Tim Graham continues the Media Research Center’s war on Wikipedia in a Sept. 5 column:
While artificial intelligence may make the student research paper obsolete, if today a student does their own research and writing, it’s quite possible they will use Google to search their topic, and Google will invariably send the searcher to a Wikipedia article.
If they were to write about cable news, the Wikipedia results are as biased as…well, cable news. Their entries on Fox News Channel and Newsmax are remarkably different from the ones on CNN and MSNBC.
Right away, in the second sentence, Wikipedia tells us Newsmax “has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right.”
The third paragraph goes straight to defamation lawsuits. “After the 2020 United States presidential election, Newsmax broadcast numerous conspiracy theories made by President Donald Trump, the Trump campaign, and a Newsmax host, which alleged voter fraud in the 2020 election…. In 2021, Newsmax issued an apology and retracted its voter fraud conspiracy allegations.”
Then you’re told the network has settled lawsuits with Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic for making false and defamatory statements about them. Later in the article there’s much more on the 2020-election lawsuits.
It’s the same for Fox News Channel. The third paragraph in their Wikipedia entry begins: “It has been identified as engaging in biased and false reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes, while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light. Researchers have argued that the channel is damaging to the integrity of news overall, and acts de facto as the broadcasting arm of the Republican Party. The network is pro-Trump.”
Does Graham question the accuracy of any of those claims against Fox News and Newsmax? not at all. Instead, he plays whataboutism, complaining that “Wikipedia’s entry on MSNBC has zero mention of defamation anywhere, despite their settlement of a defamation lawsuit in February” and that “The Wikipedia article on CNN mentions a defamation suit, if you read deep down more than 50 paragraphs.” He concluded by whining:
Wikipedia maintains a page of “Reliable sources/Perennial sources,” and naturally CNN and MSNBC are recommended as “generally reliable” (along with leftist rags like Mother Jones, The Nation, and The Atlantic). Fox and Newsmax are considered unreliable, as are many conservative media outlets.
This underlines that Wikipedia can be classified as liberal media.
It also underlines how impotent MRC writers feel that they cannot, you know, edit Wikipedia posts to add this supposedly important information.
Tom Olohan complained in a Sept. 10 post:
When Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk was shot, Wikipedia editors quickly elevated criticism into the lead section of his page.
Confirmation of the attack on Kirk’s life didn’t stop Wikipedia from making sure site visitors who only read his biography came away with a negative impression. Wikipedia transformed a sentence at the bottom of the lead section of a Sept. 4 version of Kirk’s page from simply listing his policy positions to making sure that curious readers reacting to his fatal shooting know that he supported “COVID-19 misinformation.”
“This is nothing short of disgusting. It’s been said that ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,’ and Wikipedia editors appear to have taken Obama propagandist Rahm Emanuel’s words to heart,” said MRC Free Speech America Director Michael Morris. “While adding one word to the top of a biography section may seem like small potatoes, it means so much more when the word used has been the left’s calling card for outing conservatives and free thinkers as akin to conspiracy theorists for the better part of the last half-decade.”
Notably, following news of the attack on Kirk, editors put the added smear immediately before the Breaking News in the Sept. 10 at 3:36 p.m. EST version of the page: “Kirk has publicly promoted conservative and Trump-aligned causes and COVID-19 misinformation, critical race theory, and the scientific consensus on climate change. On September 10, 2025, he was shot in the neck during a rally at Utah Valley University.”
Olohan offered no evidence that it was a “smear,” let alone untrue, that Kirk said these things. He then groused that Kirk’s entry was “filled with out-of-context quotes on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion”:
For example, the editors pointed to a quote from Kirk about his apparent uneasiness with “Black or African American airline pilots,” while entirely failing to explain the context of the underlying issue of airlines hiring pilots based on their race rather than their merit.
Olohan did not explain how adding this context made Kirk’s comments less racist.
Olohan returned to rant in a Sept. 18 post:
Meta AI went after Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk by relying on none other than Wikipedia, exposing the disturbing influence of the online encyclopedia on artificial intelligence.
On Wednesday, the chatbot was quick to accuse Kirk of promoting conspiracy theories and other purportedly false claims when asked, “Who is Charlie Kirk?” Worse still, Meta AI identified Wikipedia as its sole source, justifying its choice by stating it offers a “neutral point of view and comprehensive coverage of current events.”
Kirk was assassinated on Sept. 10 while speaking at Utah Valley University. Wikipedia editors also targeted Kirk right after the shooting, adding accusations that Kirk had spread misinformation to the lead section of his page. Previously, the editors had restrained themselves to demonizing Kirk lower down, where they associated him with “white supremacist” Nick Fuentes and featured a 15-paragraph section titled “Promotion of falsehoods and conspiracy theories.”
Olohan offered no evidence to disprove anything reported on the Wikipedia page; rather, he played guilt by association, declaring that Wikipedia “is run by Maryana Iskander, a former Planned Parenthood chief operating officer” and that Google’s Gemini AI engine “hallucinated when asked to show its sources,” further hyping that “Google has contributed a combined $7.5 million to the Wikimedia Foundation.” Olohan then groused about Wikipedia’s so-called “bias” despite, again, failure to disprove a single thing published in the Kirk article.
Olohan further complained about Gemini:
The chatbot also missed that Wikipedia has been repeatedly condemned for its lack of neutrality by its co-founder, Larry Sanger, who has called the online encyclopedia “biased” and “one of the most effective organs of Establishment propaganda in history.”
Two of those links go to MRC posts, which itself has an unmistakable right-wing bias. It should not be a surprise, then, that Olohan gave Sanger another platform to bash Wikipedia’s supposed bias in a Sept. 30 post:
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger denounced the online encyclopedia for its rampant bias, and among other things, an effective media blacklist, which MRC exposed earlier this year.
In an interview posted on Sept. 29, independent journalist Tucker Carlson interviewed Sanger on how Wikipedia has become “the most comprehensive propaganda op in human history.” During the interview, Carlson took issue with an ill-defined attack on him on his Wikipedia page, to which Sanger explained exactly why prominent figures who have spoken out against the left’s narratives remain undefended from vicious smears on their Wikipedia pages.
As Olohan well knows, Carlson isn’t an “independent journalist” — he’s very much a right-wing activist. He continued to whine:
During the interview, Sanger and Carlson also pointed to particular sources that have been effectively blacklisted, including The Daily Caller, of which Carlson is a co-founder. Sanger, meanwhile, echoed MRC Free Speech America VP Dan Schneider, who testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight on Wikipedia’s biases and antisemitism. Sanger noted that the Anti-Defamation League could not be cited as a source on topics related to Israel.
There was no mention of the fact that the Daily Caller has a serious right-wing bias.