Wikipedia -The encyclopedia of Left propagandas
This leftward drift of Wikipedia is no longer a conspiracy theory but a documented and studied reality
Wikipedia, a platform initially conceived as a neutral, crowd-sourced encyclopedia, has grown to be one of the largest repositories of knowledge, accessible in over 300 languages. As of April 2024, the English version alone has over 6.9 million articles, while Wikipedia overall boasts more than 63 million articles globally, attracting over 1.5 billion unique device visits per month. However, despite this vast coverage, the platform’s treatment of news, politics, and socio-political topics reveals deep biases, leaning strongly to the left. This leftward drift of Wikipedia is no longer a conspiracy theory but a documented and studied reality, signaling concerns over its neutrality and the influence of its funding and editorial structure.
“The days of Wikipedia’s robust commitment to neutrality are long gone” - Larry Sanger (Co founder of Wikipedia)
In an article written in 2020, Larry Sanger criticizes the platform for abandoning its neutrality policy, arguing that it has become biased towards liberal viewpoints. He cites examples such as the differing treatment of Barack Obama and Donald Trump, where scandals involving Obama are omitted while Trump’s controversies are extensively covered. Sanger also points out bias in articles on political issues, religion, and science, claiming Wikipedia endorses establishment views without presenting opposing perspectives. [Read his article]
In 2020, The Critic, a British political and cultural magazine, published a paper by two American academics titled “The Left-Wing Bias of Wikipedia.” The research argued that Wikipedia's internal policies, though well-intentioned, have failed to achieve their stated objectives. The article noted that left-leaning sources are often regarded as “reliable,” while conservative viewpoints are dismissed or marginalized. The decisions about which sources to trust rest in the hands of Wikipedia’s editors, a group that critics say is largely composed of individuals with left-leaning views.
One of the key findings from the paper was that articles aligned with left-leaning perspectives are treated as neutral and factual, while opposing viewpoints are labeled unreliable or fringe. For instance, discussions about what constitutes a "reliable" source are often held at the "reliable sources noticeboard," where editors collectively decide which media outlets are deemed credible. Critics say this process overwhelmingly favors left-leaning media.
Pirate Wires, a U.S.-based media outlet focusing on the intersection of technology, politics, and culture , also researched on the bias in Wikipedia. Their analysis, titled "How Wikipedia Launders Regime Propaganda" by Ashley Rindsberg, highlights how the platform’s reliance on a predominantly left-leaning set of “reliable sources” skews its content. Rindsberg points out that conservative media outlets are often blacklisted from being used as sources, leaving Wikipedia's editors with a narrow pool of left-leaning outlets to draw from.
One striking example cited in the report involved the fallout from President Joe Biden’s withdrawal from the presidential race in July 2024. As controversy brewed around Vice President Kamala Harris' role as "Border Czar" and the U.S.’s immigration policies, some editors chose to downplay criticisms of Harris in Wikipedia entries. Despite public discourse on the topic, the platform's article on the matter barely mentioned the controversies, instead focusing on minimizing critiques of her role.
“Wikipedia articles present their subject matter with a casually authoritative, almost stolid tone. But beneath the surface lies endless argumentation played out in rounds of procedural maneuvering that would shame the most deft legislative hand. User bans, discretionary sanctions, requests for comment, arbitration cases, topic bans, page bans, deprecated sources — all encoded in a shorthand jargon — lie behind the “consensus” displayed in an article’s seemingly ripple-free surface. In a way, this arcana of behind-the-scenes conceptual machinery is Wikipedia’s most impressive feature. It’s what keeps it from grinding to a halt on infighting and intransigence. The problem is — like with the Harris border czar reference, which is still omitted from the czar article (and will almost certainly stay that way) — the consensus it achieves often lines up with the prerogatives of the Democratic Party and the media establishment that supports it.”
-Ashley Rindsberg (Pirate Wires)
Source : https://www.piratewires.com/p/how-wikipedia-launders-regime-propaganda?f=home
In June 2024, David Rozado from Manhattan University published a research paper exploring the bias of Wikipedia titled, “Is Wikipedia Politically Biased?”. The research focussed on exploring if there is a political bias in the Wikipedia English articles. The research came to the conclusion that there exists a left-leaning bias in the English-language Wikipedia articles
Who Funds Wikipedia?
Wikipedia’s shift toward left-leaning biases cannot be fully understood without exploring its financial backers of Wikimedia foundation.
The Wikimedia Foundation’s net asset at the end of 2022-2023 stood at a whopping $254,971,336. The Foundation's net assets grew from an initial $57,000 at the end of its first fiscal year, ending June 30, 2004, to $53.5 million in mid-2014 and $231 million (plus a $100 million endowment) by the end of June 2021. The Wikimedia Foundation assets and the endowment has only grown since then.
A substantial part of Wikimedia Foundation’s revenue comes from individual donors. According to the 2022-2023 fundraising report issued by Wikimedia Foundation, their fundraising program has over 7.5 million donors giving an average donation of $11.38 in the 2022-2023 fiscal year (FY 22-23).
Being a large free encyclopedia, it is easy for the platform to convince a reader to donate money to them. The Institute of New Economic Thinking points out that even if Wikipedia stops making any money today, in terms of donations and contributions, Wikipedia can sustain itself for decades.
“According to its latest financial disclosures, the Wikimedia Foundation has net assets adequate to run its servers for 75 years if it receives no further funds nor interest on its savings. Beyond that, the servers can hum along an additional 63 years from funds in a Wikimedia Endowment held by a partner charity, the Tides Foundation. Put into perspective, Wikimedia servers can function just under nine years from a one-time donation Wikimedia sent to Tides Advocacy in their last financial statement. They have about $1 million in reserves for every employee. Wikipedia is in no danger of going dark in our lifetime.”1
By 2021, there were several reports in the media calling Wikipedia a “refuge” from Big Tech’s disinformation. Essentially, it served the interest of Wikimedia to portray as if they were a not-for-profit rag-tag project, working on a shoe-string budget and against the Big Tech hegemony, relying on the people for their good intentioned voluntary work. This narrative helps them ask for endless donations from people across the world.
However ,Since the COVID-19 pandemic ,Big-Tech and Wikimedia have got intricately linked and become inseparable. In 2022 Wikimedia started charging Big Tech to use their information and integrate it on their platforms. This was not because Wikimedia was inherently against Big Tech and wanted to reform the misinformation. But because Wikimedia admitted that they needed a way to ensure that Big Tech could give money to Wikimedia without being uncomfortable with their association with a not-for-profit.
Google has long had a relationship with Wikipedia, but it wasn’t always a close one. In 2007, Google introduced a competitor to Wikipedia called Knol, a platform that offered moderated content creation. However, Knol was shut down in 2012 after failing to gain traction, and Google’s relationship with Wikipedia grew stronger afterward. Today, Google is among Wikipedia’s largest donors. The two platforms are closely intertwined, with Wikipedia being prominently featured in Google search results. Google’s donations and grants to Wikimedia Foundation has doubled after the integration of Wikipedia and Wikimedia content across all Google platforms is near 100% and complete.
The financial links between Wikipedia and left-wing foundations go beyond Google. According to InfluenceWatch, “Google Foundation contributed at least $70 million in the decade between 2007-2016 to organizations such as the Tides Foundation, a provider of ideologically left-wing donor-advised funds; Netroots, an annual conference of leftist bloggers; and the Natural Resources Defense Council, a left-wing environmentalist organization”
The Google Foundation which was financing Left Wing organisations, was a main funder of Wikipedia. It was dissolved in 2018. A perusal of the IRS Form 990 PF revealed that in 2018, Google Foundation dissolved and transferred all its assets to Tides Foundation.
Google had explained in their Form 990 that it had decided , “Although the foundation will no longer exist, the charitable grant making mission of the foundation will carry on through Google, which will have a role in advising on the grants awarded from these assets…”
It means that Google doesn’t wanted to discontinue their funding to left projects , but they want to do it in a clandestine manner. Google and Tides Foundation are inextricably linked. Google and Wikimedia Foundation are also inextricably linked. And as we look further , Wikimedia foundation and Tides foundation are also inextricably linked.
The Tides -Wiki connection
According to Influence Watch ,The Tides Foundation is a major center-left grantmaking organization and a major pass-through funder to numerous left-leaning nonprofits. The San Francisco, California-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit was founded in 1976 by Drummond Pike, a professional political activist who has since retired from the organization, to funnel grants from liberal donors to center-left nonprofits using donor-advised funds, encouraging individuals to donate to Tides since they would hold an advisory role in its grantmaking.
The Tides Foundation is one of the main funders of Jewish Voice for Peace and IfNotNow movement. These two organisations have heavily funded the anti-Israel protests at Columbia University . These organisations are also funded by George Soros.
According to NGO Monitor , In the 2014-15 period, the largest visible donations to Jewish Voice for Peace were provided by:2
Rockefeller Brothers Fund- ($140,000 in 2015)
Tides Foundation- ($49,477 in 2014)
Firedoll Foudation- ($25,000 in 2014)
Schwab Charitable Foundation- ($158,800 in 2014)
Jewish Communal Fund- ($25,100 in 2015)
In 2019 , Tides foundation have spend $75,000 as Donor Advised Funds to Jewish Voice for Peace .Donor-Advised Funds (DAFs) are charitable giving vehicles administered by public charities like the Tides Foundation. In this setup, donors contribute assets to a fund, get immediate tax benefits, and can later recommend how those assets are granted to other nonprofit organizations. The donor doesn't have to distribute the funds right away; they can grow over time in the fund until the donor decides where to allocate them.
NGO Monitor reports that ,In 2021, IfNotNow received $45,000 from the Tides Foundation.
Tides Foundation also provide financial support to Adalah Justice Project which was involved in the protests at Columbia University. Adalah posted on Oct. 7 2023, the day of the massacre, with a picture of a bulldozer ripping through Israel’s Gaza security fence with the caption: “Israeli colonizers believed they could indefinitely trap two million people in an open-air prison… no cage goes unchallenged.”
Tides also supports Palestine Legal which is a legal defence fund to provide legal assistance to “student protesters” who mobilise “against genocide”. Tides has been funding Palestine Legal since 2013 and Adalah Justice Project since 2016.
Now lets look at the relationship between Wikimedia foundation and Tides foundation
The Wikimedia Endowment Fund was formed in January 2016:
“As part of this milestone, the Wikimedia Foundation is pleased to announce the Wikimedia Endowment, a permanent source of funding to ensure Wikipedia thrives for generations to come. The Wikimedia Endowment will empower people around the world to create and contribute free knowledge, and share that knowledge with every single human being. Our goal is to raise $100 million over the next 10 years. The Endowment has been established, with an initial contribution by the Wikimedia Foundation, as a Collective Action Fund at the Tides Foundation”. 3
From the Wikimedia statement , certain things become apparent .The Wikimedia Endowment Fund was meant to be a fund which could ensure the functioning of Wikipedia. It was a Tides Foundation Collection Action Fund and the advisory board of this Endowment Fund was appointed by Tides after being nominated by Wikimedia Foundation.
According to an article by Institute for New Economic Thinking, there is an inherent lack of transparency in the transactions between Wikimedia Foundation and Tides Foundation. The report reads:
“Tides runs a series of charities that enable donors to anonymously pledge money which Tides then uses for grants to progressive organizations. There are several related but legally separate Tides charities, the largest being the Tides Foundation with 2019 net assets of $558 million. Tides are Donor Advised Funds: anonymous donors may direct Tides what to do with their donations though they may also choose to leave funding decisions to Tides. Tides discloses its largest benefactors by the amount donated without listing the identities of the individuals or organizations. Disbursements are reported but whose money went to which cause is entirely opaque.
Wikimedia both donates to the Tides Foundation and simultaneously receives money from the organization. Despite repeated donations of $5 million, and a badge listing Wikimedia on their homepage along with other major donors, Tides does not list the $5 million donations from Wikimedia except for one year.
In 2014 and 2015, Tides Foundation listed the top nine benefactors; the Wikimedia grant is presumably one of two $5 million entries. However, beginning in the year ending 2016, Tides lists fewer benefactors (four entries for 2016 and 2018 and five for 2017 and 2019). None of the benefactors are for exactly $5,000,000 and the figures seem to cut off just over the $5 million mark.
Google’s former charity, Google.org, shuttered the year ending 2018. Google made two large donations to Tides Foundation, a total of $50,264,173 listed in their 2018 disclosure (consisting of three donations: $43,844,348, $844,448, and $560,055) and $76,385,901 in 2017. Neither matches a line-item amount Tides Foundation reported for the corresponding years. Google also contributes money directly to both Wikimedia and the Wikimedia Endowment, announcing a $7.5 million donation at the 2019 Word Economic Forum.
While Wikimedia donates money to Tides – to support its endowment and Knowledge Equity Fund (via Tides Advocacy) – Tides also donates money to Wikimedia. However, the Tides donations do not appear in Wikimedia annual reports, which list major benefactors who donate amounts above $50,000 except for a pass-through donation from Google (“The Google Foundation of Tides Foundation.”). Other donations from Tides to Wikimedia are presumably lumped into the group of anonymous donors.”
Source : https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/wikipedias-deep-ties-to-big-tech
In the financial of Wikimedia Foundation, Tides Foundation made its first appearance in 2017
In 2018, there was again a grant of $5 million to Tides Foundation in the financials of Wikimedia Foundation
The Wikipedia page on the Endowment Fund says, “The Foundation itself has provided annual grants of $5 million to its Endowment since 2016. These amounts have been recorded as part of the Foundation's "awards and grants" expenses.”.
The Wikimedia Foundation fundraising report mentions that “six annual payments of $5 million the Wikimedia Foundation made to the Wikimedia Endowment, from the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021”. Therefore, it is expected that every year, started from the 2017 Financial report, one could expect a $5 million transfer to Tides Foundation – which was made for the Wikimedia Endowment Fund.
In September 2021, the Foundation announced that the Wikimedia Endowment had reached its initial $100 million fundraising goal in June 2021, five years ahead of its initial target . In 2022, Wikimedia Foundation transferred $1,487,648 to Tides Foundation.
The Wikimedia Endowment Fund moved to an independent 501c3 charity in July 2023. As a 501(c)(3) charity, the Foundation is exempt from federal and state income tax. In July 2023, the Wikimedia Endowment became independent from the Tides Foundation. However, we cannot conclusively say that the longstanding Tides-Wikimedia relationship has ended, because this relationship wasn’t limited to the Endowment fund.
As we discussed earlier, From 2017,every year there was a $5 million transfer to Tides Foundation – which was made for the Wikimedia Endowment Fund. But ,There were fund transfers to Tide Foundation which exceeded the $5 million, which was to be deposited in the Wikimedia Endowment Fund, managed by Tides Foundation.
In the year 2019, for example, two grants were extended by Wikimedia Foundation to Tides Foundation. one was the usual $5 million transfer to the Endowment Fund , other was a grant of $8.72 million to Tides Advocacy.
None of the documents of Wikimedia Foundation, explain the purpose of their grant of $8.72 million to Tides Advocacy
Around the same time that Wikimedia Foundation gave a it appointed Amanda Keton is General Counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation. According to the press note issued by Wikimedia Foundation, “Prior to joining Wikimedia, Amanda was General Counsel of Tides Network, a national public foundation deploying donor-advised grants and investments to build a world of shared prosperity and social justice. While in that role, she worked with the Wikimedia Foundation to establish the Wikimedia Endowment, a source of funding to support the Wikimedia projects and mission in perpetuity. She also served as Head of Tides Foundation and People Operations as well as CEO of Tides Advocacy, the policy affiliate in the Tides family of organizations.”4
In the 2021 IRS file of Wikimedia Foundation, they reveal that they gave a $516,650 grant to Tides Foundation and a $300,000 grant to Tides Advocacy.
There is no explanation as to what these grants were given for. Even if we assume that in this specific year, the $500,000 grant extended by Wikimedia Foundation to their Endowment Fund (run by Tides Foundation), the $300,000 to Tides Advocacy remains unexplained.
George Soros ,Tides foundation and Wikimedia connection
Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros has allegedly funded over $15 million to pro-Palestinian groups since 2016, according to the New York Post. The funds were used to support protests in favour of Hamas' attack on Israel in October. Soros' Open Society Foundations reportedly provided the grants through organizations such as Tides Center and Desis Rising Up and Moving. Several groups, including Adalah Justice Project and Jewish Voice for Peace, co-sponsored rallies and occupied Representative Ro Khanna's office to demand a ceasefire in Gaza.
We have discussed how Tides foundation funded anti Israel organisations in America, and how Wikimedia is linked with Tides. Both Tides foundation and Wikimedia foundation has one thing in common -Both are funded by George Soros
According to InfluenceWatch’s 1998-2018 data , George Soros’s name appears twice in the donors list of Tides foundation5:
Annie E. Casey Foundation: $946,500
Arca Foundation: $542,000
Bauman Family Foundation: $2,773,787
California Endowment: $4,265,828
Carnegie Corporation of New York: $823,486
David and Lucile Packard Foundation: $492,000
Ford Foundation: $26,410,759
George Soros’ Foundation to Promote Open Society: $10,259,289
George Soros’ Open Society Foundations: $12,130,241
Gill Foundation: $3,292,700
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation: $340,986
Nick and Leslie Hanauer Foundation: $640,384
Oak Foundation USA: $392,754
Omidyar Network Fund: $818,000
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: $2,236,350
Rockefeller Brothers Fund: $5,373,108
Rockefeller Family Fund: $460,914
Rockefeller Foundation: $1,661,055
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors: $3,525,000
W.K. Kellogg Foundation: $3,131,201
Wallace Global Fund II: $8,621,001
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: $8,317,690
In the above list ,I have highlighted the Left leaning donors, using bold text
According to the Wikimedia Endowment Fund page current, here are some notable patrons of the Tide Foundation run endowment fund which is noteworthy:
1. Amazon - $5 million +
2. Google.org - $2 million +
3. George Soros - $2 million +
4. Musk Foundation - $2 million +
5. Facebook - $1 million +
6. The Rothschild Foundation - $50,000 +
“George’s generous gift to the future of free knowledge is reflective of his deep commitment to supporting openness in all its forms” said Katherine Maher, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation. “His gift will help us ensure the sum of all knowledge remains free and open for the benefit of generations to come.”6
Soros is well known for funding and operating many left leaning projects worldwide. The way he and other left leaning groups operate is highly complex.
Examples of Left propagandas in Wikipedia
The Wikipedia article on “Democracy in India” is one best example .
This short wiki article entirely relies on V-Dem Institute’s democracy rankings to call India a ‘flawed democracy'. The article’s first line originally was “Democracy in India is the largest by population in the world”. But in April this year, this was changed to “India was the 19th most electoral democratic country in Asia according to V-Dem Democracy indices in 2023 with a score of 0.399 out of 1.”
The page “Democracy in India” was earlier deleted by an administrator citing similar information which was contained in another page as well. However, it was later “reviewed” and created again by an administrator level editor in February 2024 – in the midst of the General Elections in India.
V-Dem ranks India below countries like Peru, Niger, Honduras etc in democracy ranking. Niger has seen several coupes and coupe attempts in recent history. The Peruvian president attempted to dissolve the Peruvian Congress in the face of imminent impeachment by the legislative body.
In the “Democratic Backsliding by countries” article on Wikipedia, India is mentioned in a table which charts the time since when the backsliding has supposedly started.
Not surprisingly, V-Dem Democracy indices is the source of the claim that autocratization is taking place in India after Modi govt came to power in 2014.
It states, “The V-Dem Democracy indices claim that democratic backsliding is taking place in India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, citing the passage of the 2019 Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the government's subsequent response to the Citizenship Amendment Act protests.”
The Wikipedia page which cites CAA as the main reason for ‘Democratic Backsliding’ has failed to mention that CAA had nothing to do with Indian citizens – Hindus or Muslims. It merely expedited the citizenship for those who had already come to India before December 2014, fleeing religious persecution in neighbouring Islamic nations.
This article on Wikipedia was a result of a formal “course” offered by the Wikimedia Foundation. In the talk page, it is mentioned that this article was a “subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment” in 2021. The course page reveals that it was a course offered by Boston University in collaboration with Wikimedia Education
V-Dem judges whether a country is democracy or not based on the opinion of around two dozen people. The methodology adopted by V-Dem makes it clear that their report is not based a large-scale survey, but based on ‘data’ provided by 5 person per country for each indicator.
V-Dem website confirms this in their website by saying, “We endeavour to have a minimum of five experts for each indicator per country. This typically means we have twenty-five or more experts per country, since each expert only codes indicators in his/her areas of expertise.”
Another matter of concern is that the 25 experts who give data on a country may not be from that country. V-Dem says that “two-thirds of Country Experts providing data on a country should be nationals or permanent residents of that country”. This means, 8 or 9 ‘experts’ out of 25 giving opinion on a country are foreigners
Now lets look at some of the funders of V-Dem
George Soros’ Open Society
Swedish Research Council
European Research Council
European Commission
Research council of Norway
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sweden
Canadian International Development Agency
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark
USAID
George Soros, the main funder of V-Dem is a person who is trying to do a regime change in India. According to Soros, “The biggest and most frightening setback occurred in India where a democratically elected Narendra Modi is creating a Hindu nationalist state, imposing punitive measures on Kashmir, a semi-autonomous Muslim region, and threatening to deprive millions of Muslims of their citizenship”
USAID is an agency funded directly by the US government and is meant to fulfil USA’s foreign policy agendas. Its also important to note that various incidents in India has been revealing an American interference in Indian politics .
Another example of leftist propaganda is the Wikipedia article on 2002 Godhra Train burning.
The first paragraph of the Wikipedia article says that the cause of the fire that burnt 59 Hindu pilgrims to death “remains disputed” even though multiple people have been convicted for burning the Sabarmati Express train in Godhra.
The official inquiry into the event concluded that the fire was a pre-planned attack by a mob of local Muslims. According to the investigation, a group of individuals gathered near the train and threw petrol bombs into the coach after locking its doors from the outside.
The current version of article is whitewashing the massacre. The correct introduction of this article should be:
The Godhra train massacre incident occurred on February 27, 2002, when a coach of the Sabarmati Express, carrying Hindu pilgrims returning from Ayodhya, was set on fire by a mob of local Muslims, near the Godhra railway station in Gujarat. This led to the deaths of 59 passengers, including women and children.
I have tried making edits in the article , but was met with retractions.
Wikipedia considers claims of leftist scholars reliable than the judicial report .The bias is not limited to the examples we discussed. From the past few days , I have been editing various articles in the platform , and realised that any facts ,that doesn’t favour the left or liberals are retracted.
Conclusion: Wikipedia's Leftward Spiral
Despite its enormous reach, Wikipedia’s claim to neutrality rings hollow, particularly in the realms of politics, religion, and history. The platform’s reliance on left-leaning sources, its editors’ blacklist of conservative outlets, and its financial ties to progressive foundations have created a space where dissenting views are marginalized or erased. While its NPOV policy may still be lauded in principle, in practice, Wikipedia has become an encyclopedia of leftist orthodoxy, distorting both the present and the past to fit an increasingly radical ideological framework.
More conservative people should come forward to dismantle the leftist dominance in Wikipedia
Nice work. Explains the Wiki bias. Get the truth from the only major source that can be trusted...x.com.