We’ve documented how the Media Research Center has repeatedly lashed out at Wikipedia for not pushing its preferred right-wing narrative on events. That continued throughout the end of last year. Tom Olohan wrote in an Oct. 1 post:
Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger published a list of reforms for the heinously biased online encyclopedia, including calling for an end to what amounts to an effective blacklist of right-leaning media, as exposed by MRC Free Speech America. The response was swift.
Sanger posted his “Nine Theses on Wikipedia” on X Sept. 29 and explained them during interviews with independent journalist Tucker Carlson and Just the News founder John Solomon. Sanger denounced Wikipedia’s “perennial sources” list, which MRC Free Speech America exposed for effectively blacklisting right-of-center media sources while greenlighting a majority of left-of-center media sources. In response, pro-free speech advocates joined in condemning Wikipedia. X owner Elon Musk, for his part, praised Sanger’s theses, writing, “Some good suggestions from the co-founder of Wikipedia.”
Olohan didn’t disclose the fact that Carlson, Solomon and Musk are all right-wingers, raising questions about Sanger’s apparent bias as well. He continued:
The reinvigorated fervor surrounding Wikipedia’s ill-treatment of right-leaning media also brought a fresh wave of criticism from those in right-leaning media circles. Newsmax anchor Rob Finnerty, radio host Vince Coglianese and Breitbart editor-in-chief Alex Marlow all went after the so-called online encyclopedia during the Sept. 30 edition of Finnerty.
After Finnerty called out Wikipedia for its treatment of Newsmax and Breitbart, Marlow made clear that on a host of important topics, Wikipedia should be treated as a liberal mouthpiece rather than a neutral encyclopedia. Marlow said, “You gotta treat it like The New York Times.” Wikipedia’s perennial sources list labels Newsmax as “deprecated” and Breitbart as “blacklisted,” crippling labels that restrict how editors can use these media entities as source material on the website.
Coglianese agreed, calling Wikipedia “rigged by the left,” before blaming Wikipedia’s privileged treatment in Google’s search results and AI responses for its widespread influence.
Olohan refused to disclose that Newsmax is a right-wing channel, so of course its hosts and guest would play victim.
Tim Graham ranted in an Oct. 4 post:
Ashley Rindsberg at Fox News reminds us that Wikipedia has an unmissable leftist and partisan tilt – starting with the argument that President Trump is an “authoritarian.” They sound like CNN and MSNBC. Wikipedia is liberal media, and it pops up in every Google search.
[…]“Trump’s actions, especially in his second term, have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. After his first term, scholars and historians ranked him as one of the worst presidents in American history.”
….
“During the campaign, Trump made increasingly violent and authoritarian statements. He said that he would weaponize the FBI and the Justice Department against his political opponents and use the military to target Democratic politicians and those that did not support his candidacy. He used harsher and more dehumanizing anti-immigrant rhetoric than during his presidency. His rhetoric, calling his political opponents “the enemy”, vermin, and fascists, has been described bysome historians and scholars as authoritarian, fascist,[h] and unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in American history. Age and health concerns [!] also arose during the campaign, with several medical experts highlighting an increase in rambling, tangential speech and behavioral disinhibition.”
….
“Trump’s actions against civil society were described by hundreds of legal experts and political scientists as authoritarian, contributing to democratic backsliding, and negatively impacting the rule of law.”
[…]Another article, “Trumpism,” mentions the term “authoritarian” more than 20 times, including in the lead, where it claims the Trump-inspired movement “features significant illiberal, authoritarian and at times autocratic beliefs.”
But Graham didn’t dispute the accuracy of anything on Trump’s Wikipedia page.
Catherine Salgado groused in an Oct. 14 post:
Wikipedia added yet more critical language to assassinated Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk’s page days before his posthumous reception of the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
Wikipedia already infamously added an accusation of “misinformation” to Kirk’s write-up on the day he was killed. Now, one of the opening paragraphs of Kirk‘s Wikipedia page is even more insulting and accusatory toward Kirk, with editors altering the propaganda to add racial and anti-Christian language between Oct. 3 and 10. President Donald Trump on Tuesday awarded Kirk posthumously America’s highest civilian honor.
On Oct. 10, a Wikipedia editor altered the introduction to Charlie Kirk’s page with numerous edits framing Kirk more negatively. Among the phrases adjusted were “opposition” to abortion, gun control, DEI programs and “LGBTQ rights.” The editor accused Kirk of spreading a “white genocide conspiracy theory,” “false claims [of] electoral fraud,” “COVID-19 misinformation” and “Christian nationalism.” Wikipedia mischaracterized Kirk’s comments on the Civil Rights Act and Martin Luther King Jr., too.
Like Graham, Salgado did not dispute the accuracy of anything in the Kirk entry, only disputing that some of it was allegedly “mischaracterized” (though she failed to explain how).
Olohan returned to whine in an Oct. 24 post:
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales couldn’t keep his facts straight while defending the online encyclopedia, admitting it relies on legacy media while downplaying its effective blacklist of right-leaning outlets.
Wales admitted that Wikipedia prioritizes the legacy media in its “reliable sources” list during a Saturday interview with The New York Times. However, he quickly dismissed concerns of bias, claiming that these choices were a matter of quality control and arguing that the platform should not be “pandering to this raging mob of the moment.”
“The idea that everything is an equally valid source and that it’s somehow wrong that Wikipedia tries to prioritize the mainstream media and quality newspapers and magazines and make judgments about that is not something I can apologize for,” Wales, who has acted as an advisor to the anti-free speech media ratings firm NewsGuard, bloviated.
By strange coincidence, Wales’ “quality newspapers and magazines” and his other reliable sources turn out to be nearly exclusively left-of-center. In February 2025, MRC Free Speech America exposed the truth about Wikipedia’s “reliable sources” list.
Popular right-of-center media sources like Breitbart, The Daily Wire and New York Post were listed as “blacklisted,” “deprecated” or “generally unreliable.” By contrast, Wikipedia greenlit leftist legacy media sources like The New York Times, MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Intercept, CNN, and the infamous Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Olohan offered no evidence that the “right-of-center” sources he names are, in fact, reliable or that the New York Times and CNN are somehow not. The whining continued anyway:
MRC VP Dan Schneider blasted Wales’ absurd defense of Wikipedia’s “reliable sources” list, saying he smeared critics as anti-science conspiracy theorists.
“We have completely exposed Wikipedia for perpetrating an endless war on conservatives and their media sources,” Schneider added. “Wales’ arrogance is so great that he can’t even tell that Americans see right through him. No one can take Wales seriously when he frames banning the New York Post and The Daily Wire as a fight against people who hate science. He clearly has an agenda and hides good journalism to push it.”
He whined further about Wales’ discussion of the abortion debate:
Wales framed the abortion debate as a matter of sin versus human rights, and not the human rights of the baby being slaughtered. Presenting abortion as a matter of expanding women’s rights or restricting them for religious purposes is exactly the type of framing one gets when blacklisting every pro-life source.
Olohan did not explain how description of a fetus being “slaughtered” during an abortion is in any way objective, or why he demands that Wikipedia use such biaaed and pejorative language.
Olohan whined even more in a Nov. 6 post:
MRC Free Speech America exposed Wikipedia for creating an effective blacklist against right-of-center sources and greenlighting leftist coverage. Here’s one viciously anti-American, anti-Semitic source the so-called online encyclopedia’s editors greenlit, and won’t stop using.
Wikipedia editors greenlit the Qatari government-funded Al Jazeera, giving a pass to Hamas defenders on the same “reliable sources” list that MRC Free Speech America exposed earlier this year, which at the time effectively blacklisted every right-of-center source on the AllSides Media Bias Chart while approving the vast majority of radical leftist and elitist media sources. In fact, editors cited Al Jazeera 139,754 times across Wikipedia, including 48,229 citations for Al Jazeera’s English-language content.
Again, Olohan offered no evidence that any specific Al Jazeera article linked to by Wikipedia is in any way false. Instead, he whined that “Al Jazeera has a long history of anti-Semitism and downplaying terrorism against Israel” while failing to explain how any of this actually made it into a Wikipedia item.
Olohan and Michael Morris teamed up to whine in a Dec. 11 post:
After nine years of radical leftist leadership, Wikipedia has been converted into one of the left’s most powerful megaphones, and it is hiding its strategy in plain sight.
MRC Free Speech America researchers analyzed Wikipedia’s citations across all languages and found that the so-called online encyclopedia cites left-leaning media sources nearly 20 times more often than right-leaning outlets. As a result, the online encyclopedia amplifies outrageous allegations from elitist media outlets, including claims that Vice President JD Vance harbors “white supremacist” views, blood libel accusations against Israel, and even a “misinformation” jab placed at the top of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk’s page immediately after he was assassinated.
This imbalance is not just a quirk of “volunteer” editing, but a direct result of how Wikipedia is designed to operate. Editors rely on Wikipedia’s list of designated “reliable sources,” which overwhelmingly greenlights left-wing media sources like CNN and Mother Jones while restricting or banning right-of-center outlets. The result is clear: Wikipedia’s pages push the ideology of its radical leaders, and broadly promote a leftist agenda.
Olohan and Morris offered no evidence whatsoever that the leadership of Wikipedia is “radical leftist,” nor do they explain why they apparently equate “left-leaning: to being “leftist,” as the accompanying graphic shows. They also failed to disclose that AllSides has a distinct right-leaning bias, as we’ve documented.