in policies and guidelines would help the situation. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What changes in policy would you suggest to fix bias problems? What areas do you think tend to be biased? X-Editor (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The policies aren't biased, they are just enablers of biased wikilawyer editors. So the changes needed are to reduce wililawyering by biased editors. Some fixes would be:
 * Introduce a new pervasive concept (and core addition to rs criteria) that strength of sourcing is measured by objectivity and expertise with respect to the items which cited it  So replace the current binary criteria which is that they are either 0% or 100%.
 * Make it so that sincerely challenged material needs stronger sourcing and vice versa
 * Require wp:ver challenges to include a mere perfunctory expression of concern about the veracity of the material. Not just based on wikilawyering.
 * Eliminate over-generalization biased voting out of sources, because, despite efforts otherwise, that's all what such lists (deprecation etc.) actually are.
 * Update WP: NPOV to recognize that the Walter Cronkite era that the current form is dependent on is over. Many wp:"reliable" sources are now biased dumb combatants in culture wars and other battles. Start with wp:weight, the policy most central to this, which was unusable on the day it was written and now does more harm than good regarding NPOV.
 * Well, there's 5 changes that would go a long way. :-) <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks to me as those changes would radically change our core polices, perhaps reversing some of them. Doug Weller  talk 09:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what's needed. And it would help on a wide range of problems, not just bias. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It would change the nature of Wikipedia and I doubt in a good way. Doug Weller  talk 13:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The place to make those suggestions is somewhere else. Under the current rules, this page is for improving an article and nothing else. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:19, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I brought up how doing anything on this page is so hard because people keep bringing their own opinions about Wikipedia's bias into it, and that led to a discussion of people's own opinions about Wikipedia's bias. :/ &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Pretty much what Rhododendrites and Hob Gadling said. The Village Pump is thatta way and half this section could be rightfully hatted as a NOTFORUM.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  14:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

How will we include Sanger's criticisms?
The above discussion concluded with a rough consensus to add Sanger's opinions. But we still haven't figured out how to incorporate Sanger's opinions into the article. I would suggest one of two options: We all work together to work on and improve one version of his criticism to add to the article, or we vote on multiple versions proposed by different editors. X-Editor (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The context of Sanger's remarks is: Two people started a project, but they had different ideas about how to do it. One of them quit and started other similar projects based on his own idea of how to do it. The original project succeeded, and the others failed. The guy with the failed projects keeps telling the one with the successful project that he is doing it wrong.
 * I would like the description in the article to incorporate that context in some form, but I fear that the sources and WP:SYNTH will not allow that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That is obviously WP:SYNTH and would not be allowed as a result. You also sound like you are trying to push your own POV into the article, which would be original research. Besides, this discussion is mostly about his claims regarding bias and not the context of him and Wikipedia. Although there should be some context, that should not be the main thing emphasized in the article. X-Editor (talk) 06:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The only reason why people listen to him is that he was involved with Wikipedia. He is considered an "expert" because he is competition, but he is inferior competition. The conflict about how an encyclopedia should be done is the very content of his disagreement. (It is disagreement, not criticism.) Wales wants the content to be high-quality, and Sanger wants to lower the quality. After all, the "bias" Sanger sees comes from calling all that Republican crap "crap". --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @X-Editor: It's all very well to point out the obvious regarding sources, but do you understand that what Hob Gadling wrote is correct? Have a read of Larry Sanger. Where does it say he has a qualification that makes his views on ideological bias any more useful than those of Donald Duck? Is there a reliable source that states (in its voice) that there is an ideological bias and by the way, Sanger thinks so too? If so, a mention would be fine but Sanger would then be irrelevant. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * He does have a PhD in philosophy, but I don't think that's relevant regarding qualification on ideological bias. I think we should be focusing more on how to incorporate Sanger's views into the article than our personal opinions on him. X-Editor (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think everyone is trying to do that. Doug Weller  talk 08:56, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, pings only work if they're part of a comment with a fresh signature using four tildes. Adding them to an existing comment doesn't do anything other than link the names. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. X-Editor (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies for just wading in and adding information without checking the talk page. I am still relatively new to Wikipedia--teaching classes using it--and this entire talk page has really opened my eyes. I was just reading the article and saw a "by whom" tag, and was like: I can solve that! This is going to be a fun anecdote to relate next semester when my class gets going! Disembodied Poetics (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I think what we have now is OK (though I think his status as co-founder is not relevant). Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC) As I said I do not think the fact he is co-founder is relevant, as he was had no contact with WP for a long time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * after reading the conversation, I agree that "co-founder" status isn't relevant, and can be easily picked up if you follow the link to Sanger's main-page. Putting it in the main article itself seems to do additional work building his "ethos" to make these comments. I would support removing it Disembodied Poetics (talk) 23:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd put in a summary of his published assertions in a neutral fashion (i.e. avoid approaches that would seek to deprecate it) and use clear attribution wording. (e.g. "Sanger states that......"   "according to Sanger")    BTW in a "two birds with one stone" thought, using and following sources that published it might help provide guidance. And so in that case, from a Wiki standpoint, his views are not the wiki-source, they are something covered by the wiki-source. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

With the inclusion of Sanger, we have three "claims of bias" that Wikipedia has a political bias, three people who are not themselves reliable sources about ideological bias but have nonetheless had their criticisms covered in reliable sources, and three people who founded competing wiki-based encyclopedias to compete with Wikipedia over issues of bias. The separate subsections for Conservapedia and Infogalactic were always too much prominence for the context of this article -- maybe it makes sense to combine all three? &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, give it context. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this as a start? Since 2020, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has criticized Wikipedia for what he perceives as a left-wing and liberal ideological bias in its articles.   I know Fox is yellow-flagged, but it's the only source I can find that shows the criticism goes back to 2020. X-Editor (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * As I have already said we do not need to say he was co-founder, no. Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing a world here where "co-founder" isn't going to be front-and-center in any relevant source we could find to possibly use.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  11:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can find RS that say he left in 2002 (only a year after its launch), is that relevent, or that he has been "vocally critical of the site ever since." (not since just 2020), should they bve included. Then we have the issue of the fact he has set up rivals in direct competition (thus his POV is hardly neutral itself). sangers Views should not take up too much space, so let the reader go to his page to find out about his relationship woth Wikipedia (and its rivals). Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can find RS that say he left in 2002 (only a year after its launch), is that relevent Um...no? Does the preponderance of sources talking about him in this context feel it's relevant?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it not relevant? If it is relevant he is a co-founder why not that he left after only a year and has been critical ever since? Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Does the preponderance of sources talking about him in this context feel it's relevant? Or are we reaching out for caveats that the sources themselves don't feel are necessary?  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  12:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Random guy. Minimal coverage, if any, is sufficient.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Meanwhile User:X-Editor isn't waiting for a conclusion to this discussion but has added [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia&type=revision&diff=1093035946&oldid=1092794395 this. Doug Weller talk 07:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like X-Editor created a dedicated sub-section for him after all. On looking at the sources a bit more, I may agree that he shouldn't be in the same subsection as Schlafly and Day (those two should still be combined). Sanger's criticisms of ideological bias aren't just political, after all -- they're based in the neutrality policy vs. his vision for neutrality. He sees how we treat scientific topics as part of the same set of issues ("establishment bias"). If we're going to have a whole subsection, here's a draft:


 * Wikipedia's co-founder, Larry Sanger, has been critical of Wikipedia since leaving the project in its infancy, and went on to found competitors to Wikipedia, Citizendium and Everipedia. Among other criticisms, he has been vocal in his view of Wikipedia's policies related to neutrality, saying the way the policies are applied creates a left-wing or "establishment point of view". He objects to the way the neutrality policy discourages "false balance", calling that journalistic term for when perspectives are given equal weight when the evidence is not equal an "utterly bankrupt canard". Since 2020, Larry Sanger has written and appeared more frequently on the subject of political bias, citing a number of examples for what he views as liberal bias, such as that Wikipedia characterizes some statements by Donald Trump as false or that the article on Joe Biden does not sufficiently reflect "the concerns that Republicans have had about him". Because of these perceived biases, Sanger views Wikipedia as untrustworthy.

I thought about just adding this to the article, but figured post it here first. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 13:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Too long, we need one or two lines, leave the details about his business ventures, co-founding etc to his article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, @Rhododendrites I think his WP:DUE-ness is limited to 1 or 2 sentences at most. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 14:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily disagree. This is If we're going to have a whole subsection. It's also respecting the various calls for context. Sanger didn't start talking about bias on Wikipedia in 2020 -- that's just when conservative media began picking it up with more regularity. The liberal bias claims are mostly about his view of neutrality (plus "mob rule"), and there are more sources which talk about Sanger's criticism of how Wikipedia's neutrality policy is applied and the bias it creates than him talking about "liberal bias". This isn't the "political bias on Wikipedia" article, after all, so I don't agree with just saying "Sanger said the site has a liberal bias" without explaining the context (which is in the sources) for how he arrives at that position. Maybe that doesn't need to include Citizendium/Everipedia, granted. Of course, we could also do what Firefangledfeathers suggested in the RfC, and basically list a bunch of people who say Wikipedia has a liberal bias without going into detail, but that would sit awkwardly next to the Conservapedia and Infogalactic sections. Here's a trimmed version (same sources as above):
 * Larry Sanger has been critical of Wikipedia since leaving the project in its infancy. He has been vocal in his view that Wikipedia's policies related to neutrality, such as discouraging false balance, create an "establishment point of view". For example, in 2015 he signed on to a petition to Jimmy Wales arguing to treat alternative medicine like energy psychology, energy medicine, and acupuncture more favorably. He has also cited a number of examples for what he views as liberal bias, such as that Wikipedia characterizes some statements by Donald Trump as false or that the article on Joe Biden does not sufficiently reflect "the concerns that Republicans have had about him".
 * &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 14:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The article is about ideological bias in Wikipedia. It should contain the most intelligent and credible stuff available from Sanger's arguments regarding ideological bias. Or, if we to do as Sanger alleges we do, we would instead select whatever he said that sounds the worst. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Specific proposals welcome. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More to the point: at least in terms of neutrality, we do what he alleges we do. He doesn't approve of our policies on neutrality, fringe theories, etc. The distinction is what we define as neutral, he defines as biased. Yeah, we say there isn't evidence for energy healing, we don't put fringe ideas on par with established ones, we do say that Trump has lied, we don't try to ensure all sides or both major political parties get equal weight if it's not reflected in reliable sources, we do prioritize descriptive language and mainstream medical sources on abortion topics over what activists say, etc. To anyone who thinks that makes us biased, Sanger's opinion will have resonance. (None of this is to say he doesn't sometimes find examples of when we fail our own neutrality policy, but he's pointing them out because they fail his version of neutrality). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 15:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is, if we do have more than one line, (say "sanger has criticized what he perceives as Wikipedia's ideological bias") we do need context as to what he think sit is based about, as well as they face he has in fact set up rivals (and thus has a COI).  Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This is looking pretty hopeless. I think I'm going to spend my wiki-minutes elsewhere. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC) The source does not say that Sanger signed onto the petition and does not attribute the defence of alt-medicine to Sanger since it isn't in quotes. I've removed the mistake from the proposed paragraph. X-Editor (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. It looks like I did rather terribly misread part of that source. Thanks for catching. Will follow up in more detail when I have time later. Striking most recent draft in the meantime. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually made the same mistake on Sanger's own page, but it was pointed out by Philip Cross. You're welcome! X-Editor (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * None of the proffered sources are suitable. Fox is out, because we're talking about bias on the American political spectrum; UnHerd is a random podcast (recent interview: "Bret Weinstein &mdash; I will be vindicated on Covid"); the Telegraph item just copies from what Sanger told the website Unheard [sic]; the Independent did likewise. The consensus is apparently that Something Must Be Said, but these are simply not the raw materials to do so in a policy-compliant way. Sanger's older complaints, that Wikipedia was full of "ill-mannered geeks" who gave insufficient deference to expertise, and that "the inmates started running the asylum", were reliably reported ( looks good, and  are perhaps OK). So too was his desire to build an encyclopedia that was not "politically correct" . All of that counts as "ideology", and we have more grounds to write about it here than we do for any of his more recent remarks. This would be entirely in line with the bold bit of the RfC close above, Sanger's criticisms are due for inclusion in some form. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you’re talking about political biases, I actually think that that’s one of Wikipedia’s least-worst problems. [Laughs] It’s really not as bad as the people at, say,            Conservapedia seem to think. I do think that there is a liberal bias on most topics where such a bias is possible, and I think that’s probably a reflection of the fact that, again, the people who work the most on Wikipedia tend to be really comfortable with the most radically egalitarian views. And those people tend to be either liberals or libertarians. &mdash; Larry Sanger, 2010  XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Firefangledfeathers had a really good suggestion in the previous section. "Commentators have alleged some ideological bias, including Larry Sanger, John Stossel, and ..." with citations for each.  It's succinct, and includes the necessary information, without over-balancing it.  Red Fiona (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * UnHerd isn't just a random podcast, it's a news website. According to WP:RSP "There is no consensus on the reliability of Fox News's coverage of politics and science. Use Fox News with caution to verify contentious claims.", meaning that Fox would likely be used on a case-by-case basis. I disagree that Sanger's criticisms should be deemphasized by just grouping him among other commentators, since he is the co-founder of Wikipedia and his criticisms have received far more coverage than that of John Stossel or any others. X-Editor (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also this article from The Sunday Times that is not based off Fox News or Unherd. X-Editor (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

What we have now is about as much as this deserves. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Then maybe we need its current head's response to these claims https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/wikpedia-cofounder-criticizes-socialism-communism-pages-censorship. Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Twitter files
The claims of bias against Wikipedia regarding the initial handling of twitter files and Hunter Bidens laptop leak needs to be reported under claims section. 100.4.105.230 (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you have reliable sources for that, maybe. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

A simple search brings up tens of credible news outlets reporting on the callouts of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.4.105.230 (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Then why can't you list any? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Accusations of Polish Nationalism in Holocaust Coverage
Hi Folks, not an Editor but wanted to ask about developing a section for Polish Language Wikipedia's coverage of the Holocaust: I recently ran into "Wikipedia’s Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust" by Jan Grabowski in the Journal of Holocaust Studies and was wondering if a section could get added discussing article? In short it accuses a number of Polish Wikipedia editors of manipulating various pages to push a pro-polish narrative that equates Polish to Jewish suffering in the holocaust. 65.183.148.96 (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2023 (UTC)


 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 Here's a link to the aritcle, which catalogues various discrepancies between agreed upon numbers from historians and the articles, as well as poor sourcing, referring either to disreputable websites or to academic sources that contradict the claim they are being used to support. In some cases outright fabrications occur with the apparent intent of exonerating polish people in general and certain political figures in particular of antisemitism while also alleging massacres of poles by jews. 65.183.148.96 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * There was a similar case where a group of editors maintained a bogus article about a Nazi concentration camp designed to kill Poles, which was exposed in an article in Haaretz. If the claims in the article you presented are true, then the Arbitration Committee should be informed. I shall read it to see what is actually claimed and whether it can be substantiated.
 * It is not however anything that at this point belongs in the article because of the lack of coverage. As you must appreciate, because Wikipedia has millions of articles, it's possible for a small group of editors to push their viewpoint in a group of articles that have little interest for anyone besides themselves, which happened in the case reported in Haaretz. That doesn't mean that they are reflecting Wikipedia's ideological bias. TFD (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * give it a go. But we will need more than one source. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Grabowski is a highly controversial and politically engaged figure and his opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. There's little evidence to support most of his claims, and there's solid evidence against him. Just publishing a paper is not a reason to treat him as a reputable source. 81.106.228.169 (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry Sanger's Criticism
Hi! @Roxy the dog

I noticed you reverted my recent edit, and I wanted to discuss it with you.

To better clarify, I believe the original sentence had a negative tone towards Sanger's criticism by linking it specifically to his departure from the project as an editorial employee. I proposed a more neutral wording that simply stated Sanger's status as a critic of Wikipedia since his departure from the project, without implying that his criticism was unwarranted based on the circumstances of his departure. I failed to make that clear in my original edit summary, so I'm clearing it up now. My mistake for not doing so at first.

My proposed change is:

The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has been a critic of Wikipedia since his departure from the project as an editorial employee in 2002.

as opposed to:

The co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has been a critic of Wikipedia ever since he was laid off as the only editorial employee and departed from the project in 2002.

Looking to hearing your thoughts on it, thanks! KyKatriza (talk) 10:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with the proposed change because the current wording wrongly implies that the reason for his criticism of Wikipedia was his departure when it is more likely that his differences contributed to the reasons he left.
 * It seems that Sanger disagreed with changes to NPOV policy, because it meant less weight for conservative and libertarian views. So his disagreements go back before his departure.
 * Of course there are valid arguments against Sanger's position. But it's better to state them than to dismiss them on the basis of his history with Wikipedia. TFD (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Now I'm curious! TFD, in what way did "changes to NPOV policy... meant less weight for conservative and libertarian views"? -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 12:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just chipping in, but this seems to be going off-topic. KyKatriza (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Current WP:NPOV policy says that views published by reliable sources should be represented "proportionately," while the original policy said "competing views" should be represented "sympathically" and without asserting any one of them as being correct." There was also an example about how the range of views on drug differed between countries.
 * The reality is that expert opinion is more progressive than any of the views currently associated with conservative, libertarian and even liberal politicians. Using the current policy, an article would not treat each the same, because the conservative view in particular has little or no support in the literature. TFD (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * In other words: Since progressives tend to have more expertise (on average) while conservatives tend to be ignorant loudmouths (on average), any quality restrictions will lead to favoring progressive positions (on average). Makes sense. I don't understand why pointing that out is supposed to be "criticism". --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "while conservatives tend to be ignorant loudmouths" Wishful thinking. Their worldview often depends on some type of bigotry or fanaticism, instead of actual ignorance. Dimadick (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Take the example of man made climate change. An article could treat this as a given, since it has scientific consensus. Or it could present this as one valid view and climate change denial as another. The argument for the second position is that it is neutral to different viewpoints and allows the reader to decide. Some media take this approach when they present "both sides" of a story.
 * There are different ways in which WEIGHT could be formulated. For many reasons, I would not want to see Wikipedia adopt Sanger's version. But there is nothing internally contradictory about it. TFD (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * expert opinion is more progressive than any of the views currently associated with conservative, libertarian and even liberal politicians This is mathematically equivalent with "progressives are on average more knowledgeable as [the other positions named]". That was essentially my rewording.
 * Well, the Sanger ship has sailed (and then it sunk several times). Maybe you should edit on Sanger's projects instead of here.
 * Can we stop this? This is not a forum, and it is not for discussing basic Wikipedia policies such as its adherence to quality sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The current one certainly is problematic. It implies cause/effect, that "laid off" was the motivation of ~21 years of subsequent criticism and that no criticism occurred prior to that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Consider two things. No criticism occurred prior to that, because there was nothing to criticise.
 * in those 21 years, Sanger has demonstrated no expertise in this field, and has convinced few that his interpretation of the Truth (TM) as he sees it hasn’t caught on. Roxy the dog 11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a valid point, do any RS make the connection? Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * General comment. Looks like we feel the wording needs changing carefully. I just feel that 21 years later, having gained no traction, what ‘co founder’ Sanger says deserves no more weight than a sparrows fart. Note scare quotes attempted on iPad. Roxy the dog 12:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not really.
 * ...Wikipedia and Sanger were inundated with new users, some of them trolls, who plagued Sanger with "edit wars" and resisted input from experts. In 2002, Sanger left Wikipedia and became an outspoken critic of the site, criticizing its quality and the disregard many users displayed for experts. Vice News
 * If any assumption/correlation is to be made from the reasoning for his criticism, it's his previous frustrations endured while being co-founder, not an implied personal grudge from being "laid off" or fired. (In fact, none of the sources stated that he was "fired" or "laid off", they said he "left", implying a voluntary action (which the current wording seems to imply against), if anything is to be drawn from that) The sentence definitely needs rewording; and I believe the proposed change is a good place to start. KyKatriza (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I probably wrote too short. The sentence has these implied statements and the question is there strong BLP grade sourcing for them: Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Implied cause effect,that the 21 years of criticism was due to leaving/laid off
 * That his criticism is disingenuous, it's because he left rather than for other reasons such as feeling that the criticism is valid/needed
 * That it started (=did not occur before) his leaving/laying off


 * The Vice source says "In 2002, Sanger left Wikipedia and became an outspoken critic of the site, criticizing its quality and the disregard many users displayed for experts." The Australian says "Mr Sanger parted ways with Wikipedia in 2002 and became a vociferous critic of its accuracy." I feel those are sufficient to support the current content. Are there sources that discuss his criticism prior to 2002? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:15, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually those two are better wording. They more accurately describe the situation that what the current wording implies.  <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think either source or the article text make the implied claims you're seeing, except the last one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does the book source, which I don't have access to, mention a layoff? That's the only thing I've seen that stands out as possibly an issue. I also haven't done a wider source search to see how the weight of sources refer to his leaving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. "In February of that year, facing declining revenue from its other ventures, Womis was forced to lay off Wikipedia's sole staffer, Larry Sanger." 2002 was "that year". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The co-founder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger, has been critical of Wikipedia since his departure from the project in 2002. He was laid off from his position as editor-in-chief, the only paid position at Wikipedia, due to declining revenues at Bomis, which owned Wikipedia at the time. Adds context to the layoff to dissuade the association of the layoff being the cause of the criticism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:43, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Larry Sanger article says Bomis made the decision to stop funding Sanger's job and he was laid off in February 2002 after the company lost a grant in the Dot-com crash and he resigned as editor-in-chief of Nupedia and chief organizer of Wikipedia on March 1. One of the sources for that is from another book: "In February 2002 Larry Sanger was laid off because Bomis was not generating the income it had before, but he stayed on in volunteer mode on the chance that the paid position could be revived" Mojoworker (talk) 05:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like good factual information and description. It would be irrelevant for this article except to provide more information to offset the current problematic implied cause-effect that his points about Wikipedia are motivated by what is described only as a "layoff".  Sincerely, ~!<b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk)
 * that seems consistent with your proposed wording, Mojoworker (talk) 06:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those sources describe some of his complaints and the targets of his complaints which I think more accurately describes the motivation of his complaints. The current word is missing that, adds in the "lay off" and implies that the leaving/layoff is the motivation/cause of him making the complaints. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's an easy to solve that.....word it more like those sources said. <b style="color: #0000cc;">North8000</b> (talk) 20:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)