Wikipedia – a long-orchestrated propaganda weapon

Wikipedia was initially presented as a revolutionary experiment: an encyclopedia that anyone could write, based on neutrality and free access to knowledge. Larry Sanger, co-founder of the project, dreamed of an impartial library of the world. Yet he had to acknowledge early on that the system was taken over by activists and power groups who effectively set the tone. He openly voiced the concern that Wikipedia had abandoned the principle of neutrality and had instead become a vehicle for established interests. According to him, it has become one of the largest propaganda operations in modern history.

The criticism of neutrality is not merely rhetorical. Research has shown that Wikipedia contains structural ideological biases. A widely discussed analysis by American researchers demonstrated that biographies of right-wing politicians and public figures are more often loaded with negative terminology, while left-wing figures are framed more positively. Studies on source usage further reveal a systematic preference for liberal or left-progressive media outlets, even when reliability is comparable. This implies that the so-called neutral presentation in practice carries an ideological filter.

Alongside political distortion, commercial and corrupt practices also play a role. Scandals such as the Wiki-PR affair and Operation Orangemoody proved that entire networks existed which manipulated articles for payment, polished reputations, or erased critical passages. Such cases show that Wikipedia is vulnerable to modern forms of propaganda, sometimes referred to as "wikiturfing," in which seemingly neutral information is deliberately deployed for marketing or political influence.

This is not merely a foreign issue, as the situation in the Netherlands illustrates. On several occasions it has been revealed that organizations and lobby groups actively edit pages on sensitive subjects. Articles on politicians, energy companies, and pharmaceutical corporations came under fire after PR staff were found to have altered texts to soften criticism. In academia, critics have argued that entries on controversial topics such as climate policy and nitrogen debates cite sources one-sidedly, reflecting the government line or activist positions, while dissenting scientific perspectives are scarcely admitted. Public figures in the Netherlands have also been harmed through Wikipedia: biographies are supplemented with suggestive or incomplete information that is difficult to remove, since a small group of experienced moderators ultimately decides what remains.

The power structures within Wikipedia reinforce this problem. The formal dispute resolution process grants disproportionate influence to seasoned editors and administrators. They can, often under the guise of neutrality or reliability, delete critical edits or lock pages. This leads to situations in which a small elite determines which knowledge is valid, making effective opposition virtually impossible. Recent conflicts over the editing of pages on the Middle East and geopolitics demonstrate that this is not a hypothetical scenario: editors have been accused of censorship and bias, while users who attempt to introduce alternative sources are simply ignored or blocked.

That even courts have become involved underscores the severity of the issue. In India, a lower court in 2025 ordered the removal of a Wikipedia page that described a news agency as a propaganda tool. The Supreme Court later overturned this decision out of concern for censorship, but the case makes clear how thin the line is between free knowledge sharing and reputational damage inflicted by anonymous editors.

Taken together, this points to a form of institutional corruption. It is not always about individuals enriching themselves, but rather about structures that cause Wikipedia to abandon its original promise of impartiality and truth. Political bias, commercial influence, conflicts of interest, and the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of moderators mean that the encyclopedia is no longer the neutral mirror of knowledge it pretends to be.

It is important to acknowledge that countless high-quality articles exist, written by volunteers who sincerely strive for accuracy. Yet the massive status of Wikipedia as a first source of information, combined with its high ranking in search engines, makes any systematic distortion extremely dangerous. Where errors, propaganda, or manipulation seep in, they are spread worldwide and reproduced in education, journalism, and public opinion.

Wikipedia began as an ideal, but the ideal has been hijacked. Anyone using the project today must realize that behind the scenes it is not pure truth being recorded, but rather a battlefield of interests, propaganda, and power. This makes reliance on Wikipedia as a primary source untenable: those who seek truth must always look further.

Larry Sanger warned that Wikipedia never effectively solved the organizational problem of escaping groupthink. He said that after he left, "trolls" seized power and "the inmates ran the asylum."
Sanger accuses Wikipedia of having abandoned its neutrality principle, arguing that influence over editorial decisions-those "with authority"-is now limited to people who follow the establishment line.
In an interview he said: "We promulgated a policy, the neutrality policy … and I think I really hammered it a lot … now the kinds of people that are allowed to have any influence … have been narrowed down greatly to essentially people who agree with the establishment left."