translation:

25 years after the launch of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger has become the most persistent critic from the founding series of the online encyclopedia. The U.S. philosopher was editor-in-chief of predecessor Nupedia and played a central role in building Wikipedia in 2001. He coined the name and worked on the principle of the “neutral position” before leaving the project in 2002. Today, he heads the Knowledge Standards Foundation, which aims to develop a decentralized network of competing encyclopedias with the Encyclosphere.

His criticism of Wikipedia’s anti-expertism has become the accusation of an ideological takeover. Sanger’s “Nine Theses on Wikipedia” require, among other things, identifiable functionaries, public assessments and rule-of-law blocking procedures. In June 2026, the English-language Wikipedia suspended him indefinitely for alleged external mobilization for his WikiProject Intellectual Diversity. He hasn’t been able to edit any items since.

He denies the allegations and questions the fairness of the proceedings. Wikipedia’s defense lawyers point to neutrality rules, visible version stories and mutual control; studies of political distortion come to different conclusions. Search engines and AI systems continue to use Wikipedia content.

Not a proper governance system

Mr. Sanger, Wikipedia was created in 2001 from the predecessor Nupedia, which had an editorial office, but instead relied on an open edition concept. Which institutional decision should have been made differently at the time?

I don’t think I realized at the time that it would be a serious and permanent problem that no proper governance system was created for Wikipedia. There is no institutional seal for particularly important changes. Any change must go through the same vague, anonymous discussion process as everything else on Wikipedia. This is not the best way to make big decisions about Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia needed a community charter. I finally wrote one for Citizendium. But we launched Citizendium at exactly the time Wikipedia experienced its steepest growth trajectory. Wikipedia sucked Citizendium away all the air. That’s why it remained a small side project. Even supposedly neutral institutions are shaped by people with political beliefs. Was it naïve to think that a neutrality rule alone could ensure neutrality in an open wiki?

In 2000 and 2001, I knew that people had political positions that they would try to enforce. That wasn’t the problem. The original Wikipedia idea of neutrality was: One cannot see which side the author is on. The big mistake was the assumption that people committed to neutrality in a wiki would prevail solely because there is a corresponding rule. They had no way of forcing the so-called POV pushers, the representatives of subjective viewpoints, to retreat and to make their opponents heard.

“The left is thinking much more strongly about cultural takeover” You see a political shift to the left on Wikipedia as well as at universities. Why does the left succeed in institutional and cultural control better than conservatives?

The left is thinking much more strongly about cultural takeover. She feels much more comfortable with the idea of imposing her will on others. Real conservatives reject this; philosophically and emotionally, they feel committed to pluralism. The idea that one must let opponents have their say is related to the ideals of freedom of speech and neutrality, with equal starting conditions and the marketplace of ideas. The left absolutely rejects that. When conservatives try to enforce their will, they feel uncomfortable – unlike the left. I’m just thinking about what that will sound or look like in print. Still, it’s absolutely true. Opponents of the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity rejected the idea of creating space for divergent views downright joyful. They don’t say it openly, but arrive close: “We took over Wikipedia. You have to adapt to our point of view if you want to play. Otherwise we don’t want you with us.” “University professors are treated like garbage” In the past, you criticized Wikipedia’s anti-expertism, now more political distortion, informal power and isolation. Has Wikipedia changed or your diagnosis?

Wikipedia has changed, the problems have gotten worse. When I criticized the platform in 2004 for its anti-expertism, I was serious about it. University professors explained on discussion pages what facts were misrepresented, and were treated like garbage. They left immediately. The directive on reliable sources mitigated this problem, but created new ones. The anonymous students – or whoever they are, anonymous intelligence officials, PR people, and all the others – have no respect for people outside their community. Those who do not immediately adapt to the complex social standards of Wikipedia are treated with enormous contempt. Some animals are the same as others. Political distortion remains abstract without concrete articles. Which entry, in your view, violates the most significant Wikipedia’s original principle of neutrality – and why?

In my “Nine Theses” of last year, I introduced the acronym GASP: globalist, academic, secular and progressive. Wikipedians do not use this term, but admit that they work in this context and defend it. Perhaps the clearest and most offensive example for many people is the article “Yahweh”. Last year, he began thus: “Yahwe was” – past form – “an ancient Semitic deity of the weather and war in the ancient Levant, the national god of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.” Wikipedia asserts this itself; it is not presented as a perspective. By far the most important fact is that this is the God of the Bible and thus of Christianity and Judaism, in a derived way even of Muslims. A neutral article would reflect the entire spectrum of opinion. Influence: “The powerful are strongly interested in Wikipedia” Wikipedia is written by volunteers, but influential accounts often run under a pseudonym and paid changes are hard to see. Which state, economic or PR actors use the platform as a tool?

Wikipedia was recognized early as an important propaganda organ. And I think it was used that way, too. Because of the anonymity rule, it was easy to use for it. It’s hard to tell from whom because everyone is anonymous. But what we know by all sorts of evidence as a fact: The CIA has already edited Wikipedia. The company Wiki-PR earned millions with Wikipedia changes. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reported that Portland Communications had rewritten Wikipedia for governments and billionaires, including Qatar, the Gates Foundation and Libya’s sovereign wealth fund. The then head of the Wikimedia Foundation, Katherine Maher, told the Atlantic Council in 2021 that they had discussions with governments and other platform operators. The powerful are very interested in Wikipedia. The droll pseudonyms and the handling serve as a mask. Jimmy Wales remained Wikipedia’s defining public figure after her departure. How much responsibility does he bear for the development – and how did the procedure that led to your permanent lock in 2026 work?

He has more responsibility than I do. When my case was tried and I was in the dock, however, he defended me. The page for my procedures worked like any wiki page: anyone can edit it. There is no prosecutor. Anyone who opposes you in the discussion becomes your accuser. There is no judge; ultimately, all of your judges are, and at some point it essentially boils down to a vote. They can say what they want about you – slanderous, ridiculous, and wrong things. There is no higher authority and no appeals office. They’re the same people. The central accusation was “canvassing”: they would have mobilized supporters outside Wikipedia. Do the rules actually prohibit recruiting participants for an internal WikiProject on X?

I was clearly of the opinion that everything I did was fully compatible with the guidelines. I was looking for participants for the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity – on X, why not? On the page about “canvassing” there is nothing against it. Absolutely nothing. I did not campaign for votes for a particular political position, but for participants for a WikiProject. This is something completely different. Many groups clearly represent certain ideological viewpoints. WikiProject Women in Red, for example, is a feminist activist group that is also being promoted to members outside Wikipedia. Why shouldn’t the WikiProject Intellectual Diversity be allowed to do that?

Israelis, Hindus and other groups were excluded They mentioned PR firms, governments and organized author groups. Was behind the crackdown on you a coordinated campaign – or rather a loose community of politically like-minded people?

I don’t know. I don’t know. For you and your readers, it would certainly be very interesting if I answered yes to your suggestive question. But on Wikipedia, there are many ideologically motivated people. That’s perfectly clear. And it is obvious that people hide behind their anonymity to make important decisions on Wikipedia about what the world believes. I tried to open Wikipedia through an internal, completely open group to more intellectual diversity. It was not just about American conservatism. Many Israelis, at least some Hindus and various other groups were excluded. Since the Hamas attack of 7. October 2023 are the articles on the Gaza war scene of fierce editing battles. How do you view Wikipedia’s portrayal of Israel, the Palestinians and the war?

It is clearly very one-sided. Many people on Wikipedia like it that way. In general, this corresponds to the way people of the political left want to see the conflict represented. Of course, Muslims expect it to be: essentially to take the Palestinian side and to portray Israel as a genocidal regime. I supported Jimmy Wales when he intervened in the article “Gaza genocide” and said, maybe he should not be called that and the introduction should contain more about the Israeli perspective. That would be neutral. Because I have a pretty big nose, people just assume I’m Jewish. I’m not Jewish at all. I was raised Lutheran and I am an Anglican today. I don’t even defend Israel very much. Israel has clearly done some wrong things, the Palestinians too. As an encyclopedist, I must urge to present all sides of a dispute fairly so that people can make a judgment for themselves. Each author brings their own beliefs. How do you distinguish a legitimate position from a prejudice that distorts the other side – and how do you protect yourself from your own blind spots?

A prejudice is a point of view that you hold on to in such a way that you distort the other side. As a trained philosopher, I am aware of my prejudices and the difficulty of portraying controversy unbiased. Certain views do not make a person unable to write neutrally. Ironically, journalists can do this very well: they know who believes what, and are aware of their own prejudices. “Wikipedia is already compromised” Elon Musk’s AI company xAI launched 2025 Grokipedia as an AI competition to Wikipedia; however, numerous entries were taken over from Wikipedia or based on it. Has Wikipedia passed its peak – or does this dependence continue to make it powerful?

Wikipedia is definitely not dead. Anyone who assumes that it will simply overturn and die, commits a serious mistake. Whether Grokipedia will be successful is completely open. Wikipedia is used as a training material. Grokipedia was written at least in part using Wikipedia; whole formulations were adopted almost directly. For certain questions, AI systems bring out Wikipedia articles. Because of the use by large language models, Wikipedia could remain very important. Such models do not develop a life of their own after starting. They are functions of their training data.

When search engines and chatbots use Wikipedia as training material, every distortion anchored there multiplies. Have paid edits and preferred sources already compromised the platform permanently?

Absolutely. Wikipedia is compromised. Anyone who wanted to spend money on bringing Wikipedia articles in a certain direction has been proven to do so for many years. We just don’t know to what extent. Take any view of the establishment – whatever the World Economic Forum, the World Bank, or other multinational or giant companies say: Wikipedia essentially portrays it as a fact. We don’t have to worry about the future of Wikipedia. This future is already here. Which reforms would you implement first? It is also about “bureaucrats” and CheckUsers – officials with extended rights and partly access to non-public connection data – about blocking and binding rules.

First, disclose who Wikipedia’s leaders are. I’m not calling anyone to doxxing. But bureaucrats, check users and other high-level officials should be known by name. If you want to hold such a position, you should voluntarily disclose your identity as a prerequisite. Secondly, fully revise Wikipedia’s disciplinary system. People are excluded for completely trivial reasons, without real appeals. Administrators support other administrators. There is no appeals authority; they are the same people. We need rule of law principles and a separation between the police and the prosecution on the one hand and judges on the other. The police should not be the judges at the same time. Third, the public should evaluate articles. All other providers of online content let the audience rate their content. The exception is Wikipedia. There you can only judge the work of Wikipedians if you are a Wikipedian. That’s not right. Finally, Wikipedia’s highly irregular procedure for developing policies must be replaced by elected individuals known to Wikipedians and the world and bear real responsibility for Wikipedia’s rules. “Regret of Wikipedia” Beyond political conflicts, Wikipedia offers millions of usable articles and free access to knowledge. Was the project a force of good overall – or is the misdirection now weighing heavier?

In the meantime, I tend to regret the founding of Wikipedia. Only one thing makes me hesitate: several taxi drivers who had come to the USA from Africa and other world regions told me when I told them that I was the founder of Wikipedia: “I learned so much from Wikipedia.” And I know that’s true. On the issues that propagandists find important, Wikipedia contains a lot of propaganda. In addition, however, there is a very long foothills of relatively harmless issues that are dealt with reasonably. I am glad that Wikipedia exists. I only regret very, very strongly that we did not install the necessary protection mechanisms early on. Until well into 2001, a success for me was not even in the realm of the possible. It would have been arrogant to make plans in case Wikipedia is actually taken over by the establishment. In the first year, we didn’t even think about this problem.

Under “perennial sources”, Wikipedia maintains a traffic light list maintained by the community for the reliability of frequently used media. What should readers know about excluded sources and the possible strike side?

View the page on the “perennial sources”. Virtually all the sources that would be associated with the establishment and especially the left-wing establishment are marked and approved in green. Conservative sources are not allowed, with very few exceptions – and these exceptions must be conservative establishment sources. Everything that occupies a Hindu standpoint in India tends to be downplayed; as are sources with an Israeli perspective. A lot of local coverage outside the West is not allowed on Wikipedia. You could say that in these countries you don’t understand journalism very well. There may be something about that, but these sources still contain useful information. Wikipedia has a very western side of the strike, and I don’t think we’re aware of that.