Wikipedia Banned Its Co-Founder Because Its Rules Mostly Work, Actually

from the here-to-build-an-encyclopedia dept

In Larry Sanger’s recent failed attempt to start a “WikiProject Intellectual Diversity”, he tried to recruit his followers to help him change Wikipedia’s rules around representation of viewpoints, religions, parties, and nationalities (a version of his earlier “Nine Theses”). The draft WikiProject was not itself a bannable offense, but his approach broke rules that were designed to foster fair discussions. Wikipedia’s rules really already support creation of balanced and robust articles about controversial topics – it just takes a huge amount of careful research, patience, and cooperation, and there’s no shortcut for that work.

In the first several months of Wikipedia, Sanger’s seriousness about its potential encouraged me to take up the challenge of helping write an encyclopedia that represents the sum of human knowledge. 25 years later, I remain an active editor dedicated to the Wikimedia movement for free and open knowledge, which is basically a fun and oddly serious hobby.

I edit a lot of moderately controversial articles that have glaring gaps in core principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. Many of Wikipedia’s most popular articles, like about politics and philosophy, are very informative and comprehensive, but second-tier articles don’t consistently get robust attention from editors. For example, I’ve recently repaired bias and disinformation in articles about AI regulation, LGBTQ rights in Nigeria, politicians in the Balkans, wealthy businessmen outside the US, influential religious organizations, and people accused of sexual harassment. I routinely fix articles that downplay negative information or present a controversial topic in a flattering way, in the style of Jeffrey Epstein’s ineffective project to get consultants to sanitize his article.

The good thing is that Wikipedia’s established rules already provide robust strategies to improve verifiability and balance in articles. Its principles expect editors to be cooperative and willing to cite a reliable source for nearly every sentence. You have to be up for changing your mind when somebody finds multiple reliable sources that disprove something you assumed, or at least up for slinking away to another article. To help counter bias and conflicts of interest, I apply elaborately layered guidance for evaluating and weighing sources – often citing academic journal articles and books, but not always, because the guidance recognizes that reliability is contextual. The “due weight” policy, part of the neutral point of view policy, pushes editors to search for more and better sources when something gets disputed, which results in a stronger article. I’ve learned that the best way to resolve a content dispute is to cite the best sources, reference the most relevant rules, present evidence calmly, and escalate one step at a time through the dispute resolution forums. Dispute resolution typically uses Wikipedia’s informal decision-making process, which reflects that Wikipedia is a decentralized asynchronous volunteer project, not an adjudicatory body. Wikipedia’s processes already work pretty well, they just take a lot of skill and patience, because collaboration is hard work.

Sanger was banned for off-Wikipedia canvassing and for not being on Wikipedia to build an encyclopedia, but to be clear, trying to start WikiProject Intellectual Diversity was not in itself a bannable offense. Canvassing is against the rules specifically to protect public and open processes that support the development of balanced articles. The canvassing guidelines discourage editors from trying to rig decision-making processes by selectively inviting participants who will take their side. The rules favor public discussions on Wikipedia so that all editors have an equal opportunity to participate. And since all Wikipedia edits are publicly tracked, editors can analyze each other’s contributions to detect biases and conflicts of interest. External invitations both selectively invite participation and prevent editors from exercising oversight. Volunteer administrators routinely block or even ban editors for inappropriate canvassing because this behavior compromises efforts to build a balanced encyclopedia.

Sanger’s recent advocacy reminds me of the pattern that researcher and Wikipedia editor Molly White described in January 2025: “right-wing voices attacking Wikipedia as part of an intensifying campaign against free and open access information.” In October, the Washington Post described Sanger as “fueling the right’s campaign” against Wikipedia. Among other incidents last year, House Republicans demanded disclosure of editor information over coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Sanger’s call to prohibit anonymity for the most dedicated volunteer administrators, one of his Nine Theses, is another one of his takes that would undermine intellectual freedom in the project, in line with the leaked Heritage Foundation plan to dox editors.

My work to counter gaps, bias, and spam in Wikipedia articles gives me proof every day that the project is imperfect. Every active editor has critiques of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia movement, and we debate issues and improvements at length. Wikipedia would benefit from additional contributors from any viewpoint or background who want to help build an encyclopedia. But improving Wikipedia requires intellectual honesty, cooperation, and willingness to apply established principles and rules even while critiquing them, not bad-faith publicity stunts.

Filed Under: canvassing, diversity, encyclopedia, larry sanger, wikipedia

Companies: wikimedia foundation, wikipedia