>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
That, Sanger says, is the heart of the problem.
The Invisible Rulers of Online Knowledge
One revelation from Sanger’s exposé has Silicon Valley sweating. According to his findings, about 85% of Wikipedia’s most powerful editors are anonymous. No one knows their real names, employers, or agendas — yet they decide which sources the world is allowed to see.
“Admins and those with significant authority should not be anonymous,” Sanger demanded. But when he said that, the response was chaos. Editors accused him of “supporting doxxing” and claimed their secrecy was for “safety.”
The truth? They’re hiding because their actions wouldn’t survive daylight. Only about 3,500 people make over 100 edits per month — a tiny elite shaping nearly everything we read. A few hundred dedicated conservatives could shatter that monopoly overnight.
Wikipedia’s Source Blacklist Exposes Its Bias
Sanger’s report pulled the curtain back on Wikipedia’s “reliable sources” list — a system that defines which outlets can be cited. The bias is blatant.
Fox News is labeled “generally unreliable.” Breitbart and Newsmax? Blacklisted completely. Even the Heritage Foundation, a respected conservative think tank, is “deprecated” for supposedly “promoting disinformation.”
Meanwhile, left-wing outlets like MSNBC, CNN, and the Southern Poverty Law Center are all branded “reliable.” It’s a double standard so absurd even the mainstream media can’t explain it away.
Studies confirm the imbalance: conservative editors are six times more likely to be punished for the same behavior as liberals. And when researchers revealed this bias, Wikipedia went after the researchers instead of fixing the issue.
As columnist Bethany Mandel put it, “Being a conservative with a Wikipedia entry means that everyone who meets you has already read a hit piece about you, crowdsourced by potentially hundreds of people who are determined to promote the worst possible vision of you.”
The Myth of ‘Consensus’
Wikipedia claims every page reflects “community consensus.” Sanger calls that a lie. “Wikipedia’s notion of ‘consensus’ is an institutional fiction,” he wrote. In reality, a handful of ideologues decide what counts as truth — and dissenting voices are banned.
The encyclopedia’s original promise of competing viewpoints has been replaced by one dogmatic narrative. Sanger coined a name for the worldview dominating the platform: GASP — Globalist, Academic, Secular, Progressive.
The Pushback Begins
When Tucker Carlson interviewed Sanger about the bias, the revelations shocked even him. Elon Musk quickly joined the fray, launching Grokipedia, an AI-driven alternative designed to break Wikipedia’s monopoly.
Sen. Ted Cruz also stepped in, demanding answers from the Wikimedia Foundation. “Wikipedia shapes what Americans read today and what technology will produce tomorrow,” Cruz warned. He’s now leading a Senate probe into potential censorship and bias.
Wikipedia’s Gatekeepers Panic
Behind the scenes, Wikipedia moderators are scrambling. Sanger says nearly half of all editor bans this year were permanent, many targeting those who challenged left-wing orthodoxy. When Sanger published his “Nine Theses,” administrators locked the page and tried to delete it entirely.
That reaction only proves his point. For over 20 years, Wikipedia’s establishment has silenced dissent while pretending to serve the truth. Now the man who built it is exposing their game — and Silicon Valley’s control of global information is cracking.
The Information War Has Begun
Sanger isn’t backing down. He’s organizing a coalition of conservative voices and institutions demanding transparency, open debate, and fair editorial representation. If Wikipedia refuses, he’s ready to take the fight to Congress — and the public.
Because when the man who co-founded Wikipedia says his creation has been corrupted beyond repair, the world listens.
And now that Elon Musk has declared war on its monopoly, the left’s information empire may finally be collapsing under its own lies.
