Meta AI went after Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk by relying on none other than Wikipedia, exposing the disturbing influence of the online encyclopedia on artificial intelligence.
On Wednesday, the chatbot was quick to accuse Kirk of promoting conspiracy theories and other purportedly false claims when asked, "Who is Charlie Kirk?" Worse still, Meta AI identified Wikipedia as its sole source, justifying its choice by stating it offers a "neutral point of view and comprehensive coverage of current events."
Kirk was assassinated on Sept. 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. Wikipedia editors also targeted Kirk right after the shooting, adding accusations that Kirk had spread misinformation to the lead section of his page. Previously, the editors had restrained themselves to demonizing Kirk lower down, where they associated him with “white supremacist” Nick Fuentes and featured a 15-paragraph section titled “Promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories.”
Of course, bad inputs lead to bad outputs, and Meta AI spat out the same attack that Wikipedia featured most prominently, misinformation. Disturbingly, Gemini and ChatGPT also used Wikipedia—which is run by Maryana Iskander, a former Planned Parenthood chief operating officer—to supply their answers on Kirk. OpenAI’s ChatGPT cited Wikipedia first, before mentioning that it also pulled from People Magazine and the left-wing publication The Atlantic, with which OpenAI has an anti-competitive exclusivity contract.
Google Gemini hallucinated when asked to show its sources and apologized for saying Kirk was dead. However, its first answer showed a list of sources, including Wikipedia twice, fellow Alphabet subsidiary YouTube once, and three citations from left-wing publications in the U.K. A twice-cited article from The Guardian labeled Kirk as a “divisive provocateur” in the headline.
Notably, Google has contributed a combined $7.5 million to the Wikimedia Foundation, Wikipedia’s parent company, and its fund, Wikimedia Endowment. Google frequently uses Wikipedia, particularly Wikipedia info boxes, as a source for its “knowledge panels,” which often appear at the top of many basic online searches.
Grok, another AI chatbot tested, did not mention Wikipedia when asked to cite sources.
This is important because Wikipedia’s process for citing sources is rigged in favor of leftist sources with obvious implications for the resulting content. Wikipedia has a “reliable sources” page where the encyclopedia assigns ratings ranging from “generally reliable” to literally “blacklisted” to determine how and if a source may be used on the online encyclopedia. MRC Free Speech America researchers found that Wikipedia labeled 84 percent of the listed left-leaning media sources featured on this AllSides media bias chart as “generally reliable.” By contrast, Wikipedia smeared 22 out of the 29 right-leaning sources from the chart with negative labels such as “blacklisted,” “deprecated” and “generally unreliable.” The other seven fell under “no consensus.”
When confronted with the reliable sources list, Grok and ChatGPT both acknowledged that this showed Wikipedia’s bias, while MetaAI provided further evidence of political bias at Wikipedia. Grok wrote, “Wikipedia cannot be considered an unbiased source due to its editorial policies and practices, particularly its reliable sources list, which often restricts or disfavors right-of-center sources.” Grok went on to list examples and accuse Wikipedia of “selective emphasis.”
Meta AI cited research by the Manhattan Institute showing widespread bias at Wikipedia on political topics, which included allegations that leftist bias was infecting AI chatbots. ChatGPT admitted that “Wikipedia is not ‘neutral’ in the sense of being free from systemic bias — especially in how it handles sourcing.” This chatbot also wrote, “Topics with ideological weight (politics, social issues, media bias itself) tend to reflect mainstream/liberal consensus” [No emphasis added].
Gemini, whose parent company is closely associated with Wikipedia, called determining whether Wikipedia is an unbiased source a “complex question.” The chatbot tried to use Fox News as a counter example to Wikipedia bias, but failed to note that Wikipedia’s reliable sources list divides Fox News programming between “no consensus” and “generally unreliable.”
The chatbot also missed that Wikipedia has been repeatedly condemned for its lack of neutrality by its co-founder, Larry Sanger, who has called the online encyclopedia “biased” and “one of the most effective organs of Establishment propaganda in history.”
Image above credited to Gage Skidmore.
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.
Methodology: MRC researchers asked the following three questions to ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok and Meta AI on Sept. 17:
Who is Charlie Kirk?
What sources did you use? Please list them all and why they were chosen.
Can Wikipedia be considered an unbiased source given that the website has a reliable sources list that routinely prohibits editors from citing right-of-center sources in most contexts by labelling them as “blacklisted” “deprecated” or “generally unreliable”?
