Wikipedia attracted severe criticism after its dubious actions were exposed, particularly by OpIndia. Its co-founder, Larry Senger explicitly declared that the site has a strong leaning toward the left ideology. He has talked extensively about the same in many interviews and revealed how the platform shifts the balance scale, making the information erroneous, and inclined to suit the politics of the left. Senger left Wikipedia in 2002 and has been its vocal critic since 2004.
Now, Senger has requested President Donald Trump and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under Elon Musk to investigate Wikipedia in light of the disclosures which highlighted the billions of dollars allocated by the United States to advance a certain narrative worldwide. Senger requested Trump to issue an executive order implementing a rule to ensure that neither federal funds nor work hours of the staff could be utilized to update Wikipedia or finance such editing. “I voted for you,” he added.
Hi, @realDonaldTrump—co-founder of Wikipedia here—could I persuade you to use an executive order to make it a policy that neither federal worker hours nor federal moneys may be used to edit Wikipedia or pay for Wikipedia editing?
— Larry Sanger (@lsanger) February 27, 2025
Thanks in advance. (I voted for you.)
Senger, in an earlier post, asked Musk to find out which US government agencies, if any, have staff members who are paid to edit, maintain, update, lobby and perform other tasks on Wikipedia. “Such operations should be defunded, if any. If there are none, we’d like to know. Agree,” he further remarked.
For people who don’t know me:
— Larry Sanger (@lsanger) February 26, 2025
– I left WIkipedia in 2002.
– I have been a critic since 2004.
– The Wikipedia process is almost as opaque to me as it is to you.
– Yes it’s biased, I’ve said so for a long time. See my blog (https://t.co/50eeQ4TzyD).
– I do https://t.co/JojpCjkeGY.
The inherent bias and duplicity of Wikipedia is widely recognized and has also been pointed out by Musk. He offered $1 billion to the platform to changed its name to “Dickipedia” in October 2023 and recently reiterated the proposal, declaring, “Offer still stands. Come on, do it,” in response to a social media post. Interestingly, the platform dubbed him as a perpetrator of “Authoritarianism.” Notably, Musk echoed similar intention in last November and conveyed, “True. Offer still stands,” when Doge Designer reshared the original post. He even reacted to a meme that mocked Wikipedia’s incessant appeals for donations. “Every time,” he wrote along with a smiley face.
Does this offer still stand @elonmusk ? pic.twitter.com/mNLujwrsxc
— John's Memes (@Johnmc42069) February 17, 2025
Elon Musk previously urged people to quit giving money to Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organsiation of Wikipedia. Moreover, he shared a message from the “Libs of TikTok” account in late 2024 that slammed the platform’s spending on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives and outlined that 29% of its $177 million budget for 2023-2024 went towards such campaigns. He labeled the website “Wokepedia” at the time and told his followers to stop making donations until the management “restores balance” to its editorial practices.
OpIndia exposed Wikipedia
OpIndia’s dossier titled “Wikipedia’s War on India,” published last year, provided a detailed account of the site’s devious conduct and unveiled the blatant propagation of the leftist ideology and the circulation of disinformation to advance its political agenda, disguised as a commitment to free and fair information for the public. Facebook, another left-leaning website that has been charged with meddling in the United States elections and other similar cases of promoting the political interests of a specific ideology, blocked the report shortly after the media house uploaded it in order to limit its audience.
According to the research, Wikipedia hands over absolute authority to a small group of people known as “administrators.” There are just 435 active administrators globally who have the discretion to ban contributors, blacklist sources, ban editors and determine which alterations should be applied or removed from articles. The Wikimedia Foundation actively pays a large number of editors and administrators through their “editor retention program.” Additionally, many of them receive funding from the NGO (Non-governmental Organization) under the guise of “grants for projects.”
Wikipedia, like any other publishing firm, has a strong hierarchy with editors and administrators adhering to stringent editorial control policy. It asserts that it is an intermediary that relies on the collective wisdom without editorial or content intervention and depends on “reliable sources” while upholding an impartial viewpoint. However, information gathered by OpIndia demonstrated that the reality is drastically opposite of the claims.
Wikipedia repeatedly boasts to be a free-for-all online encyclopedia that relies on the “wisdom of the crowd” to provide universal “free knowledge” in all of its communications to project itself as a neutral, just and open platform. However, its strong ideological push has been deliberately and methodically fostered. Previous studies, such as the one conducted by Sengar already indicated how Wikipedia lacks objectivity. Three earlier studies are also cited in the research to support the valid argument.
According to research by David Rozado of the Manhattan Institute, which was published in June 2024, Wikipedia has a strong left bias. Its neutral point of view and reliability are the two internet regulations that are the subject of the critical research. The study arrived at the conclusion that editors make the decision about which sources are trustworthy enough to be referenced and which are not. People with leftist ideologies are perceived as dependable while those aligned with the right tend to be excluded. Thus, a neutral point of view simply illustrates that “reliable sources” are reflected extensively but not all viewpoints would be represented.
Anonymous funding and a phony publisher
The Wikimedia Foundation and the Tides Foundation donate money to one another but they record it as “anonymous” contributions since they do not have to provide information when the amount is donor-directed. The Wikimedia Foundation has enough dough to sustain Wikipedia for decades, even if it does not receive any further assistance from private or corporate donations. There are a few reasons why the Wikimedia Foundation keeps receiving grants and donations much in excess of what it requires to maintain Wikipedia.
First, millions have been allocated by the Wikimedia Foundation to support its own commercial endeavors. Second, the website employs the money it obtains to contribute to left-leaning groups to preserve Wikipedia and assert that the site would cease to exist in the absence of the aid which is a complete lie. All of this takes place under the guise of maintaining “knowledge free” and as the research reveled, Wikimedia utilizes it to circumvent the law, particularly in India.
More than $5 million from Amazon, $2 million from Google.org, $2 million from George Soros, $2 million from Musk Foundation, $1 million from Facebook, $50,000 from the Rothschild Foundation were listed as significant supporters of the Tide Foundation-run endowment fund on the Wikimedia endowment fund page.
More importantly, an intermediate is by definition not expected to stick to a particular editorial stance. It is only intended to serve as a forum for the general public to express their opinions. That isn’t the case with Wikipedia, though. First of all, not everyone is able to express their opinions on Wikipedia. Second, the articles are biased, one-sided and follow a particular ideology since only a tiny number of editors and administrators have the last word over what content is included in any given article.
Lastly, the Wikimedia Foundation hires a few of these so-called “volunteers” to promote its commercial and ideological agendas. Editors and administrators who receive direct compensation from the organisation regularly introduce bias into the sources that are permitted to be cited in Wikipedia articles. Considering these facts, Wikipedia does not fit under the intermediary group, rather, it falls into the publisher category.
Anti-India propagandist and gross violation of the country’s laws
A number of anti-Hindu and anti-India organizations and entites acquire money and donations from the Tides Foundation and the Wikimedia Foundation. They have provided funding to Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR), a group founded in 2019 by the Indian American Muslim Council (IAMC) and the Organization for Minorities of India (OFMI), two Islamist advocacy groups with ties to jihadis and Khalistanis.
The Association for India’s Development (AID), which has backed Arvind Kejriwal’s non-governmental organization, supported Naxal Binayak Sen and has ties to separatists also got money from the Tides Foundation. Additionally, Tides Foundation, Ford Foundation, Oxfam, the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation, European Commission for Humanitarian Organizations and other notable outfits are listed as partners of the Aman Public Charitable Trust (AMAN).
The Tides Foundation which has been involved with a number of groups that work towards left-leaning goals, such as anti-Hindu and anti-Indian narratives, has allocated funds to AMAN. The NewsClick-China funding controversy (Chinese companies supported the media house in order to subvert Indian sovereignty) has links to the trust. Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, was detained on suspicion of accepting over Rs 80 crore from Chinese businesses.
Delhi Police identified Dilip Simeon, the Chairman of the Aman Public Charitable Trust, in the NewsClick FIR (First Information Report) for his role in efforts to discredit the 2019 Indian General Elections. The Alliance India, which is headed by DY Qureshi has also collaborated with the Tides Foundation. The research also revealed the connections between the relentless attacks on the Adani Group, George Soros and the OCCRP (Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project).
The Wikimedia Foundation aides Arts+Feminism, which incited violence in India by disseminating false information about Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). Additionally, it gives money to Whose Knowledge, which is linked to Black Lunch Table and Equality Labs. Black Lunch Table is also separately funded. Notably, Whose Knowledge partners with Art+Feminism, Equality Labs, and CIS (Centre for Internet and Society) all of which are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. Access Now is also aided by the Wikimedia Foundation. Seema Chisti is on the Board of the NGO.
Seema Chisti, editor of TheWire and wife of late Sitaram Yechury, serves as an advisor at the National Foundation for India, which, along with the Tides Foundation and the Ford Foundation, donates to AMAN. P Sainath and Dhanya Rajendran of The News Minute are additional advisors. The two have played significant roles in the NewsClick-China funding issue. OpIndia also discovered that, in addition to CIS-India funding, the Wikimedia Foundation compensates notorious persons like “ArtWhoring” for working together to promote initiatives like “Know The Wiki.”
On the other hand, Wikipedia’s owner, the Wikimedia Foundation is not present in India. According to its statement in the BBC documentary controversy, Indian courts lack jurisdiction over it because it is a foreign entity. It has continuously provided funds to organizations and persons in India that pursue its own commercial and ideological goals, even though it has no physical presence in the country. India is a regular source of funding for the Wikimedia Foundation. The donation is legal because it originates from private citizens.
However, the organization invests millions of dollars in India in addition to receiving donations from the country. At the same time, it disregarded Indian laws. It maintains a strict editorial approach on Wikipedia while maintaining its position as an intermediary rather than a publisher. The publisher aggressively undermines Indian interests without follwoing Indian laws, either financially or editorially.
Given the recent revelations of Wikipedia’s shady operations, it would now be intriguing to see the Trump administration’s actions on the contentious website.
