Ideological bias on Wikipedia#Claims in the media about Wikipedia's ideological bias

On Wikipedia, ideological bias, especially in its English-language edition, has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project. Questions relate to whether its content is biased on selective sources due to the political, religious, or other ideologies its volunteer editors may adhere to. These all draw concerns as to the possible effects this may have on the encyclopedia's reliability.{{cite magazine |last1=Fitts |first1=Alexis Sobel |title=Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right |url=https://www.wired.com/story/welcome-to-the-wikipedia-of-the-alt-right/ |access-date=June 1, 2018 |magazine=Wired |date=June 21, 2017 |department=Backchannel |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180117131122/https://www.wired.com/story/welcome-to-the-wikipedia-of-the-alt-right/ |archive-date=January 17, 2018 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Burnsed |first1=Brian |title=Wikipedia Gradually Accepted in College Classrooms |url=https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms |access-date=June 2, 2018 |work=U.S. News & World Report |date=June 20, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612212951/https://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2011/06/20/wikipedia-gradually-accepted-in-college-classrooms |archive-date=June 12, 2018 |url-status=live}}

Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which has the goal of representing fairly, proportionately, and without bias, the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic.{{cite book |author1=Joseph M. Reagle Jr. |author-link1=Joseph M. Reagle Jr. |title=Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia |date=2010 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-01447-2 |pages=11, 55–58 |lccn=2009052779}}

Collectively, findings show that Wikipedia articles edited by large numbers of editors with opposing ideological views are at least as neutral as other similar sources, but articles with smaller edit volumes by fewer—or more ideologically homogeneous—contributors are more likely to reflect the editorial bias of those contributing.{{cite journal |last1=Greenstein |first1=Shane |author-link1=Shane Greenstein |last2=Gu |first2=Yuan |last3=Zhu |first3=Feng |title=Ideological segregation among online collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians |journal=National Bureau of Economic Research |date=March 2017 |orig-year=October 2016 |doi=10.3386/w22744 |doi-access=free}}{{Cite journal |last1=Holtz |first1=Peter |last2=Kimmerle |first2=Joachim |last3=Cress |first3=Ulrike |date=October 23, 2018 |title=Using big data techniques for measuring productive friction in mass collaboration online environments |journal=International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning |volume=13 |issue=4 |pages=439–456 |doi=10.1007/s11412-018-9285-y |s2cid=54459581 |doi-access=free}}

State of research

= Articles related to U.S. politics =

Research shows that Wikipedia is prone to neutrality violations caused by bias from its editors, including systemic bias.{{cite book |last1=Yan |first1=Hao |last2=Das |first2=Sanmay |last3=Lavoie |first3=Allen |last4=Li |first4=Sirui |last5=Sinclair |first5=Betsy |title=Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation |chapter=The Congressional Classification Challenge |chapter-url=https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3329582 |series=EC '19 |date=2019 |pages=71–89 |doi=10.1145/3328526.3329582 |isbn=9781450367929 |s2cid=146802854}} A comprehensive study conducted on ten different versions of Wikipedia revealed that disputes among editors predominantly arise on the subject of politics, encompassing politicians, political parties, political movements, and ideologies. These political topics accounted for approximately 25% of the disputes observed across all language versions studied.{{Cite book |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |last2=Spoerri |first2=Anselm |last3=Graham |first3=Mark |last4=Kertesz |first4=Janos |date=2014 |chapter=The Most Controversial Topics in Wikipedia: A Multilingual and Geographical Analysis |pages=25 |arxiv=1305.5566 |ssrn=2269392 |s2cid=12133330 |editor-last1=Fichman |editor-first1=P. |editor-last2=Hara |editor-first2=N. |title=Global Wikipedia: International and Cross-cultural Issues in Online Collaboration |location=Lanham |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |doi= |isbn=978-0-8108-9101-2}}

A 2012 study by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu of the Harvard Business School examined a sample of 28,382 articles related to U.S. politics as of January 2011, measuring their degree of bias on a "slant index" based on a method developed by Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro in 2010, to measure bias in newspaper media.{{cite journal |last1=Gentzkow |first1=M |last2=Shapiro |first2=J. M. |author-link1=Matthew Gentzkow |author-link2=Jesse M. Shapiro |title=What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers |journal=Econometrica |date=January 2010 |volume=78 |issue=1 |pages=35–71 |doi=10.3982/ECTA7195 |url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf |access-date=June 4, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190314151529/https://www.nber.org/papers/w12707.pdf |archive-date=March 14, 2019 |url-status=live}} This slant index purports to measure an ideological lean toward either the Democratic or Republican parties, based on key phrases within the text such as "war in Iraq", "civil rights", "trade deficit", "economic growth", "illegal immigration" and "border security". Each phrase is assigned a slant index based on how often it is used by Democratic or Republican members of U.S. Congress. This lean rating is assigned to a Wikipedia contribution that includes the same key phrase. The authors concluded that older Wikipedia articles were mostly biased to the left, although recent articles are more neutral. They suggest that articles did not change their bias significantly due to revision, but rather that over time newer articles with contrasting viewpoints played a role in rebalancing the average perspectives among the entries.{{cite journal |last1=Greenstein |first1=Shane |last2=Zhu |first2=Feng |author-link1=Shane Greenstein |title=Is Wikipedia Biased? |journal=American Economic Review |date=May 2012 |volume=102 |issue=3 |pages=343–348 |doi=10.1257/aer.102.3.343 |s2cid=15747824}}{{cite journal |arxiv=1712.06414 |doi=10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6 |pmid=30971793 |title=The wisdom of polarized crowds |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=329–336 |year=2019 |last1=Shi |first1=Feng |last2=Teplitskiy |first2=Misha |last3=Duede |first3=Eamon |last4=Evans |first4=James A. |s2cid=8947252}}{{rp|4–5}}

In a subsequent study, the same researchers compared about 4,000 Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics (written by an online community) with the corresponding articles in Encyclopædia Britannica (written by experts) using similar methods as their 2010 study to measure "slant" (Democratic vs. Republican) and to quantify the degree of bias. The authors found that "Wikipedia articles are more slanted towards Democratic views than are Britannica articles, as well as more biased", particularly those focusing on civil rights, corporations, and government. Entries about immigration trended toward Republican. They further found that "[t]he difference in bias between a pair of articles decreases with more revisions" and, when articles were substantially revised, the difference in bias compared to Britannica was statistically negligible. The implication, per the authors, is that "many contributions are needed to reduce considerable bias and slant to something close to neutral".{{cite journal |last1=Greenstein |first1=Shane |last2=Zhu |first2=Feng |author-link1=Shane Greenstein |title=Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write with More Bias? Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia |journal=MIS Quarterly |date=September 2018 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=945–959 |doi=10.25300/MISQ/2018/14084 |s2cid=44151904 |url=http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41946110}}Blandling, M. (January 19, 2015). Is Wikipedia More Biased Than Encyclopædia Britannica? Working Knowledge. Harvard Business School. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/is-wikipedia-more-biased-than-encyclopdia-britannica

A study published in 2015 focusing on the English edition of Wikipedia examined the removal of positive or negative information in biographies of U.S. senators. The researchers introduced positive and negative content, sourced from reliable references, into the biographical entries of U.S. senators. Their findings revealed that negative content was more likely to be removed and were removed at a faster rate compared to positive content. The researchers concluded that a significant editorial bias exists in Wikipedia entries related to current U.S. senators. However, when a similar test was conducted on the Wikipedia pages of recently retired and deceased senators, the same discrepancy in the removal of positive and negative content was not observed. This suggests that the bias identified is specific to the pages of active politicians and does not indicate a systemic issue within Wikipedia. The authors concluded that information generated through collaborative projects such as Wikipedia may be susceptible to an editorial bias that favors politically active individuals.{{Cite journal |last1=Kalla |first1=Joshua L. |last2=Aronow |first2=Peter M. |date=September 2, 2015 |title=Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information |journal=PLOS One |volume=10 |issue=9 |pages=e0136327 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0136327 |pmid=26331611 |pmc=4558055 |bibcode=2015PLoSO..1036327K |doi-access=free}}

In a 2017 report from Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Wikipedia was identified as a center-right website in the study's "candidate valence" scale, which used the political orientation of Twitter users who shared content from the website to indicate the website's political lean throughout the 2016 U.S. elections. Wikipedia was one of only three websites identified as center-right by the report, the other two websites being RealClearPolitics and National Review.{{Cite journal |last1=Faris |first1=Robert M. |last2=Roberts |first2=Hal |last3=Etling |first3=Bruce |last4=Bourassa |first4=Nikki |last5=Zuckerman |first5=Ethan |last6=Benkler |first6=Yochai |date=2017 |title=Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election |url=https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |journal=Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society |language=en-US |issn=3375-9251 |via=Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard |archive-date=October 23, 2022 |access-date=January 22, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221023001249/https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/33759251 |url-status=live }}

A 2023 study compared articles on controversial topics across multiple community-managed wikis: the study intended to test whether the policy orientation of a collaborative wiki project would produce a slant in the content, by selecting the crowd of contributors. The findings showed that the content of wikis with explicit ideological biases, such as RationalWiki and Conservapedia, is more unbalanced than that of wikis (such as Wikipedia) or encyclopedias (such as Encyclopedia Britannica) advocating neutrality. Wikipedia's content had no significantly bigger slant than that of Britannica, while both RationalWiki and Conservapedia were "more loaded with moral content".{{cite journal |last1=Krebs |first1=Marie-Christin |last2=Oeberst |first2=Aileen |last3=von der Beck |first3=Ina |date=April 22, 2023 |title=The Wisdom of the Crowd is not a Forgone Conclusion. Effects of Self-Selection on (Collaborative) Knowledge Construction |journal=Topics in Cognitive Science |volume=16 |issue=2 |pages=206–224 |doi=10.1111/tops.12647 |pmid=37086058 |s2cid=258276697 |doi-access=free}}

= User collaboration =

A study conducted in 2013 focused on users who openly declared their support for either the US Democratic or Republican parties. The research indicated that these users tended to contribute more frequently to voices aligning with their own political orientation. However, they did not exhibit polarized editing behavior, as they were not inclined to avoid collaboration with political opponents while also not showing a preference for collaboration exclusively with allies. The authors proposed that the shared identity of being a Wikipedian might outweigh potentially divisive aspects of personal identity, such as political affiliation. This finding distinguishes Wikipedia from other social platforms, such as Twitter and blogs, where users often exhibit strong polarization by predominantly interacting with users who share similar political orientations. In contrast, Wikipedia can be characterized as a platform where users display a higher degree of interaction across political orientations, akin to forums and similar platforms.{{Cite journal |last1=Neff |first1=Jessica J. |last2=Laniado |first2=David |last3=Kappler |first3=Karolin E. |last4=Volkovich |first4=Yana |last5=Aragón |first5=Pablo |last6=Kaltenbrunner |first6=Andreas |date=2013 |title=Jointly They Edit: Examining the Impact of Community Identification on Political Interaction in Wikipedia |journal=PLOS One |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=e60584 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0060584 |pmid=23573269 |pmc=3616028 |arxiv=1210.6883 |bibcode=2013PLoSO...860584N |doi-access=free}}

In a 2016 working paper focusing on the English Wikipedia, researchers investigated the behavior of users who contribute to articles related to US politics. Building upon the terminology introduced in their previous article from 2012, Greenstein, Zhu, and Yuan Gu found that editors are slightly more likely to contribute to articles with an opposite slant to their own—a tendency that the authors called opposites attract. They further found that debates on Wikipedia tend to exhibit a "prevalence of unsegregated conversations over time", meaning that the debates on Wikipedia tend to involve editors of differing views—which the authors called unsegregated—as opposed to debates involving only editors with homogeneous views (segregated). They also found that the degree of editor bias decreases over time and experience, and decreases faster for editors involved in very slanted material: "[t]he largest declines are found among contributors who edit or add content to articles that have more biases." They also estimated that, on average, it takes about one year longer for Republican material to reach a neutral viewpoint than for Democratic material.

A study published in 2019, conducted among American users of the English version, produced similar findings. The study highlighted a significant political orientation bias among users contributing to political topics, finding a trend that the more edits made to an entry, the more balanced the average political orientation of the contributing users becomes. The study also indicated that the quality of articles, as recognized by the Wikipedia community, improves as the diversity of political orientation among contributors increases. User groups composed of politically polarized individuals generally produce better articles, on average, compared to groups consisting of highly politically aligned users or even moderates. Positive effects of polarization were observed not only in articles related to politics but also in those concerning social issues and even science. Politically polarized groups engage in frequent disagreements, stimulating focused debates that result in higher quality, more robust, and comprehensive edits. However, these findings are subject to limitations. The contributors who participated may suffer a self-selection bias, which can influence outcomes.{{Cite journal |last1=Shi |first1=Feng |last2=Teplitskiy |first2=Misha |last3=Duede |first3=Eamon |last4=Evans |first4=James A. |date=March 4, 2019 |title=The wisdom of polarized crowds |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6 |journal=Nature Human Behaviour |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=329–336 |doi=10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6 |pmid=30971793 |arxiv=1712.06414 |s2cid=256704289}}{{Cite journal |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |last2=Menczer |first2=Filippo |date=2021 |title=Can the Wikipedia moderation model rescue the social marketplace of ideas? |journal=Communications of the ACM |volume=66 |issue=9 |pages=42–45 |doi=10.1145/3578645 |arxiv=2104.13754 |s2cid=233423271}}

In a 2012 study focusing on edit wars within Wikipedia, it was suggested that consensus can often be reached within a reasonable timeframe, even in controversial articles. The conflicts that tend to prolong these edit wars are primarily driven by the influx of new users. It was observed that most edit wars are carried out by a small number of users who are frequently engaged in conflicts, despite their low overall productivity. In these debates, resolution is often reached not based on the merits of the arguments but rather due to external intervention, exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group over the other.{{Cite journal |last1=Yasseri |first1=Taha |last2=Sumi |first2=Robert |last3=Rung |first3=András |last4=Kornai |first4=András |last5=Kertész |first5=János |date=June 20, 2012 |title=Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia |journal=PLOS One |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=e38869 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0038869 |pmid=22745683 |pmc=3380063 |arxiv=1202.3643 |bibcode=2012PLoSO...738869Y |doi-access=free}}

Drawing from experimental research findings, Holtz et al. proposed a theoretical model of knowledge production in Wikipedia, employing the concept of "productive friction". This model posits that a certain level of interpretative conflict within a group is necessary for the collective process to generate knowledge. The model draws an analogy to the socio-cognitive conflict model used in psychology to elucidate individual learning. According to this hypothesis, if the tensions or friction within a group are too low, the potential for knowledge construction becomes limited since the existing knowledge is deemed sufficient to address the problem at hand. Conversely, if the friction within a community of contributors becomes excessively high, it can lead to the dismissal of respective ideas or even the division of the group, similar to how an individual may struggle to adapt and learn when confronted with an overwhelming amount of novelty.

Another study found that a majority of editors on the French Wikipedia had a propensity to share equally in a dictator game. This propensity was correlated with their involvement on Wikipedia (as measured by the time spent and attachment).{{cite journal |last1=Nguyen |first1=Godefroy Dang |first2=Sylvain |last2=Dejean |first3=Nicolas |last3=Jullien |title=Do open online projects create social norms? |journal=Journal of Institutional Economics |date=February 2018 |volume=14 |issue=1 |pages=45–70 |doi=10.1017/S1744137417000182 |s2cid=91179798 |url=https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01547505/file/JOIE%20VF.pdf |access-date=August 27, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190827160217/https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01547505/file/JOIE%2520VF.pdf |archive-date=August 27, 2019 |url-status=live}}

Media reporting

In 2016, Bloomberg News stated, "The encyclopedia's reliance on outside sources, primarily newspapers, means it will be only as diverse as the rest of the media—which is to say, not very."{{cite web |first1=Dimitra |last1=Kessenides |first2=Max |last2=Chafkin |date=December 22, 2016 |title=Is Wikipedia Woke? |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool |access-date=November 23, 2019 |website=Bloomberg News |archive-date=September 23, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170923001045/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-12-22/how-woke-is-wikipedia-s-editorial-pool |url-status=live }} In 2017, Wired magazine noted on article featuring views on alternative of Wikipedia as follows;

{{Blockquote|text="It's true that the reach and impact of right-wing encyclopedias like Infogalactic and Metapedia remains muted, for now. Yet their mere existence is a sign that the appeal of a centralized forum for hashing out the truth is fading. Wikipedia might find that its days at the top are numbered."|author=|title=Welcome to the Wikipedia of the Alt-Right|source=Wired, 21 June 2017}}

In 2018, Haaretz noted "Wikipedia has succeeded in being accused of being both too liberal and too conservative, and has critics from across the spectrum", while also noting that Wikipedia is "usually accused of being too liberal".{{Cite news |last=Benjakob |first=Omer |date=May 27, 2018 |title=The Witch Hunt Against a 'pro-Israel' Wikipedia Editor |language=en |work=Haaretz |url=https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/russian-and-leftists-witch-hunt-against-pro-israel-wikipedia-editor-1.6115917 |access-date=March 16, 2022}}

In 2020, The Critic, a British conservative magazine, published an article by two pseudonymous American academics which stated that discussions on Wikipedia's reliable sources noticeboard have resulted in the deprecation of a greater number of right-leaning sources than left-leaning sources. The authors asserted that Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee sanctions more right-leaning editors than left-leaning editors on four of approximately thirty contentious topics, and claimed that Wikipedia editors and the Wikimedia Foundation only recognize "one acceptable opinion" on these topics.{{Cite web |title=The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia |date=October 22, 2020 |first1=Shuichi |last1=Tezuka |first2=Linda A. |last2=Ashtear |website=The Critic |url=https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ |access-date=January 18, 2025 |archive-date=January 20, 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250120064048/https://thecritic.co.uk/the-left-wing-bias-of-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }}

CNN suggested in 2022 that Wikipedia's ideological bias "may match the ideological bias of the news ecosystem".{{Cite web |last=Kelly |first=Samantha Murphy |date=May 20, 2022 |title=Meet the Wikipedia editor who published the Buffalo shooting entry minutes after it started |url=https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html |access-date=May 24, 2022 |website=CNN |archive-date=October 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221012001310/https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/20/tech/wikipedia-editors-breaking-news/index.html |url-status=live }} The Boston Globe opined, "A Wikipedia editor's interest in an article sprouts from their values and opinions, and their contributions are filtered through their general interpretation of reality. Edict or no, a neutral point of view is impossible. Not even a Wikipedia editor can transcend that."{{Cite web |last=Cammack |first=Shaun |date=July 8, 2022 |title=I quit Twitter and discovered Wikipedia's righteous, opinionated, utterly absorbing battles over The Truth |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/07/08/opinion/i-quit-twitter-now-i-browse-edit-wars-wikipedia/ |access-date=July 19, 2022 |website=The Boston Globe |language=en-US}} Slate, in a 2022 article, stated "Right-wing commentators have grumbled about [Wikipedia]'s purported left-wing bias for years, but they have been unable to offer a viable alternative encyclopedia option: A conservative version of Wikipedia, Conservapedia, has long floundered with minimal readership", while also noting that conservatives "have not generally attacked Wikipedia as extensively" as other media sources.{{Cite web |last=Breslow |first=Samuel |date=August 11, 2022 |title=How a False Claim About Wikipedia Sparked a Right-Wing Media Frenzy |url=https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/wikipedia-recession-article.html |access-date=August 12, 2022 |website=Slate |language=en |archive-date=January 22, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230122103526/https://slate.com/technology/2022/08/wikipedia-recession-article.html |url-status=live }} Also in 2022, Vice News reported, "Researchers have found that Wikipedia has a slight Democratic bias on issues of US politics because many of Wikipedia's editors are international, and the average country has views that are to the left of the Democratic party on issues such as healthcare, climate change, corporate power, capitalism, etc."{{Cite web |last1=Koebler |first1=Jason |last2=Jr |first2=Edward Ongweso |date=December 8, 2022 |title=We Are Watching Elon Musk and His Fans Create a Conspiracy Theory About Wikipedia in Real Time |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/we-are-watching-elon-musk-and-his-fans-create-a-conspiracy-theory-about-wikipedia-in-real-time/ |access-date=July 3, 2023 |website=Vice Media |language=en |archive-date=May 9, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230509185345/https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjk5j7/we-are-watching-elon-musk-and-his-fans-create-a-conspiracy-theory-about-wikipedia-in-real-time |url-status=live }}

Responses

= Larry Sanger =

Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, has been critical of Wikipedia since he was laid off as the only editorial employee and departed from the project in 2002.{{cite book |last1=Duval |first1=Jared |title=Next Generation Democracy: What the Open-Source Revolution Means for Power, Politics, and Change |date=November 14, 2010 |publisher=Bloomsbury Publishing USA |isbn=978-1-60819-484-1 |page=80 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UGf-3WVIiTYC |access-date=August 7, 2022 |language=en}}{{cite news |last=Schwartz |first=Zach |date=November 11, 2015 |title=Wikipedia's Co-Founder Is Wikipedia's Most Outspoken Critic |work=Vice |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151114004055/http://www.vice.com/read/wikipedias-co-founder-is-wikipedias-biggest-critic-511 |archive-date=November 14, 2015}}{{cite news |date=October 19, 2006 |title=Wikipedia founder sets up rival |work=The Australian |agency=Agence France-Presse |url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it-old/wikipedia-founder-sets-up-rival/story-e6frgamx-1111112381852 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140808154706/http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it-old/wikipedia-founder-sets-up-rival/story-e6frgamx-1111112381852 |archive-date=August 8, 2014}} He went on to found and work for competitors to Wikipedia, including Citizendium and Everipedia. Among other criticisms, Sanger has been vocal in his view that Wikipedia's articles present a left-wing and liberal or "establishment point of view".{{Cite news |last=Sabur |first=Rozina |date=July 16, 2021 |title=The Left has taken over Wikipedia and stripped it of neutrality, says co-creator |language=en-GB |work=The Daily Telegraph |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/16/wikipedia-dominated-left-wing-establishment-version-truth-co/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription |access-date=December 2, 2021 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220112/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2021/07/16/wikipedia-dominated-left-wing-establishment-version-truth-co/ |archive-date=January 12, 2022 |quote=Mr Sanger added that "very little" reference to scandals and allegations against the Bidens, for instance relating to their business dealings in Ukraine, could be found on Wikipedia.}}{{cbignore}}{{Cite news |last=Spence |first=Madeleine |date=August 1, 2021 |title=Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Wikipedia — and I helped to invent it' |language=en |work=The Sunday Times |location=London |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/wales/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx |url-status=live |access-date=August 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210801095207/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx |archive-date=August 1, 2021}} Sanger has cited a number of examples for what he views as left-wing and liberal bias, such as that "Drug legalisation, dubbed drug liberalisation by Wikipedia, has only a little information about any potential hazards of drug legalisation policies" and that the Wikipedia article on Joe Biden does not sufficiently reflect "the concerns that Republicans have had about him" or the Ukraine allegations.{{Cite web |last=Aggarwal |first=Mayank |date=July 16, 2021 |title=Nobody should trust Wikipedia, says man who invented Wikipedia |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html |access-date=September 17, 2021 |work=The Independent |quote=He argued that there should be at least a paragraph about the Ukraine scandal but there is very little of that. |archive-date=July 16, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210716075947/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/wikipedia-founder-larry-sanger-democrats-b1885138.html |url-status=live }} Because of these perceived biases, Sanger views Wikipedia as untrustworthy. He has also accused Wikipedia of abandoning its neutrality policy (neutral point of view).{{cite news |last=Harrison |first=Stephen |date=June 9, 2020 |title=How Wikipedia Became a Battleground for Racial Justice |work=Slate |url=https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html |access-date=August 17, 2021 |archive-date=February 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230210114545/https://slate.com/technology/2020/06/wikipedia-george-floyd-neutrality.html |url-status=live }}

Researchers{{cite journal |last=Steinsson |first=Sverrir |title=Rule Ambiguity, Institutional Clashes, and Population Loss: How Wikipedia Became the Last Good Place on the Internet |journal=American Political Science Review |date=March 9, 2023 |volume=118 |doi=10.1017/s0003055423000138 |pages=235–251}} have analyzed the biases of Wikipedia's editors and how some changes at Wikipedia, including how "Pro-Fringe" editors tend to leave the project, have improved its credibility. These changes include improvements to the NPOV policy. They also noted that Sanger does not like those changes:

{{blockquote| The English Wikipedia transformed its content over time through a gradual reinterpretation of its ambiguous Neutral Point of View (NPOV) guideline, the core rule regarding content on Wikipedia. This had meaningful consequences, turning an organization that used to lend credence and false balance to pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and extremism into a proactive debunker, fact-checker and identifier of fringe discourse....

Furthermore, the founders of Wikipedia have not intervened to cause new interpretations of the guidelines among the userbase. Sanger, who crafted the core NPOV rule, has condemned the interpretations of the guideline that emerged over time.}}

In 2021, Wikipedia denied accusations made by Larry Sanger 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."{{Cite news |last=Spence |first=Madeleine |date=August 1, 2021 |title=Larry Sanger: 'I wouldn't trust Wikipedia — and I helped to invent it' |language=en |work=The Sunday Times |url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/wales/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx |url-status=live |access-date=August 1, 2021 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20210801095207/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/larry-sanger-i-wouldnt-trust-wikipedia-and-i-helped-to-invent-it-cflrhmdhx |archive-date=August 1, 2021}}

= Conservapedia =

American lawyer and Christian conservative activist Andrew Schlafly founded an online encyclopedia named Conservapedia in 2006 to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.{{cite news |last1=Johnson |first1=Bobbie |date=March 1, 2007 |title=Rightwing website challenges 'liberal bias' of Wikipedia |work=The Guardian |url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/01/wikipedia.news |url-status=live |access-date=June 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180616103440/https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/mar/01/wikipedia.news |archive-date=June 16, 2018}} Conservapedia's editors have compiled a list of alleged examples of liberal bias on Wikipedia, including assertions it is "anti-American", "anti-Christian" and "anti-capitalism".{{Cite news |last=Turner |first=Adam |date=March 5, 2007 |title=Conservapedia aims to set Wikipedia right |work=IT Wire |url=http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/seeking-nerdvana/10160-conservapedia-aims-to-set-wikipedia-right |url-status=live |access-date=May 12, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120331030927/http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/seeking-nerdvana/10160-conservapedia-aims-to-set-wikipedia-right |archive-date=March 31, 2012}}

= Jimmy Wales =

In 2006, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales said:

{{blockquote| The Wikipedia community is very diverse, from liberal to conservative to libertarian and beyond. If averages mattered, and due to the nature of the wiki software (no voting) they almost certainly don't, I would say that the Wikipedia community is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population on average, because we are global and the international community of English speakers is slightly more liberal than the U.S. population. There are no data or surveys to back that.{{cite web |author=Glaser, Mark |date=April 21, 2006 |title=Email Debate: Wales Discusses Political Bias on Wikipedia |url=http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151005222950/http://mediashift.org/2006/04/email-debatewales-discusses-political-bias-on-wikipedia111/ |archive-date=October 5, 2015 |access-date=August 30, 2015 |work=Mediashift}}}}

In 2007, Wales said that claims of liberal bias on Wikipedia "are not supported by the facts".{{Cite news |first=Andrew |last=Chung |date=March 11, 2007 |title=Conservative wants to set Wikipedia right |language=en-CA |work=The Toronto Star |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2007/03/11/conservative_wants_to_set_wikipedia_right.html |access-date=December 16, 2021 |archive-date=July 8, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180708191521/https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2007/03/11/conservative_wants_to_set_wikipedia_right.html |url-status=live }}

During the Gamergate controversy in 2014, in response to an email from a computer science student claiming that Wikipedia has a "complete lack of any sort of attempt at neutrality regarding Gamergate", Wales allegedly wrote, "It is very difficult for me to buy into the notion that gamergate is 'really about ethics in journalism' when every single experience I have personally had with it involved pro-gg people insulting, threatening, doxxing, etc.", and that the movement "has been permanently tarnished and highjacked [sic] by a handful of people who are not what you would hope".{{Cite web |last=Van Winkle |first=Dan |date=December 19, 2014 |title=Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales Not Taking Gamergate's Crap |url=https://www.themarysue.com/jimmy-wales-not-taking-gamergate-crap/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303042151/https://www.themarysue.com/jimmy-wales-not-taking-gamergate-crap/ |archive-date=March 3, 2021 |access-date=February 16, 2021 |website=The Mary Sue |language=en}} Wales defended his comments in response to backlash from supporters of Gamergate, saying that, "it isn't about what I believe. Gg is famous for harassment. Stop and think about why."{{Cite web |last=Nissim |first=Mayer |date=December 20, 2014 |title=Jimmy Wales replies to GamerGate criticism |url=http://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/a617618/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-replies-to-gamergate-criticism/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220710195142/https://www.digitalspy.com/videogames/a617618/wikipedias-jimmy-wales-replies-to-gamergate-criticism/ |archive-date=July 10, 2022 |access-date=July 10, 2022 |website=Digital Spy |language=en-GB}}

In a 2023 interview with Lex Fridman, when asked if Wikipedia has a left-leaning bias, Wales said that:{{Cite web |last=Fridman |first=Lex |date=June 18, 2023 |title=Transcript for Jimmy Wales: Wikipedia {{!}} Lex Fridman Podcast #385 |url=https://lexfridman.com/jimmy-wales-transcript/ |access-date=June 18, 2023 |website=Lex Fridman |language=en-US |archive-date=October 14, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231014181329/https://lexfridman.com/jimmy-wales-transcript/ |url-status=live }}

{{Blockquote|text=Yeah, so I don't think so, not broadly. And I think you can always point to specific entries and talk about specific biases, but that's part of the process of Wikipedia. Anyone can come and challenge and to go on about that. But I see fairly often on Twitter, some quite extreme accusations of bias. And I think actually I don't see it. I don't buy that. And if you ask people for an example, they normally struggle and depending on who they are and what it's about. So it's certainly true that some people who have quite fringe viewpoints and who knows the full rush of history in 500 years, they might be considered to be pathbreaking geniuses. But at the moment, quite fringe views. And they're just unhappy that Wikipedia doesn't report on their fringe views as being mainstream. And that, by the way, goes across all kinds of fields.}}

Controversies

= Croatian Wikipedia =

From 2011 to 2020,{{cite web |title=Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 – Meta |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021 |access-date=June 14, 2021 |website=Meta Wikimedia |language=en |archive-date=March 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314105125/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021 |url-status=live }} the user-generated editing model of Croatian Wikipedia was co-opted by far-right nationalists who falsified and promoted biased content on a variety of topics: fascism, Serbs of Croatia, as well as the Ustaše and LGBTQ community.{{cite web |date=October 18, 2018 |title=Što nas Wikipedia uči o medijskoj pismenosti: Kako su pali Daily Mail, Breitbart i InfoWars |url=https://faktograf.hr/2018/10/18/sto-nas-wikipedia-uci-o-medijskoj-pismenosti-kako-su-pali-daily-mail-breitbart-i-infowars/ |website=Faktograf.hr |language=hr |access-date=December 19, 2023 |archive-date=March 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190323105652/https://faktograf.hr/2018/10/18/sto-nas-wikipedia-uci-o-medijskoj-pismenosti-kako-su-pali-daily-mail-breitbart-i-infowars/ |url-status=live }} These slanted edits included historical denialism, negating or diluting the severity of crimes, and far-right propaganda.{{cite news |last=Dewey |first=Caitlin |date=August 4, 2014 |title=Men's rights activists think a "hateful" feminist conspiracy is ruining Wikipedia |newspaper=The Washington Post |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/04/mens-rights-activists-think-a-hateful-feminist-conspiracy-is-ruining-wikipedia/ |access-date=April 8, 2020 |archive-date=August 4, 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140804220033/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/04/mens-rights-activists-think-a-hateful-feminist-conspiracy-is-ruining-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }} This group of editors was banned by Wikipedia in 2021{{cite news |last=Krnić |first=Lovro |date=March 16, 2021 |title=Početak kraja Endehapedije |language=hr |newspaper=Novosti |url=https://www.portalnovosti.com/pocetak-kraja-endehapedije |access-date=July 10, 2021 |archive-date=May 1, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220501112018/https://www.portalnovosti.com/pocetak-kraja-endehapedije |url-status=live }} and received negative reception from the Croatian government, media, and historians.{{cite news |last=Jarić Dauenahuer |first=Nenad |date=March 23, 2021 |title=Hrvatska Wikipedija konačno prestaje biti ustaško ruglo |language=hr |work=Index.hr |url=https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-wikipedija-konacno-prestaje-biti-ustasko-ruglo/2262043.aspx |access-date=July 10, 2021 |archive-date=January 6, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220106085030/https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/hrvatska-wikipedija-konacno-prestaje-biti-ustasko-ruglo/2262043.aspx |url-status=live }}{{cite news |date=September 13, 2013 |title=Jovanovićeva poruka učenicima i studentima: Ne koristite hrvatsku Wikipediju! |language=hr |trans-title=Jovanović's message to pupils and students: Don't use Croatian Wikipedia! |work=Index.hr |url=https://www.index.hr/vijesti/clanak/jovanoviceva-poruka-ucenicima-i-studentima-ne-koristite-hrvatsku-wikipediju/700302.aspx |access-date=September 13, 2013}} The small size of the Croatian Wikipedia in 2013 (466 active editors of whom 27 were administrators) was cited as a major factor.{{cite web |title=Croatian Wikipedia Disinformation Assessment-2021 – Meta |url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021 |access-date=June 14, 2021 |website=Meta Wikimedia |language=en |archive-date=March 14, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220314105125/https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021 |url-status=live }} That year, education minister Željko Jovanović advised students not to use Croatian Wikipedia;{{cite web |url=https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ |title=How pro-fascist ideologues are rewriting Croatia's history |last=Sampson |first=Tim |work=The Daily Dot |access-date=May 25, 2018 |date=October 1, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180616103312/https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/ |archive-date=June 16, 2018 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |last1=Penić |first1=Goran |url=http://www.jutarnji.hr/radikalni-desnicari-preuzeli-uredivanje-hr-wikipedije--ndh-nije-svjesno-bila-totalitarna--a-antifasizam-se-bori-protiv-svih-sloboda-/1125398/ |title=Desničari preuzeli uređivanje hrvatske Wikipedije |work=Jutarnji list |date=September 10, 2013 |language=hr |trans-title=Right-wing editors took over the Croatian Wikipedia |access-date=May 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160325014957/http://www.jutarnji.hr/radikalni-desnicari-preuzeli-uredivanje-hr-wikipedije--ndh-nije-svjesno-bila-totalitarna--a-antifasizam-se-bori-protiv-svih-sloboda-/1125398/ |archive-date=March 25, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |url=https://inserbia.info/today/2013/09/fascist-movement-takes-over-croatian-wikipedia/ |title=Fascist movement takes over Croatian Wikipedia? |work=InSerbia Today |date=September 11, 2013 |access-date=May 25, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160411063109/http://inserbia.info/today/2013/09/fascist-movement-takes-over-croatian-wikipedia/ |archive-date=April 11, 2016 |url-status=live}}{{cite news |title=Trolls hijack Wikipedia to turn articles against gays |url=https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trolls-hijack-wikipedia-turn-articles-against-gays170913/#gs.1evuSEQ |access-date=May 26, 2018 |work=Gay Star News |date=September 17, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180526114530/https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/trolls-hijack-wikipedia-turn-articles-against-gays170913/#gs.1evuSEQ |archive-date=May 26, 2018 |url-status=live}} historians recommended using the English Wikipedia in the interim.{{cite news |last1=Milekic |first1=Sven |title=How Croatian Wikipedia Made a Concentration Camp Disappear |url=http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018 |access-date=May 26, 2018 |work=Balkan Insight |date=March 26, 2018 |location=Zagreb |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180331211903/http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/how-croatian-wikipedia-made-a-concentration-camp-disappear-03-23-2018 |archive-date=March 31, 2018 |url-status=live}}

=English Wikipedia=

{{Anchor|GrabowskiKlein}}In February 2023, Jan Grabowski and Shira Klein published a research article in the Journal of Holocaust Research accusing a number of English Wikipedia editors of engaging in a campaign to "[promote] a skewed version of history on Wikipedia", claiming that their actions "[whitewash] the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and [bolster] stereotypes about Jews".{{Cite journal |last1=Grabowski |first1=Jan |last2=Klein |first2=Shira |date=February 9, 2023 |title=Wikipedia's Intentional Distortion of the History of the Holocaust |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 |journal=The Journal of Holocaust Research |volume=37 |issue=2 |language=en |pages=133–190 |doi=10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 |s2cid=257188267 |quote="In the last decade, a group of committed Wikipedia editors have been promoting a skewed version of history on Wikipedia, one touted by right-wing Polish nationalists, which whitewashes the role of Polish society in the Holocaust and bolsters stereotypes about Jews." |archive-date=May 2, 2023 |access-date=March 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230502104706/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/25785648.2023.2168939 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=ELIA-SHALEV |first1=ASAF |title=Wikipedia's 'Supreme Court' tackles alleged conspiracy to distort articles on Holocaust |url=https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-733019 |access-date=March 11, 2023 |work=The Jerusalem Post |date=March 1, 2023 |archive-date=March 10, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230310231934/https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-733019 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |last1=Aderet |first1=Ofer |title='Jews Helped the Germans Out of Revenge or Greed': New Research Documents How Wikipedia Distorts the Holocaust |url=https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/new-research-documents-how-wikipedia-distorts-the-holocaust/00000186-4f0f-d02c-af9e-cfffa9900000 |access-date=March 11, 2023 |work=Haaretz |date=February 14, 2023 |language=en |archive-date=March 19, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230319131437/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-02-14/ty-article-magazine/.premium/new-research-documents-how-wikipedia-distorts-the-holocaust/00000186-4f0f-d02c-af9e-cfffa9900000 |url-status=live }} The English Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee subsequently opened a case to investigate and evaluate the actions of editors in the affected articles. Ultimately, the Committee ruled to ban two editors from contributing to the topic areas, although Klein criticized the proposed remedies as "[lacking] depth and consequence".{{Cite web |last=Metzger |first=Cerise Valenzuela |date=May 16, 2023 |title=Ruling on Wikipedia's Distortion of Holocaust History Lacks Depth |url=https://news.chapman.edu/2023/05/15/ruling-on-wikipedias-distortion-of-holocaust-history-lacks-depth/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230527230915/https://news.chapman.edu/2023/05/15/ruling-on-wikipedias-distortion-of-holocaust-history-lacks-depth/ |archive-date=May 27, 2023 |access-date=September 25, 2023 |website=Chapman University |language=en}}

{{Anchor|HubeSamoilenko}}Christoph Hube and Anna Samoilenko have criticized Wikipedia, in particular the English Wikipedia, for its insufficient representation of non-Western subject matter, which Samoilenko has deemed "Eurocentric".{{cite book |last=Hube |first=Christoph |editor=Barrett, Rick |title=WWW '17 Companion: Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion |publisher=International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee |location=Geneva, Switzerland |chapter=Bias in Wikipedia |date=2017 |pages=717–721 |doi=10.1145/3041021.3053375 |isbn=978-1-4503-4914-7 |s2cid=10472970}}{{cite thesis |last1=Samoilenko |first1=Anna |title=Cultural neighbourhoods, or approaches to quantifying cultural contextualisation in multilingual knowledge repository Wikipedia |url=https://kola.opus.hbz-nrw.de/files/2206/dissertation_Anna_Samoilenko.pdf |publisher=University of Koblenz |access-date=January 30, 2024}} Anna Samoilenko has said that Wikipedia "reiterates similar biases that are found in the 'ivory tower' of academic historiography".

= Japanese Wikipedia =

{{See also|Japanese Wikipedia#Allegations of historical revisionism}}

A number of scholars have criticized several Japanese Wikipedia articles for their description of various World War II events, including articles for the Nanjing Massacre, Unit 731, and comfort women.{{Cite book |last=Schneider |first=Florian |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DXBoDwAAQBAJ |title=China's Digital Nationalism |date=August 16, 2018 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-087681-4 |pages=123–124 |language=en}}{{Cite journal |last=Gustafsson |first=Karl |date=July 18, 2019 |title=International reconciliation on the Internet? Ontological security, attribution and the construction of war memory narratives in Wikipedia |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0047117819864410 |journal=International Relations |language=en |volume=34 |issue=1 |pages=3–24 |doi=10.1177/0047117819864410 |s2cid=200020669}}{{Cite web |last=Sato |first=Yumiko |date=March 19, 2021 |title=Non-English Editions of Wikipedia Have a Misinformation Problem |url=https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misinformation-non-english-editions.html |access-date=August 23, 2021 |website=Slate |archive-date=August 25, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230825194500/https://slate.com/technology/2021/03/japanese-wikipedia-misinformation-non-english-editions.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite web |last=Sato |first=Yumiko |date=January 9, 2021 |script-title=ja:日本語版ウィキペディアで「歴史修正主義」が広がる理由と解決策 |trans-title=Reasons Why "Historical Revisionism" is Widespread on Japanese Wikipedia and Solutions for It |url=https://yumikosato.com/2021/01/09/japanese-wikipedia/ |access-date=August 23, 2021 |website=Yumiko Sato's Music Therapy Journal |language=Japanese |archive-date=August 6, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210806005724/https://yumikosato.com/2021/01/09/japanese-wikipedia/ |url-status=live }}

=Serbian Wikipedia=

In 2024, the weekly magazine Vreme reported that Serbian Wikipedia includes content reflecting elements of Serbian nationalism and historical revisionism, particularly in articles related to the Yugoslav Wars. The report states that certain articles minimize or relativize Serbian war crimes and portray contentious historical figures (including war criminals) in a favorable light. Additionally, it described the use of passive language and editorial choices that obscure the accountability of domestic actors.{{Cite web |last=Kalem |first=Jovan |date=5 June 2024 |title=Nationalism, revisionism and right-wing |url=https://vreme.com/en/vreme/nacionalizam-revizionizam-i-desnicarenje/ |access-date=21 May 2025 |website=Vreme}}

A 2025 investigation by Radar raised questions about Serbian Wikipedia's coverage of ongoing political events in Serbia, specifically the large-scale anti‑corruption protests. According to the article, Serbian Wikipedia included language and framing aligned with pro‑government narratives. For example, protests were described using terms such as "an attempt at a colour revolution", with vague attribution, and associations were made between protests and separatist movements in Serbia.{{Cite web |last=Ž. |first=S. |date=14 May 2025 |title=Da li srpska Vikipedija ignoriše proteste? |trans-title=Is Serbian Wikipedia Ignoring the Protests? |url=https://radar.nova.rs/drustvo/da-li-srpska-vikipedija-ignorise-proteste/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250516162302/https://radar.nova.rs/drustvo/da-li-srpska-vikipedija-ignorise-proteste/ |archive-date=16 May 2025 |access-date=21 May 2025 |website=Radar |language=sr-RS}}

=Spanish Wikipedia=

In 2022, several conservative cultural and political figures from Spain published a manifesto alleging a "lack of neutrality and ... obvious political bias in [the Spanish] Wikipedia" and claimed that the Spanish Wikipedia is "edited by people who, hiding behind anonymous editor accounts, take the opportunity to carry out political activism, either by including data erroneous or false, or selecting news from the media with a clear political and ideological bias, which refer to controversial, distorted, insidious or inaccurate information". The manifesto was signed by Juan Carlos Girauta, Álvaro Vargas Llosa, Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo, Joaquín Leguina, Albert Rivera, Daniel Lacalle and Toni Cantó, among other personalities.{{Cite web |date=September 16, 2022 |title=Denuncian el sesgo político encubierto de Wikipedia en español |url=https://www.abc.es/cultura/denuncian-activismo-politico-encubierto-wikipedia-espanol-20220916095808-nt.html |access-date=September 20, 2022 |website=ABC |language=es |archive-date=September 18, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220918121905/https://www.abc.es/cultura/denuncian-activismo-politico-encubierto-wikipedia-espanol-20220916095808-nt.html |url-status=live }}{{Better source needed|reason=The source is openly right/far-right-wing and should not be used to draw assessments of the neutrality of the Spanish Wikipedia|date=July 2023}}

The Spanish Wikipedia has been criticized for offering a whitewashed coverage of the president of Argentina Cristina Kirchner.{{cite web |title=Wikipedia. La tendencia prokirchnerista que esconde la enciclopedia virtual |website=La Nación |date=May 20, 2020 |url=https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/wikipedia-la-tendencia-prokirchnerista-esconde-enciclopedia-virtual-nid2367179/ |language=es |access-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220305195226/https://www.lanacion.com.ar/economia/wikipedia-la-tendencia-prokirchnerista-esconde-enciclopedia-virtual-nid2367179/ |url-status=live }}{{cite web |last=Fontevecchia |first=Agustino |title=Cristina vs. Google and the invisible battle for Wikipedia |website=Buenos Aires Times |date=August 8, 2020 |url=https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/opinion-and-analysis/cristina-vs-google-and-the-invisible-battle-for-wikipedia.phtml |access-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220305195223/https://www.batimes.com.ar/news/opinion-and-analysis/cristina-vs-google-and-the-invisible-battle-for-wikipedia.phtml |url-status=live }}{{cite web |title=¿Kirchnerpedia? La militancia copó las definiciones políticas de Wikipedia |website=La Nación |date=July 22, 2021 |url=https://www.lanacion.com.ar/ideas/kirchnerpedia-la-militancia-copo-las-definiciones-politicas-de-wikipedia-nid12032021/ |language=es |access-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-date=March 5, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220305195224/https://www.lanacion.com.ar/ideas/kirchnerpedia-la-militancia-copo-las-definiciones-politicas-de-wikipedia-nid12032021/ |url-status=live }}

In a July 2022 article, Claudia Peiró from Infobae criticized the Spanish Wikipedia's entry on Cuba for describing the country as a "democracy without parties" with a "free, direct and secret vote".{{Cite news |title=Insólita definición de la Wikipedia sobre el régimen de Cuba: "Estado unipartidista convencional" y "democracia sin partidos" |url=https://www.infobae.com/america/mundo/2022/07/14/insolita-definicion-de-la-wikipedia-sobre-el-regimen-de-cuba-estado-unipartidista-convencional-y-democracia-sin-partidos/ |last=Peiró |first=Claudia |date=July 14, 2022 |access-date=June 29, 2023 |work=Infobae |language=Spanish}}

= Hebrew Wikipedia =

In July 2023, the right-wing Israeli think tank Kohelet Policy Forum was criticized for allegedly using sock puppet accounts to influence articles related to the 2023 Israeli judicial reform on Hebrew Wikipedia.{{Cite web |date=2023-07-20 |title=Conservative Israeli Think Tank Uses “Sock Puppets” to Skew Wikipedia - National Security & Cyber - Haaretz.com |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230720003049/https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/security-aviation/2023-07-18/ty-article/.premium/fake-wikipedia-accounts-conservative-israeli-think-tank-behind-skewed-overhaul-articles/00000189-6945-de70-adcb-f9c77a080000 |access-date=2025-05-15 |website=web.archive.org}}

= CAMERA campaign =

In April 2008, The Electronic Intifada published an article containing e-mails exchanged by members of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA). The stated purpose of the group was "help[ing] us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors".{{cite web |url=http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/05/03/war_of_the_virtual_wiki_worlds/ |title=War of the virtual Wiki-worlds |work=The Boston Globe |access-date=May 4, 2008 |date=May 3, 2008 |last=Beam |first=Alex |quote=In what was probably not a very smart idea, Gilead Ini, a senior research analyst for CAMERA, put out an e-mail call for 10 volunteers "to help us keep Israel-related entries on Wikipedia from becoming tainted by anti-Israel editors". [...] More than 50 sympathizers answered the call, and Ini put his campaign into motion.
In follow-up e-mails to his recruits, Ini emphasized the secrecy of the campaign: "There is no need to advertise the fact that we have these group discussions", he wrote. "Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a 'Zionist' cabal . . . is trying to hijack Wikipedia."
[...] Someone leaked four weeks' worth of communications from within Ini's organization, and the quotes weren't pretty. Describing the Wiki-campaign, a member of Ini's corps writes, "We will go to war after we have built an army, equipped [sic] it, trained." There is also some back-and-forth about the need to become Wikipedia administrators, to better influence the encyclopedia's articles. |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090101100146/http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2008/05/03/war_of_the_virtual_wiki_worlds/ |url-status=live |archive-date=January 1, 2009}}{{cite news |last1=McElroy |first1=Damien |title=Israeli battles rage on Wikipedia |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1934857/Israeli-battles-rage-on-Wikipedia.html |access-date=April 5, 2021 |work=The Telegraph |date=May 7, 2008 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20080509185630/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1934857/Israeli-battles-rage-on-Wikipedia.html |archive-date=May 9, 2008 |url-status=unfit}}{{cbignore|bot=InternetArchiveBot}} Five Wikipedia editors involved in a CAMERA campaign were sanctioned by Wikipedia administrators, who wrote that the project's open nature "is fundamentally incompatible with the creation of a private group to surreptitiously coordinate editing by ideologically like-minded individuals".