Wikipedia’s bias extends beyond how badly it treats right-leaning media sources. MRC Free Speech America’s latest study shows how the online encyclopedia skews portrayals of political figures as well, revealing the website to be anything but a neutral source for information.
The MRC study focusing on several high-profile executive branch nominees shows how Wikipedia editors treated the nominees’ pages before, and after, President Donald Trump tapped them to serve in his administration.
Among the nominees — including now-Attorney General Pam Bondi, now-FCC Chair Brendan Carr, now-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, now-Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, now-Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now-FBI Director Kash Patel and now-Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought — Wikipedia treated Hegseth the worst.
From the Op-Ed by MRC VP Dan Schneider and MRC Free Speech America Staff Writer Tom Olohan in the New York Post,
“The website removed existing coverage of a war hero’s medals, inserted unfounded accusations in place of exculpatory information and added entire sections of evidence-free attacks against people who have devoted their lives in service to America.
“After Trump announced Hegseth as his choice for defense secretary, Wikipedia editors erased three of the medals from the former infantry officer’s main “infobox” and stripped out every icon, drastically reducing the amount of space devoted to his military achievements — a whole new form of stolen valor.
…
“Wikipedia editors polluted Hegseth’s page with numerous evidence-free allegations by the left’s favorite sources: anonymous ones.
“And when Wikipedia chose to edit a description about a Fox News segment in which Hegseth accidentally injured a performer, it removed mitigating details that had previously been present, including a quote from the hurt individual stating that the damage was “only minor” and a description of how he just ‘walked it off.’
“To Wikipedia, all accusations great and small merit inclusion when the target is a Trump nominee — but there’s no room to honor that nominee’s bravery, or for telling the complete story.”
Wikipedia’s smearing of Trump nominees didn’t end with Hegseth, of course. The online encyclopedia riddled the pages of Patel, Gabbard and Vought with jabs and barbs from the Wikipedia editors following their respective nominations as well.
The leftist bias is astounding, as even its co-founder Larry Sanger has said, “Yes it’s biased, I’ve said so for a long time.”
But Wikipedia's bias is not the only thing that makes it particularly pernicious. What makes Wikipedia so harmful is that up to this point, the online mega-censor has gotten to have its cake and eat it too—highlighting and boosting content that favors the left and leftist media while denigrating Republicans like Trump’s nominees and effectively blacklisting right-leaning media.
Either Wikipedia is a publisher that has the freedom to add/remove content at its whim with the same liability as any other media outlet, or it’s a neutral platform that can claim Section 230 protections. It can’t have it both ways.
It’s high time for Wikipedia to get examined under the microscope, and that is exactly what MRC Free Speech America has done and will continue to do.
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
