Wikipedia is about as ubiquitous as anything on the World Wide Web can possibly be. From Grok:
“Wikipedia is extremely ubiquitous, serving as one of the most widely accessed sources of information globally. As of 2025, it ranks among the top 10 most-visited websites, with billions of page views monthly.
“Available in over 300 languages, it contains millions of articles, with the English version alone hosting over 6.7 million articles as of recent data.
“Its open-editing model and nonprofit status make it a go-to for quick facts, academic research, and casual curiosity across cultures and devices.
“Its ubiquity is further amplified by its integration into search engines (often appearing at the top of Google results), digital assistants like Siri, and its use as a foundational dataset for AI models.”
It is the Google/Amazon/Apple of information websites. A modern-day neo-monopoly of what it does.
And like those other Big Tech neo-monopoly monsters? It abuses its massive power. Including being hopelessly biased against anyone and anything to the right of Karl Marx.
I have had one attempted interaction with Wikipedia - in 2009. Which shows just how far back the corruption goes.
I at that time had had some success making infamous a Barack Obama Administration official named Mark Lloyd. In part by posting a video of Lloyd saying:
“In Venezuela, with (Communist Hugo) Chavez, we really had an incredible revolution, a democratic revolution.”
At the time, I went to Lloyd’s Wikipedia page to attempt to insert a single line. Containing that quote - and a link to the video of him saying it.
I attempted to do so three times. Why merely attempted? Why thrice? Because three different anonymous Wikipedia editors blocked the line. All three stating as their reason? That it was my opinion that Lloyd said this.
My opinion? Again: I was attempting to post a QUOTE - from a VIDEO. The link to which I provided.
Now - years after it actually mattered - Lloyd’s Wikipedia page contains:
“(Glenn) Beck broadcast a short video of Lloyd’s comments at a 2008 conference on media reform. Lloyd described the importance of media in Rwanda and Venezuela. He referred to the events in Venezuela as ‘an incredible revolution.’ This clip was used to claim that Lloyd generally supports Chavez. Lloyd has stated that he does not support Chavez. Over 50 public interest groups have defended Lloyd, calling conservative claims ‘false and misleading.’”
Again: It’s a QUOTE - from a VIDEO. To which Wikipedia still does not link.
But don’t take my word that Wikipedia is biased. Or your lying eyes.
Meet John Kiriakou. A former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative whom the Obama Administration sent to prison in 2013 for telling the truth: That the CIA was torturing prisoners. To this day, no one involved in torturing prisoners has gone to prison. Just Kiriakou - for outing the practice.
Kiriakou recently appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast. During which he said he back then noticed his Wikipedia page erroneously said he attended a different college than he actually attended. So he attempted to correct it.
And a Wikipedia editor (again, anonymous) flatly stated that Kiriakou was wrong - and refused to allow the edit. (The page now has the correct university.)
So Wikipedia is totalitarian - and often wrong - about issues great and small. Don’t believe me? Or Kiriakou? Or your own lying eyes?
Meet Larry Sanger. He’s the co-founder of Wikipedia. He recently appeared on Tucker Carlson’s podcast to detail the many biases and utter corruption of Wikipedia. Carlson’s YouTube write-up of the appearance in part reads:
“Larry Sanger built Wikipedia as an unbiased repository of the world’s knowledge, and then stood helplessly by as activists and intel agencies turned it into the most comprehensive propaganda op in human history.”
The podcast is 93-plus minutes of total and complete exposure of Wikipedia for its corrupt hackery. As but one example, Sanger says:
“Wikipedia maintains a list of ‘perennial sources.’ Which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources.”
Don’t believe Sanger? Would you believe Wikipedia’s own “Perennial Sources List” page?:
“Sources considered generally reliable include news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Al Jazeera; traditional newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Telegraph, The Times and its sister paper The Sunday Times, The Guardian, and The Nation, as well as Slate, BuzzFeed News, and ProPublica. Non-news outlets, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, and Amnesty International, are also categorized as generally reliable….
“Deprecated sources include Occupy Democrats, One America News Network, The Epoch Times, The Daily Caller, The Gateway Pundit, The Sun, The Grayzone, MintPress News, and Newsmax.….
“Sources that have been both deprecated and blacklisted include Breitbart News, Infowars, and state-sponsored fake news websites such as SouthFront and NewsFront.”
That’s not at all an almost entirely “ideologically one-sided blacklist.”
Sanger and Carlson share a laugh looking at Carlson’s Wikipedia page. Specifically the last sentence of the first paragraph:
“An advocate of President Donald Trump, Carlson has been described as a high-profile proponent of Trumpism, influential voice in right-wing media, and a leading voice of white grievance politics.”
If Carlson cared enough to try to contest the idiotic “leading voice of white grievance politics?” Guess how far he’d get with Wikipedia’s army of mostly anonymous editors. Here’s Sanger again - from a different interview:
“Altogether there are 62 such (Wikipedia editor) accounts, and out of all of those, only nine reveal their real names. So 85% of these most powerful accounts, the Power 62, as I call them, 85% are anonymous. I mean, that’s crazy. How is that possible?”
Which brings us to Section 230.
How Did Big Tech Get So Big? Massive Government Cronyism - Like Section 230
And again from Grok:
“Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996) generally protects online platforms from liability for user-generated content, including libel and slander, with some nuances. It states that ‘no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.’
“This means platforms like social media sites or forums aren’t typically liable for defamatory content posted by users, as they’re not considered the “publisher” of that content. However, there are key points to consider:
“1. Immunity Scope: Section 230 provides broad immunity for platforms, but it doesn’t absolve the original poster of defamatory content from liability. If someone posts libelous or slanderous material, they can still be sued for defamation, even if the platform hosting it is protected.”
Most of Wikipedia’s editors are anonymous. So how do you sue them?
And you can’t sue their host Wikipedia - because of Section 230.
All of which is ridiculous. And pernicious. As lawsuits have proven time and again to be just about the only tool we have against the legacy forces arrayed against us.
ABC and Stephanopoulos to Pay Donald Trump $15M, Apologize in Defamation Suit Settlement
Trump Sues CBS News Over 60 Minutes Interview With Harris
Trump Files $15B Defamation Lawsuit Against The New York Times
Donald Trump Lawsuit Against Gannett, Des Moines Register Transferred to Federal Court
And it ain’t just Trump doing the suing.
CNN Settles $275M Lawsuit with Covington Student Nick Sandmann
Washington Post Settles $250M Suit with Covington Teen Nick Sandmann
So it’s no wonder Big Tech wants to keep its Section 230 cronyism.
And it’s no wonder bought-and-paid-for DC is ensuring they do.