Amy Mek
In an explosive segment on Republic TV, Arnab Goswami unmasked Wikipedia as a highly controlled, ideologically-driven platform disguised as a “neutral, free, editable” resource. Joined by Nupur J. Sharma, Editor-in-Chief of OpIndia, Goswami laid bare the reality: Wikipedia is not a transparent, crowd-sourced information hub but a tightly managed operation run by a small, handpicked set of administrators who align with global left-wing agendas. This elite editorial cadre has significant influence over content that shapes public perception on crucial issues worldwide, controlling narratives with unchecked power.
Wikipedia’s own co-founder, Larry Sanger, has categorically stated that Wikipedia has a pronounced left-wing bias. In several interviews and public talks, Sanger has spoken extensively about how Wikipedia skews the balance of information, resulting in an inaccurate representation of reality that is heavily slanted to the left. His direct insider perspective exposes the platform’s failure to remain neutral, confirming that its editorial approach systematically distorts the truth and reinforces a leftist agenda.
With only 435 administrators overseeing millions of entries, Wikipedia’s self-proclaimed neutrality is a thin facade. Instead of representing a democratic source of collective knowledge, Wikipedia has become an oligarchy, where editorial control lies in the hands of a select few. Sharma revealed that these editors are not just ideologically motivated but are often directly funded by influential organizations with vested interests. Far-left entities like the Open Society Foundations, funded by billionaire George Soros, along with the Rockefeller and Rothschild Foundations, actively fund Wikipedia. These financial backers raise serious questions about Wikipedia’s “neutrality,” especially as it repeatedly leans toward narratives that align with the ideological interests of these donors.
This isn’t merely about monetary influence. Soros’s Open Society Foundations and the Rockefeller Foundation have long-standing histories of promoting radical left-wing agendas, often through funding media, policy advocacy, and academic projects. Their investments in Wikipedia call into question the objectivity of content about politically sensitive topics, as well as coverage of key figures, movements, and organizations worldwide. Sharma pointed out that Wikipedia’s parent organization, the Wikimedia Foundation, has amassed enough funds to operate for decades without further donations. Yet, it actively solicits funds from the public and high-profile donors. Their agenda? To maintain a consistent ideological slant by keeping tight editorial control over content, favoring sources and narratives aligned with radical left-wing global perspectives.
This ideological alignment is not limited to left-wing foundations. Wikipedia’s financial relationships extend to corporate giants like Google, which has made substantial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation. Google, itself under scrutiny for bias, further entrenches Wikipedia’s left-leaning slant by integrating its entries prominently into search results. Amazon, the Ford Foundation, and even the Musk Foundation have also contributed to Wikipedia, reinforcing a troubling dynamic where left-leaning and globalist interests shape public knowledge.
Republic’s Legal Challenge
Responding to Wikipedia’s biased portrayal of Republic and other Indian news outlets, Goswami announced that Republic Media Network is preparing legal action. Wikipedia’s pages about Republic are manipulated to omit crucial facts and defame the network, including dismissing court rulings that have cleared Republic of baseless allegations. Attempts by Republic to correct these inaccuracies are repeatedly blocked by Wikipedia’s editors, many of whom, Sharma explained, are directly funded by the Wikimedia Foundation through grants aimed at maintaining their ideological alignment. Republic’s initiative takes a crucial step toward challenging Wikipedia’s unchecked power.
A Tool of Misinformation
The bias extends far beyond Republic. Wikipedia frequently portrays conservative political leaders, nationalist movements, non-left-wing journalists, and traditional cultural values in a negative and dangerous light. Islamic terror groups like Hezbollah are labeled “political movements,” while democracies such as India and the United States are criticized for “democratic backsliding.” Wikipedia’s coverage of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Donald Trump, and nationalist movements worldwide often resorts to labels like “controversial” while openly casting doubt on widely accepted historical events and cultural sites sacred to millions, such as the Ram Janmabhoomi in India.
A Global Battle Against Censorship
The influence of a small, ideologically driven elite controlling Wikipedia is a global issue. For anyone outside the left-wing sphere, Wikipedia’s weaponization of information has become a serious threat, silencing opposing views and creating a distorted version of truth that is readily consumed by millions worldwide.
This small group wields unchecked power to selectively manipulate narratives and tarnish reputations, leaving individuals and organizations vulnerable to the agendas of biased editors. By controlling how certain figures and viewpoints are presented—or entirely misrepresented—Wikipedia has severely damaged the reputations of countless individuals globally, often without any recourse or correction. This reputational harm has profound consequences, impacting personal credibility, professional standing, and the broader public perception of those targeted by this editorial elite.
As Republic takes a stand, this battle for factual accuracy and against censorship is one that every freedom-loving person, from any corner of the world, should watch closely. If India succeeds, it will pave the way for similar actions globally, striking back against the manipulation of truth by a powerful few.
ONLY IDIOTS USE WIKIPEDIA AND FACEBOOK.
WIKIPEDIA AND FACEBOOK MUST BE STOPPED AND MARK SUCK FUCKERBERGS ARRESTED FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, AND ALL HIS ASSETS SEIZED,
The “gone to crap” condition of Wikipedia is not news to anybody who used it regularly over the years and were paying attention to its spiral into low-to-no credibility. I was a huge fan of Wikipedia, always responding to its annual drive for financial contributions. But that was “back in the day,” before it devolved into a useless a woke joke at least a decade ago.
In the beginning, the site had received pushback from teachers, media, and “intellectual elites” who fancied themselves experts (anybody with a briefcase at least 50 miles from home). Clearly they were not happy to have their “expertness” challenged by possibly non-degreed people who just happened to be well studied and brilliant apart from their seal of approval. To be fair, the nay sayers’ claims might have had merit initially, but by offering a reasonably filtered, resource-driven, point-counterpoint to contributors, Wikipedia quickly became the most reliable source of “minimally biased” information available. Where else would you find a summarized position in one place encompassing both data/counter data from climate change advocates and climate deniers, updated as new information arrived?
…BUT…Wikipedia sold its soul to the devil, got the woke mind virus, and turned into a useless pile of bull💩. As a result, it became just another useless and obvious propaganda rag, coloring within the lines of the approved leftist narrative until it self-destructed. Except by accident, I haven’t clicked on it in years. And I wouldn’t donate a plug nickel to that garbage site.
Wikipedia is good source for doing crossword puzzles but that’s it.