On Tucker Carlson’s podcast earlier this week, Sanger outlined his nine theses and expressed other concerns about Wikipedia. During the interview, Carlson expressed surprise regarding the sourcing blacklist, which includes Breitbart News.
Having left Wikipedia after co-founding it with Jimmy Wales and drafting early policies, Sanger recently became particularly critical of its left-wing bias. He has been smeared on Wikipedia for this with editors having sought to exclude his criticism from Wikipedia, usually because blacklisted conservative media are cited. Stating he does not have much hope for internal reform at Wikipedia, Sanger characterizes his nine theses as a “Hail Mary proposal” for reform. He likened this to Martin Luther posting his 95 Theses challenging the Catholic Church, stating it was “Out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it.” Sanger believes change will likely require considerable external pressure.
Ending Consensus
In his first thesis, Sanger calls for ending “consensus” decision-making on Wikipedia, though offering no replacement. He states the original intention was to have multiple, competing views presented with attribution and not determine one “correct” view. Consensus was intended to reflect a neutral exploration of the debate. He states the community now effectively selects approved views as “consensus” truth, often determined by the status of advocates, making it an adversarial game. During Sanger’s interview, Carlson argued this process “allows an aggressive faction to overwhelm the skeptical faction.” One recent example of this Breitbart reported is the “Gaza genocide” article where “consensus” recently declared the allegations against Israel true.
Multiple Viewpoints
Sanger’s second thesis proposes articles from competing perspectives. While noting the “gender gap” and other “inequities” the site’s owners acknowledge, Sanger describes a broader “globalist, academic, secular, and progressive” or “GASP” bias, which he describes as the Western elitist view. On academic bias, he cites the “CHOPSY” test from a widely-cited Wikipedia essay referencing elite universities. This argues anything they would not teach “amounts to sub-standard scholarship” beyond consideration. One bias example Sanger cites is the article on Yahweh, God of the Abrahamic faiths, which claims Yahweh was merely part of a polytheistic pantheon during Davidic rule, only presenting the secular view. He also cited the Chennai, India article as unduly biased towards British colonial history and tourist interests.
Competing articles were proposed in Wikipedia’s early development, according to Sanger, and he argued they now would “allow a diverse humanity to write diverse articles within diverse frameworks.” He suggested a drafting process with a human or AI rating system determining suitability for publication with article creators deciding usable sourcing, audience, and permitted contributors. Sanger states the goal “is to acknowledge perspectives frankly” and acknowledge humanity has many segments with distinct approaches to neutrality. Sanger described the current system as “a single, totalizing, intellectually imperialistic perspective” by contrast. In an undeveloped thesis mentioned at the end, Sanger alternatively suggested Wikipedia’s incorporation into the Encyclosphere, which Sanger established to include online encyclopedias of different persuasions.
Sourcing Blacklist
Wikipedia sourcing policy is the focus of the third thesis, which calls for ending the ongoing purge of conservative news sources on the site. He states that in the early days of the site they originally were not strict about sources, but considered even self-published blogs acceptable under certain circumstances. The objective was to “represent the full breadth and depth of thought found in the world.” Sanger objects that current rules are “bizarre and arcane” and represent “an unbalanced overreaction” exhibiting “partisan ambitions and a certain narrative about the recent decline of the news media.”
Sanger summarized opposing perspectives on the media landscape where the left sees right-wing media’s growth as mainly “misinformation” made worse under Trump, requiring a crackdown. By contrast, the right sees a welcome diversity of views with the Internet providing greater open discussion and neutrality, while left-wing media grew more biased and Big Tech began boosting them as they censored the right with Wikipedia’s neutrality declining. People flocked to alternatives on social media, including podcasters. Notably, the GamerGate anti-corruption movement in gaming emerged as a microcosm of this struggle between legacy media and social media Sanger describes.
Sanger raised with Carlson and in his thesis essay whether source blacklisting affected the Hunter Biden laptop scandal’s Wikipedia coverage. As Breitbart reported at the time, the New York Post, which broke the initial story, had been deemed “unreliable” the previous month and other conservative media corroborating its report were also prohibited. Under the “verifiability” policy, only “reliable” sources are permitted and the sourcing blacklist Sanger criticized meant the story was covered from the “establishment” view treating the claims as probable Russian disinformation, though this later proved false. Wikipedia’s Signpost community newsletter has ardently defended the blacklist.
Original Neutrality Policy
For his fourth thesis, Sanger argues for restoring Wikipedia’s original neutrality policy. Sanger acknowledges this conflicted with his proposal of multiple articles on the same subject, but said this change would likely face much greater resistance. Originally, the neutrality policy meant “when an article mentions a topic of controversy, it should be impossible to tell what position the article authors take on the controversy.” He stated Wikipedia should not take sides or imply any side is correct, but let readers decide. Currently, policy requires presenting only “significant” views based on “reliable” sources without treating “minority” views as equally valid.
Noting the sourcing blacklist, he stated bias is built into the system and “equal validity” and “false balance” reject traditional objectivity. He cited examples such as Wikipedia’s handling of the grooming gangs scandal and labeling Cultural Marxism a conspiracy theory. Other examples included Wikipedia’s articles on the far-left Antifa group and GamerGate. He further noted the DEI-style “Movement Strategy” of the site’s owners, following a proposal by Minassian Media, whose head served as Head of Communications for the Clinton Foundation. That audit also proposed Wikipedia promoting itself as a solution to “misinformation” online.
Removing “Ignore All Rules”
Removing the “Ignore all rules” policy was proposed in Sanger’s fifth thesis, a policy he explains was a joke to encourage newcomers intimidated by its open editing model. He lamented people eventually using the policy to excuse bad behavior. Sanger cited a Slate report by David Auerbach, where he “repeatedly observed editors lawyering an issue with acronyms, only to turn around and declare ‘Ignore all rules!’ when faced with the same rules used against them.” Auerbach was targeted and smeared during the fight over GamerGate on the site following perceptions he was too moderate in criticizing the movement.
Auerbach credited this behavior to “a fortress mentality in which they see new editors as dangerous intruders who will wreck their beautiful encyclopedia, and thus antagonize and even persecute them.” In Carlson’s interview, Sanger said editors now used the rule to “shield insiders from accountability” despite its original intent. One manner where he states it was invoked was during the COVID pandemic with one editor critical of “pseudoscientific” views arguing: “This is actually about (potentially) saving lives.” He stated Wikipedia should adopt a standard that “nobody is above the law” and they “be open and warmly welcoming, not insular” adding that is the real meaning of “Ignore all rules.”
Ending Anonymity of Leadership
Sanger’s sixth thesis argued the “Power 62” should be identified. This referred to “bureaucrats” who appoint site administrators, “checkusers” who examine private data, and the Arbitration Committee who serve as a kind of Supreme Court. An additional 11 editors not included in Sanger’s count have “oversight” privileges allowing them to remove information from the view of anyone not holding privileges. Of the Sanger-dubbed Power 62, he states roughly 85 percent do not readily identify themselves. Sanger remarks “knowledge is power. Yet the most powerful editors on the world’s single most powerful information platform? They are anonymous.” Sanger was clear his suggestion called for disclosing or resigning, not involuntarily exposing i.e. doxing editors.
While supporting anonymity as important for free speech, he did not believe it was appropriate with the influence these editors possess. He suggested the Wikimedia Foundation could provide insurance, legal representation, or even financial compensation to protect against potential harm. Were they unwilling to require disclosing identities, he suggested a disclaimer warning about the possibility of unidentifiable conflicts of interest among anonymous editors. Reiterating a suggestion he made after the House Oversight Committee announced its Wikipedia bias investigation, Sanger proposed a specific carve-out for the Section 230 law, which protects against liability for user content, holding site owners accountable when protecting actual authors’ anonymity stating “responsibility must fall somewhere” regarding Wikipedia content.
He notes the Section 230 law combined with anonymity means it is more onerous to get accountability from Wikipedia than from journalists, especially because numerous anonymous editors edit the same content. Sanger notes this provides motivation for paying editors to correct pages and protects paid editors by concealing their connections. One such case this author reported was Michael Caputo, who hired someone to address Russiagate smears added to his page, resulting in further negative coverage. The account responsible for the smears was later confirmed to be an alternate account for a former admin banned from politics articles, who also smeared then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
Public Ratings
In his seventh thesis, Sanger argues for a public rating system on Wikipedia stating an encyclopedia meant to be edited by and open to the public “must be open to evaluation by the public.” This suggestion included allowing experts to offer opinions in venues other than article discussion pages where they face resistance from insiders. Sanger argued a public feedback system should be “prominent, dedicated, standards-driven, and independently-run” and expressed hope “for a multi-dimensional peer review apparatus” on Wikipedia. He further suggested allowing discussion of reviews, citing the Stack Exchange model. Sanger argues this could make the site less cliquish, while potentially providing impetus for a decentralized review system throughout the Internet.
Sanger notes Wikipedia editors have an internal rating system, which is generally run through “Wikiprojects” that gather editors interested in a particular subject, but states this is not the same as public feedback. Editors also have higher-grade “good article” and “featured article” ratings. These involve a more formal internal community process. Those pages that tend to achieve such high rankings often reflect the interests and biases of editors. Notably, few “featured articles” relate to Christmas with those that do mostly related to pop-culture, meaning the “today’s featured article” section of Wikipedia’s front page rarely shows articles actually related to Christmas around Christmas day.
Public rating systems are not a new idea for Wikipedia with one tested from 2010 to 2013. Sanger cited user surveys showing 90 percent found the tool useful and more than half believed it improved article development. However, editors rejected it claiming “insufficient resources to moderate and respond to article feedback for all articles.” Sanger suggested AI could mitigate that problem with human ratings given priority where appropriate. He also suggested including existing page metrics to give readers an idea of article quality. Sanger suggested Large-language models would provide useful evaluations and could be augmented with human ratings. X’s Community Notes system was cited as one possible model.
Limiting Indefinite Bans
For his eighth thesis, Sanger argues for limiting indefinite bans to rare exceptions with more procedural checks and a more favorable appeal process, stating they “are too often used to enforce ideological conformity and protect petty fiefdoms rather than to serve any legitimate purpose.” Consistent with his observation, one academic analysis previously showed right-wing editors were six times more likely to face sanctions than left-wing editors. While acknowledging some bans are necessary, Sanger also noted indefinite bans can be distressing after investing considerable time in something, citing how the editor who created the well-known “citation needed” tag on Wikipedia contemplated suicide following an indefinite ban. Sanger reported finding in June 2025 that 47% of 10,000 blocks were indefinite.
As an example of the problem, he notes how the sourcing blacklist treats the Anti-Defamation League as unreliable specifically for claims relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but not the anti-Israeli Al-Jazeera. He explains that “someone citing ADL contributions to the debate is, in fact, more likely to be reverted and blocked by Administrators” and this would also apply to editors citing blacklisted right-wing sources. Sanger argues even the Foundation itself exhibits the petty and power-hungry traits of the site’s administrators, noting the controversial ban of administrator “Fram” by the Foundation, which sparked an editor revolt.
Democratic Governance
Sanger’s ninth thesis proposes forming democratic governing institutions, with member identities known to a trusted independent outside body, to make rapid and significant changes to Wikipedia policy, including “a constitutional convention to create an editorial charter and assembly.” Sanger argued this was necessary to implement significant policy change. The Foundation proposing change is possible, noting the left-wing “code of conduct” they imposed, but noted the Fram case and editor revolt mean it may fail. Other options are slow gradual changes or rapid adoption of an essay as de-facto policy, which he largely rejects. Stating Wikipedia has developed into an oligarchy over time and resists change, he believes it unlikely such structural and policy changes as he proposes would be approved easily and would require significant internal or external pressure.
Acknowledging his proposed governance reforms may “lead to factionalism” he argued this was an “improvement over the stodgy, oligarchical status quo” and worth it to restore “common sense and democratic legitimacy to one of the world’s most powerful media platforms.” He noted the “Wikipedia is not a democracy” policy some editors may cite, but states he “always thought of Wikipedia as essentially democratic.” Noting the substantial funding the Foundation received, he suggested such structures allowing actual democracy could be created, making Wikipedia “a just, neutral, and robust community, capable of reliably summarizing everything that humanity knows.”
Additional proposals
Further theses are provided by Sanger that he mentioned for further development. Aside from his suggestion to add Wikipedia to the Encyclosphere, other suggestions included term limits for admins, annual admin performance reviews, an independent organization with balanced membership for ban appeals, prohibiting edits by non-account or IP users to prevent abuse, editorial work assessments or performance evaluations, permitting off-site collaboration about Wikipedia content (something he states already occurs despite being prohibited), labeling pages that are inappropriate for children under 13, allowing memorial articles about elders and deceased if next of kin agrees, and embracing inclusionism to allow more articles otherwise considered not “noteworthy” enough.
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
Breitbart News
Read the full article .
