by Dr. Joseph Mercola
September 02, 2023
Wikipedia is the most biased encyclopedia in history,
having been hijacked by U.S. intelligence, industry and
the political establishment years ago
According to Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger, U.S.
intelligence has been manipulating the online
encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not longer
Sanger noticed a bias creeping in around 2006,
particularly in areas of science and medicine. Around
2010, he noticed that articles about Eastern Medicine
were being changed to reflect blatantly biased
positions, using “dismissive epithets” to paint this
ancient tradition as quackery
Over-the-top kind of establishment bias includes
Wikipedia's assertion that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is
a conspiracy theory designed to undermine Biden, even
though evidence of Biden's corruption has been made
explanation for why ideological bias has taken over
Wikipedia is that it's intentionally being used as a
propaganda tool by intelligence agencies and the
globalist establishment that is seeking to establish a
One World Government. To succeed, they can't allow a
multitude of dissenting viewpoints to proliferate, and
intelligence agencies are working together to
disseminate and uphold the Deep State's narratives
Intelligence agencies have a long history of using propaganda as a
tool of war, and the effectiveness of information warfare radically
improved with the emergence of the internet, to say nothing of
artificial intelligence and social media.
If you're over 50, you can probably remember a time when your family
had a row of encyclopedias on the bookshelf - usually obtained at
considerable cost - which were perused whenever you needed to learn
more about a particular topic.
Today, you can't even give a complete set of encyclopedias away
because, well, we have Wikipedia.
However, Wikipedia has also become
a favored propaganda tool, so to call it unreliable would be an
According to Wikipedia cofounder
Larry Sanger - who left Wikipedia
in 2002, the year after its inception - U.S. intelligence has been
manipulating the online encyclopedia since at least 2008, if not
Sanger recently sat down to speak with independent
journalist Glenn Greenwald (video
far below) about the subversion of the
site he helped create. 1
Bias of Wikipedia
Sanger says he noticed a bias creeping in around 2006, particularly
in areas of science and medicine.
Around 2010, he started noticing
that articles about Eastern Medicine were being changed to reflect
blatantly biased positions, using "dismissive epithets" to paint
this ancient tradition as quackery.
In 2012, evidence also emerged revealing a Wikipedia trustee and "Wikipedian
in Residence" were being paid to edit pages on behalf of their
clients and secure their placement on Wikipedia's front page in the
"Did You Know" section, 2 which publicizes new or expanded articles
- a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.
"It really got over the top... between 2013 and 2018," Sanger says,
"and by by at the time Trump became president, it was almost as bad
as it is now.
It's amazing, you know, no encyclopedia, to my
knowledge, has ever been as biased as Wikipedia has been...
I remember being mad about
Encyclopedia Britannica and The World
Book not mentioning my favorite topics, [and] presenting only
certain points of view in a way that establishment sources generally
But this is something else. This is entirely different.
over the top..."
Greenwald agrees, highlighting some recent examples of the "over the
top" kind of establishment bias, such as Wikipedia simply declaring
that the Ukraine-Biden scandal is a 'conspiracy theory' designed to
"The very first
Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of false
Joe Biden, while he was Vice President of
the United States, engaged in corrupt activities relating to
his son, Hunter Biden, who was on the board of the Ukrainian
gas company Burisma.'
'As part of efforts by
Donald Trump and his campaign in the
Trump-Ukraine scandal, which led to Trump's first impeachment, these
falsehoods were spread in an attempt to damage Joe Biden's
reputation and chances during the 2020 presidential campaign,' the
Wikipedia entry still reads...!
The Biden-Ukraine scandal is
- according to Wikipedia - the 'Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory' but the Trump controversy
involving Ukraine is 'the Trump-Ukraine scandal'.
written to comport with the liberal world view and the Democratic
Party talking points."
Wikipedia's treatment of
all things COVID-related is equally skewed...
It presents only the establishment's "truth" across the board, no
matter how much evidence there is to refute it.
Been Married to Ideology
"Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia devoted to truth,"
The problem is that,
"The premise seems to be that
you don't have truth anymore independent of ideological outlook."
We know that
a great part of intelligence
and information warfare
conducted online, and where,
if not on websites like Wikipedia?
Indeed, Sanger points out that Wikipedia's official policy even
declares that 80% of Right-wing media is unreliable, and,
really, really colors the articles and what the editors allow the
articles to say," he says.
Just how did we get to a point where
"truth" is tied to a particular ideology?
Common sense tells you it
simply cannot be so.
One explanation for why this ideological bias has taken over
Wikipedia is that it's intentionally being used as a propaganda tool
by intelligence agencies and the globalist establishment that is
seeking to implement a new global governance, a
New World Order/One
To succeed in that Herculean effort, they can't allow a multitude of
dissenting viewpoints to proliferate, and intelligence agencies are
working together to disseminate and uphold the
Sanger puts it this way:
"I think that the Left... very, very deliberately seeks out to take
control. Except it isn't just the Left.
We're learning that now,
aren't we? No, it's the establishment, and they have their own
I'm not going to try to offer any opinions - because it's not
something that I study - as to how they bring that about.
clear that between 2005 and 2015... Wikipedia moved onto the
establishment's radar, and we... have evidence that... even as
early as... 2008... CIA and FBI computers were used to edit
Think they stopped doing that? No...!
And not just them. We know that a great part of intelligence and
information warfare is conducted online, and where, if not on
websites like Wikipedia?
They pay off the most influential people to push their agendas,
which they're already mostly in line with, or they just develop
their own talent within the [intelligence] community.
the Wikipedia game and then push what they want to say with their
So, that's my take on that."
Social Media Are Controlled Too
As noted by Greenwald,
Google has played a significant role in
Wikipedia's growth and success by,
algorithmically placing Wikipedia
answers at the top of most searches, and, of course - while they
don't discuss this in the interview -
Google also has deep and
longstanding ties to the military-intelligence-industrial complex
and the globalist Deep State...
The same can be said for social media companies like
As reported by Jimmy Dore in the video above, in early
2023, Elon Musk released documents showing Twitter's former
executives censored content at the request of the FBI and assisted
the U.S. military's online propaganda campaigns.
Twitter also censored anti-Ukraine narratives on behalf of several
U.S. intelligence agencies.
Similarly, Facebook censored accurate
information that was damaging to Joe Biden's presidential campaign
at the direct request of the FBI.
There's simply no doubt that
intelligence agencies are directly involved in controlling and
directing public information flow, and Wikipedia is invaluable in
Writers Have No Credibility
Now, I'd be remiss if I didn't stress a key feature of Wikipedia
that makes it unreliable, no matter what, and that is the fact that
contributing authors and editors are all anonymous.
Clearly, the credibility of an author, regardless of the media
format, is of importance when trying to determine the veracity of a
given topic, keeping in mind that even experts in the same field
will often reach different (and perhaps opposing) conclusions.
Not every expert will have read and evaluated the exact same
evidence, for example, leading to differences in interpretation of
This is normal and unlikely to change, as it is human nature
to draw conclusions based on our own breadth of experience and
It's then up to the reader to make up their mind about which of the
two or more experts they believe is most correct - a choice that in
turn is dependent on the reader's own prejudices and knowledge base.
That said, it should be obvious that no one individual, or even
group of individuals, can be the final arbiter of which expert
opinion is "the truth."
However, that's exactly the position that Wikipedia has inserted
They now decide who they think is right and which
position is the correct one, and they simply censor opposing views...
Have Known They Were Promoting Unreliable Info
Considering that one of the primary factors that come into play when
determining the credibility of an author is his or her credentials,
affiliations and previous writings, 4
how is it that Google promotes
Wikipedia as an 'authority' for every possible type of information by
listing them at the top of its search results...?
And how can Google
use Wikipedia as a primary tool for its quality raters to
establish credibility of other online material? 5,6
doesn't make sense, unless you realize that,
neither Google nor
Wikipedia are about giving people accurate and unbiased information.
Their function is to facilitate
the programming of people with a
certain set of narratives and viewpoints.
As early as 2011, the
fact that Wikipedia editors were being paid by corporations to
remove and suppress unwanted information was well known and had been
declared scandalous. 7
Yet nothing changed. At
least not for the better...
A 2014 paper 8 titled, "Do Experts or Collective Intelligence Write
with More Bias? - Evidence from Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia"
by Shane Greenstein and Feng Zhu, compared 4,000 articles that
appear in both encyclopedias and found,
73% of Wikipedia's articles
contained political buzz words, compared to 34% in Britannica, and
in nearly all cases, Wikipedia was more left-leaning than the
to Smear and Defame Truthtellers
A key take-home from all this is that Wikipedia is not a reliable
It's a propaganda tool, and relying on it will frequently
leave you wearing the dunce hat.
Articles on science and medicine
are definitely corrupted and biased in favor of establishment views
and should never be used to make medical decisions.
According to a 2014 study,
9,10 which assessed the veracity of
medical claims made on Wikipedia by cross-checking them with the
latest peer-reviewed research, reported finding "many errors" in
articles concerning the 10 costliest medical conditions.
In fact, 9
out of 10 entries - 90%! - contained assertions that were
contradicted by published research.
"Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use
caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient
care," the authors warned.
That said, articles about historical events, current geopolitical
issues and the biographies of public figures are not much better.
Greenwald himself has seen his personal page transform from a
neutral listing of his work history and accomplishments to an
"ideological war" description that paints him in a bad light.
Many excellent scientists and doctors who veered from the
establishment narrative on COVID have also been shamefully smeared
and defamed by Wikipedia, and anyone who tries to clarify or clear
up inaccuracies on the site is simply blocked.
Investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson, for example, has
repeatedly tried to,
false facts" about her background on Wikipedia, only to be told
she's "not a reliable source" and having her edits overridden by
anonymous editors that guard her page, making sure her
award-winning work is kept hushed and her character portrait
Other examples of
"sanitizing" certain pages and tarnishing others can be found in a
June 28, 2015, article 12 in The Epoch Times.
Wikipedia and Use Other Online Encyclopedias
If you're interested in learning more about Wikipedia, its history
and inner workings, pick up a copy of Andrew Lih's book, "The
Wikipedia Revolution - How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World's
Greatest Encyclopedia." 13
In it, Lih asks,
"If Wikipedia is a
minefield of inaccuracies, should one even be tiptoeing through this
It's a fair question, for sure.
Similarly, in a 2005 blog post critiquing Wikipedia, Nicholas Carr,
author of "What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains," noted:
"[A]n encyclopedia can't just have a small percentage of good
entries and be considered a success. I would argue, in fact, that
the overall quality of an encyclopedia is best judged by its weakest
entries rather than its best.
What's the worth of an unreliable
The good news is there are dozens of other online encyclopedias,
many of which do not suffer from this entrenched ideological bias.
Two great resources are,
...which allow you to search for answers across dozens of
encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, at once.
This way, you can
compare a multitude of sources.
Examples of more specialized encyclopedias include,
Sanger is involved in the creation of encyclosearch.org, which he
describes as an effort to,
"strike a blow against censorship and
control of information by simply making it easier to find the all
the other encyclopedias that are out there."
Truth be told, Wikipedia is dependent on your lack of knowledge
about how they really operate.
Taking advantage of your desire for
quick information, their goal is to shuttle your thoughts, opinions
and knowledge into a silo that doesn't allow anything in except what
they put in there.
And what they're putting on their site is some of
the most biased information you'll find anywhere in media today...