Wikipedia Bias




Left-wing politics packaged as an 'encyclopedia'


Wikipedia is a highly biased, left-wing online 'encyclopedia'. Wikipedia's co-founder says that the online 'encyclopedia' abandoned neutrality in favor of left-wing politics.


"In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources — and sources friendly to globalist progressivism — are permitted.... Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy."

-- Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia


"Defamation laundering engine"

-- Zach Vorhies' description (5:24) of Wikipedia


Wikipedia selectively uses left-wing sources to make the articles say what somebody wants them to say. In fact Wikipedia states that "News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact". There lies their subjective excuse to remove content from conservative sources that are not part of the mainstream media mob.


Wikipedia's description of Barack Obama conveniently omits his scandals: Benghazi, the IRS / Lois Lerner scandal, the AP phone records scandal, Fast and Furious, Solyndra, the Hillary Clinton email server scandal, and Obamagate.


Wikipedia's article on Biden and Ukraine reads like a defense counsel’s brief, backed by left-wing sources including the CNN, NY Times, Wash Post, The Guardian, Vox, The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, USA Today, Politico, Business Insider, Huff Post, Time, etc. Not one centrist or "conservative" outlet was cited for this propaganda piece.


Wikipedia is known for selectively labeling conservative or middle-of-the-road media personalities, Republican politicians, news outlets and groups, as "far-right" or "conspiracy theorists" while NOT giving any such opinion labels to left-wing outlets, groups and people. For example, the site describes outlets such as FOX News, the Washington Examiner, Townhall and others as "conservative" but gives NO opinion labels for CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc. Wikipedia wants readers to believe that these left-wing outlets are centrist.


Wikipedia has a long-winded attack on Breitbart, saying "Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of conspiracy theories and intentionally misleading stories." Wikipedia conveniently uses other left-wing sources such as the NY Times and LA Times to smear Breitbart. Yet Wikipedia merely has this to say about the rabid left-wing site HuffPost: "It has been described as mostly liberal-leaning." Why on earth didn't Wikipedia describe HuffPost as "ideologically driven and misleading"? MediaBiasFactCheck cites the HuffPost as having "failed fact checks and the promotion of pseudoscience". But Wikipedia sees and hears no left-wing bias.


Wikipedia describes (OAN) as "a far-right, pro-Donald Trump cable channel". Whereas, Wikipedia describes the radical-left-wing network MSNBC is simply "an American news-based pay television cable channel".


Wikipedia describes the Proud Boys as "far-right" and "neo-fascists", while falsely describing the far-left fascist group ANTIFA as "anti-fascist" and as merely "left-wing". Wikipedia also describes the Proud Boys only as a group that "promotes and engages in political violence", while tempering their description of ANTIFA as a group that uses "nonviolent and violent direct action".


Wikipedia outrageously smears conservative YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson as "a British right-wing YouTuber, radio host, writer and conspiracy theorist whose views have often been qualified as anti-feminist and politically extremist". They did this by citing far-left outlets Vice, the Guardian, the Washington Post, and merely by the fact that Watson is the UK editor of InfoWars. Vice, The Guardian, and the Washington Post's justification for labeling Watson as a "conspiracy theorist" was Watson merely questioning Hilary Clinton's health, which was a legitimate question during the final stages of her 2016 campaign.


Wikipedia smears Lauren Southern as a Canadian alt-right political activist, and white nationalist YouTuber. Wikipedia gives no such opinion labels to left-wing activists such as Jane Fonda who is merely labeled as an "activist", or Al Sharpton, who is merely labeled as a "civil rights activist" and not identified as a "black nationalist".


Wikipedia calls AMAC a "conservative advocacy organization and interest group", while merely calling the far-left-wing AARP just an "interest group".


Wikipedia brands Marjorie Taylor-Green as "far-right", but has no such opinion labels for far-left politicians such as Ilhan Omar, AOC, Nancy Pelosi, etc. Wikipedia describes Nancy Pelosi as simply "an American Politician". In their first paragraph about Marjorie Taylor-Green, Wikipedia also felt the need to mention that Green is "a strong supporter of former president Trump" as if this is a bad thing. Why doesn't Wikipedia smear democrats for being strong supporters of Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, or Barrack Obama?


Wikipedia's global warming page is a one-sided presentation of cherry picked information that attempts to reinforce the theory that humans are causing the planet to warm. Some of the most basic arguments against anthropogenic global warming are conveniently omitted (such as evidence of data tampering, urban heat island effect, margins of error in determining temperature, Tim Ball's climate reconstruction, climategate, correlation between sun spots and temperature, studies such as those by J. Kauppinen and P. Malmi, Klaus-Martin Schulte, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, Verhaggen, etc).


Wikipedia describes the Caucasian race as "an obsolete racial classification of human beings based on a now-disproven theory of biological race".


Wikipedia called the Waukesha Christmas Parade Massacre attack a "car crash" because the terrorist was black...



Wikipedia's article on the Gab social media network is a long-winded hit piece, smearing it as a site for far-right extremists. In predictable fashion, Wikipedia uses far-left wing outlets (such as the Intercept, NY Times, Washington Post, the Daily Beast, Politico, CNN, Vox, Business Insider, NPR, the Verge, and the Observer) to support their smear. Meanwhile, Wikipedia has nothing but love for Twitter, despite the site being a site for left-wing extremists, ANTIFA, Black Lives Matter, the Taliban, the Chinese communist party, etc.


Wikipedia's article on is yet another purposeful smear, saying that "Journalists have observed the prevalence of extreme content on the platform, including racism, antisemitism, and terrorist propaganda." In typical fashion, they cite far-left wing outlets such as Vox, Politico, and USA Today to bolster their smear. Wikipedia rushes to label Gettr as "an alt-tech social media platform and microblogging site targeted to American conservatives". Wikipedia used NO smear terms to describe the left-wing MeWe platform.


Wikipedia smears Truth Social by saying "The platform has been described as a competitor in the alt-tech field that includes Parler and Gab".


Along with Google, Wikipedia covers-up for Big Pharma, suppresses alternative medicine and buries inconvenient facts.


Wikipedia bans Christians from contributing to the site.


In their introductory description of Ron DeSantis, Wikipedia rushes to smear him by lying by omission... "As Florida experienced a record surge in COVID-19 cases in July and August 2021, he banned public schools from implementing mask mandates." Wikipedia conveniently failed to mention that chidren are not only virtually at zero risk of dying of COVID, but also very poor vectors of the virus. Furthermore masks don't stop respiratory viruses.


Wikipedia, in typical fashion, used far-left-wing sources (Wired and the Washington Post) to smear as being "targeted to alt-right readers".


7/29/2022 - Wikipedia rushed to protect the Biden administration by changing the definition of 'recession' then blocking edits.


For a real encyclopedia, use , or


Go back to Liberal Companies you should boycott.