PROOF Wikipedia is a well-funded propaganda machine



If you’re looking for reliable information, Wikipedia is the last source you should consult. Branded as a free online encyclopedia of verifiable information, the website is actually a tangle of lies and left-wing bias, hence why it’s been embroiled in numerous scandals.

Recent controversies include a U.S. congressional investigation into organized manipulation of politically sensitive articles, exposés on Big Law firms hiring anonymous editors to scrub their pages, allegations of undisclosed paid editing by government agencies, and documented anti-Israel bias campaigns led by coordinated editor networks tied to pro-Hamas groups.

“This is information warfare that's happening on Wikipedia,” says Liz Wheeler, BlazeTV host of “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

Investigative journalist and editor of NeutralPOV Ashley Rindsberg, who has extensively reported on Wikipedia's recent scandals, concurs: "It's information warfare conducted by ideological actors, by state-aligned propagandists, by groups that are tied to foreign terror organizations across the board.”

“It only takes about a dozen, maybe, dedicated editors to completely conquer or infiltrate a topic area and implant their own viewpoint on it and spread these kinds of falsehoods freely,” Rindsberg says.

One of the most alarming reports he has done on Wikipedia exposes a group of editors “acting on behalf of the Iranian regime,” who are “removing mentions of Hamas crimes, including terror attacks,” “whitewashing Hezbollah,” and “removing human rights abuses listed.”

For example, “one of these editors removed any mention of Hamas' genocidal 1988 charter from dozens of Wikipedia articles,” he tells Liz.

This has helped shape the global narrative around Iran and its terrorist proxies. Once information is put on Wikipedia, it then gets “pulled into ChatGPT, into Gemini, into every frontier AI model,” says Rindsberg. “It basically populates all of Google on a topic search. It is what feeds into Alexa, into Siri, and what becomes ground truth for most of us without us actually ever knowing that.”

“As it relates to domestic politics here, who's behind the Wikipedia editor efforts?” Liz asks.

Unfortunately, anonymity is one of Wikipedia’s greatest weapons. Rindsberg explains how anonymous Wikipedia editors can push biased narratives — like labeling Trump a fascist using far-left sources — without anyone knowing their identities or motives. This allows a small group to shape public views on major issues while the site enjoys trust and tax benefits as a “neutral” resource.

The other issue, he says, is that “a significant portion of the money that Wikimedia Foundation receives from donations … about $185 million in income a year — a lot of that money gets passed through to radical left-wing NGOs.”

“The other piece here is that there's significant ties between Wikimedia Foundation and Hillary Clinton and also with George Soros,” he says.

“A lot of Soros’ most senior people were put into or came to Wikimedia Foundation in 2017, which is right at the time Wikimedia Foundation redefined the mission of Wikipedia from just being an online encyclopedia into becoming a social justice movement powered by DEI.”

“I guess I shouldn't be surprised at this point,” sighs Liz. “These radical leftist NGOs funded by billionaire leftists like George Soros or Roy Singham — they are behind everything.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the episode above.

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska's slaughter by violent thug



Iryna Zarutska, a 23-year-old refugee from Ukraine, was savagely stabbed to death late last month on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Liberal media outlets that have made a habit out of sensationalizing certain deaths — like Jordan Neely's in 2023 or George Floyd's in 2020 — appear desperate not to acknowledge the horrific attack.

CNN, for instance, waited until Monday morning to report on the stabbing.

NBC News, the Associated Press, and ABC News didn't bother reporting on Zarutska's slaying until later in the day, just around the time President Donald Trump noted that he had expressed his love to Zarutska's family and his hope that her killing was a reminder that "there are evil people."

At the time of writing, the New York Times, Reuters, and the Washington Post still had not reported on the incident. Of the aforementioned publications, only the Associated Press responded to Blaze News' requests for comment but only to indicate it had just published a story on the slaying.

While liberal news outfits did their apparent best to avoid reporting on a story that has garnered significant national interest, comment from lawmakers, and further insights into Democrats' ruinous soft-on-crime policies, editors at Wikipedia tried to scrub any mention of the tragic incident from their platform.

Quick background

Footage of the Aug. 22 slaying shows Zarutska enter a train on the Lynx Blue Line in Charlotte, sit down in front of a black male in a red-hooded sweatshirt, and then look at her phone.

RELATED: Mainstream media turns a blind eye to vicious stabbing of young Ukrainian woman

zmeel via iStock/Getty Images

The alleged stabber seated behind her, whom the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department has identified as repeat offender Decarlos Brown, can be seen in the footage taking what appears to be a folding knife out of his pocket, standing up, then bringing the apparent blade down in a striking motion.

A GoFundMe for her loved ones states, "Ira had recently arrived in the United States, seeking safety from the war and hoping for a new beginning. Tragically, her life was cut short far too soon."

Seventeen days after the slaying and in the face of mounting outrage, North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) said he was "heartbroken for the family of Iryna Zarutska, who lost their loved one to this senseless act of violence," and "appalled by the footage of her murder."

- YouTube

Police indicated that following the slaying, Brown was transported to Atrium Health with non-life-threatening injuries and charged with first-degree murder.

According to the National News Desk, Brown was previously arrested at least 14 times, including for allegedly assaulting his sister, and he was sentenced to five years in prison for a 2014 armed robbery.

Wiki revisionism

On Saturday morning, a handful of Wikipedia editors got to work detailing what happened to Zarutska, only to find their efforts frustrated by radicals who were alternatively keen to leave the public in the dark.

The "Talk" logs for the potentially doomed page show a frantic effort on the part of some editors to conceal Brown's identity.

When one editor suggested, "It's actually standard here not to name suspected perpetrators," another responded, "Unless his name is Kyle Rittenhouse."

At the time of publication, the Wikipedia page omitted any mention of Brown's name except for where it appeared in the titles of referenced articles.

Others tried to downplay the story's significance. One editor claimed that "there is nothing in this story that is significant besides it being recent news."

"Just [because] victim was white doesn't indicate that perpetrator was intentionally racist or had some sort of racial prejudice he was a schizophrenic going through a psychotic episode and the poor girl was in wrong place/time," another editor wrote. "What's atrocious is how white supremacists are flooding this page to create some sort of narrative and trying to devalue Black American's experience of police brutality in U.S."

RELATED: Twisting the truth: Wikipedia’s ongoing misinformation war

Photo by Karl Merton Ferron/Baltimore Sun Staff

Soon, the page bore a label that read, "An editor has nominated this article for deletion."

The deletion label linked to a discussion over whether to keep or eliminate the entry, which was prefaced with a reminder "that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors."

Although a great many contributors appear to have recommended keeping the page, others tried their best to trivialize Zarutska's demise.

"There are some people in social media and other venues who are trying to make this into something far greater than it really merrits [sic]. Nothing is remarkable about this. Even the premise of the immigrant status, nor race of either person, seems to have any indication for a hate crime even. Rather just a random act of violence," one contributor wrote.

Blaze News senior politics editor and Washington correspondent Christopher Bedford, responding to the attempted spin by radicals behind the scenes at Wikipedia, underscored the significance of the story, noting that "you've got comment coming in from the governor, you've got comment coming in from the president, and you have a perpetrator who is free in the first place only because of specific policy decisions made by governments in regard to their crimes and punishments."

"But it doesn't fit into a cozy narrative. It's a beautiful white woman killed by a black man and serial criminal," Bedford continued. "Even though she's a Ukrainian refugee, on the scale of what liberals want to communicate and narratives they want to build, she's lower than he is."

Blaze News has reached out to Wikimedia for comment.

Blaze News previously reported that editors and/or contributors at Wikipedia:

  • Tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election;
  • Strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the site's list of executive branch czars;
  • Advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias;
  • Blacklisted right-leaning sources such as Blaze News, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post and effectively prohibits their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing a site-wide leftist bias;
  • Smears right-wing figures;
  • Labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and
  • Deceived readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a "conspiracy theory."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wikipedia’s Locked Steele Dossier Page Is Laced With Lies That Only Certain Users Can Correct

Edits to articles under lock are limited to a specific, controlled group of Wikipedia users.

Wikipedia co-founder: Epstein, elite rings, and occult portals — what they don’t want you to know



Co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger found God in an unconventional way.

When he was introduced by a friend to the world of Jeffrey Epstein and the elites, he was forced to reckon with the idea that our culture is ruled by those who will do anything to defend their own immoral horrors.

“A friend of mine was opening my eyes to the existence of various — call them elite pedophile rings. Epstein was not the only one. You can look up the NXIVM case,” Sanger tells BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey on “Relatable.”

“And then there’s, like, ‘Pedowood,’ which is what we call the prevalence of pedophilia in Hollywood. It’s very weird that a lot of the people who are involved, or at least accused of being involved, in such activities have occult beliefs,” he continues.


According to Sanger, his friend knew some of these people personally and confirmed that’s why “they use all of these symbols,” like “the old one-eye.”

“People still notice that, but they used to do that all the time. I think they avoid it now, but generally speaking, a lot of movie posters would show up with this. That’s an occult symbol,” he explains.

Those who partake in these morally bankrupt rituals are willing to put a lot on the line to defend them, which Sanger explains must “at least mean that the spirit world is true” and that “demons exist.”

And because it opened his eyes to evil, he realized that its opposite, good, exists as well.

“Doesn’t that mean that it’s possible that God exists?” he says.

And that’s why, as he found himself digging deeper into the occult, he did not want to “open any portals.”

“I didn’t want to get into it,” he tells Stuckey. “But one thing I learned is that if you look at Masonic symbology, it’s based on a lot of Old Testament, like, temple symbology. What occultists like to do is to invert biblical symbols.”

“So, in other words, pervert them, twist them,” he adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Trump DOJ takes aim at Wikipedia's tax-exempt status over alleged violations, 'propaganda'



The Trump administration is working to ensure that institutions granted federal funding and tax-exempt status are compliant with federal law and policy.

Shortly after putting woke medical journals that receive funding from the National Institutes of Health on blast over their alleged bias, Edward Martin Jr., the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, announced an investigation into Wikipedia.

Martin noted in an April 24 letter obtained by the Free Press that "Wikipedia, which operates via its fiscal sponsor, the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., is engaging in a series of activities that could violate its obligations under Section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code."

The statute cited by Martin holds that tax-exempt organizations must be:

organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.

The IRS law notes further that tax-exempt organizations are not to "carry on" propaganda, attempt to influence legislation, or "participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Martin suggested that the Wikimedia Foundation, through Wikipedia, "is allowing foreign actors to manipulate information and spread propaganda to the American public," and is "permitting information manipulation on its platform, including the rewriting of key, historical events and biographical information of current and previous American leaders, as well as other matters implicating the national security of the United States."

'Most readers assume Wikipedia is a reliable online encyclopedia, but in reality, it has become a biased platform.'

Blaze News previously reported that editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company spent nearly 30% of its 2023-2024 budget on DEI programs,

  • tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election;
  • strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the site's list of executive branch czars;
  • advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias;
  • blacklisted right-leaning sources such as Blaze News, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post and effectively prohibits their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing a site-wide leftist bias;
  • smears right-wing figures;
  • labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and
  • deceived readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a "conspiracy theory."

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

Wikipedia — which still claimed at the time of publication that COVID-19 lab leak "explanations are not supported by science" — has not only been criticized for being a repository of leftist propaganda but for its alleged "widespread antisemitic and anti-Israel" content.

While previously silent on the suppression of conservative voices, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League — whose censorious outfit Wikipedia categorized as an "unreliable source" last year — stated last month that "most readers assume Wikipedia is a reliable online encyclopedia, but in reality, it has become a biased platform manipulated by agenda-driven editors on many topics."

The ADL alleged that a group of at least 30 editors "acted in concert to circumvent Wikipedia's policies to introduce antisemitic narratives, anti-Israel bias, and misleading information."

Martin, who has reportedly been aiding the Justice Department's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, noted in his letter, "Masking propaganda that influences public opinion under the guise of providing informational material is antithetical to Wikimedia's 'educational' mission."

The D.C. attorney also took issue with Wikipedia's apparent direction from a board "composed primarily of foreign nationals, subverting the interests of American taxpayers."

Martin indicated that his office has received information that "demonstrates that Wikipedia's informational management policies benefit foreign powers."

'The public is entitled to rely on a reasonable expectation of neutrality, transparency, and accountability.'

Martin expressed additional concern about the amplification of the leftist and foreign propaganda on Wikipedia, noting that search engines such as Google have prioritized Wikipedia results, and AI platforms train their large-language models on Wikipedia data.

The Department of Justice has requested that the Wikimedia Foundation provide information by May 15 concerning its policy and operations, including what:

  • safeguards it has in place to both protect the public "from the dissemination of propaganda," and to fulfill its legal and ethical obligations as a tax-exempt organization;
  • actions the foundation takes when confronted with editor misconduct and/or coordinated efforts to "use editorial or administrative authority to systematically distort content";
  • the foundation does to ensure editorial transparency and accountability;
  • steps the foundation has taken to counter foreign influence operations;
  • efforts are taken to ensure a broad spectrum of viewpoints are represented, even if at odds with institutional backers; and
  • third-party entities the foundation has contracted with to use, redistribute, or process Wikipedia content.

"As a nonprofit corporation, which is incorporated in the District of Columbia, the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to specific legal obligations and fiduciary duties consistent with its tax-exempt status," wrote Martin. "The public is entitled to rely on a reasonable expectation of neutrality, transparency, and accountability in its operations and publications."

Although it did not acknowledge Martin's latter, the Wikimedia Foundation claimed in a statement obtained by the Washington Post that Wikipedia's content was governed by policies that ensure information is presented as "accurately, fairly and neutrally as possible."

"Wikipedia is one of the last places online that shows the promise of the internet, housing more than 65 million articles written to inform, not persuade," said the statement. "Our vision is a world in which every single human can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

At Harvard-Hosted 'Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon,' Law Students Target the Pages of Firms That Criticized School's Response to Anti-Semitism

Anti-Israel Harvard Law School students organized a workshop on the Ivy League campus earlier this month to edit the Wikipedia pages of more than a dozen prominent law firms, singling out some that threatened to stop recruiting at the school over its failure to rein in anti-Semitic activity.

The post At Harvard-Hosted 'Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon,' Law Students Target the Pages of Firms That Criticized School's Response to Anti-Semitism appeared first on .

Wikipedia scandal exposed: Big Tech manipulates what you see



Wikipedia is no longer what it used to be, and co-founder Larry Sanger knows exactly why.

“Wikipedia can be used to advance a particular social and political agenda,” Sanger tells James Poulos on “Zero Hour.” “This becomes evident only if you know a lot about the topic. So sometimes the only people who are really qualified to tell whether a treatment of a topic is neutral are the people who know a lot about the topic.”

“It’s gotten really, really bad, though, in the Trump years, I mean really noticeably,” he continues, “and I think that is what sort of enlightened people about the problem. So while conservatives and Libertarian and anti-establishment types, they generally continue to despise Wikipedia, this seems to have had little impact on Wikipedia itself.”


“Why would it?” he adds. “This is a feature of the mainstream media. They’re not going to change, and Wikipedia now is essentially a summary of what the mainstream media thinks, at least when it comes to current events, politics, social issues, and so forth.”

However, it’s not just the twisting of the truth to fit a political agenda that’s bothered the co-founder, but the lack of care taken to stop others from spreading horrifying imagery on the website.

This became an issue to Sanger when he was enlightened to the existence of pedophile rings and “graphic representations of child rape on Wikipedia.” He reported it to the FBI in 2010.

“It didn’t do any good. They didn’t follow up. It’s still there. That did change my views insofar as I felt now it’s important to speak out about this, especially in this context,” he explains. “They’re not trying to hide their disdain at all any more, and from my point of view, it felt like simply speaking about such things as a moral imperative has emboldened me to say things that I have believed for many years.”

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Demons exist': Wikipedia co-founder shares how studying Hollywood cults led him to Christ



Larry Sanger, Wikipedia co-founder, philosopher, and writer, was a devout atheist at one point in his life — but that all changed as his own philosophical writings started to challenge his belief system.

“I wrote a series of essays that sort of dismantled some of the reasons that I had for disbelief,” Sanger tells Allie Beth Stuckey of “Relatable.” “My take on it was, what God is essentially is the creator of the universe and a spirit. And he created the universe essentially with a thought, but we have no experience of thoughts bringing things into existence directly.”

“I didn’t conclude that the universe is therefore a simulation, which was Elon Musk’s conclusion,” he continues, adding, “I think that is merely evidence that it’s possible that a creator exists.”

However, it wasn’t just Sanger’s own musings that led him to the word of God.


“A friend of mine was opening my eyes to the existence of various, call them elite pedophile rings, Epstein was not the only one,” he tells Stuckey. “And then there’s, like, pedo-wood, which is what we call the prevalence of pedophilia in Hollywood. It’s very weird that a lot of the people who are involved or at least accused of being involved in such activities have occult beliefs.”

“And my friend said he worked with such people, knew them personally, and he confirmed that. He said that’s why they use all of these symbols, you know, like the old one eye, which people were obsessing about five years ago,” he continues. “I think they avoid it now, but generally speaking a lot of movie posters would show up with this one. That’s an occult symbol.”

Not only have the stories surrounding what happens in Hollywood opened Sanger’s eyes but what happens once any suspected pedophiles have been outed.

“These people are able to get away with horrific crimes. Just look at how Epstein has been dealt with. It cannot be denied that justice has not been done. There’s a lot of guilty people walking around free right now,” he says, noting that our culture is ruled by people like this.

“Our culture is ruled by people who believe this,” he continues. “Doesn’t that mean that if they’re going to go to all these risks and these moral horrors, as part of their beliefs, that’s putting a lot on the line for something that you actually think is a lie?”

“So if it were true, then that would at least mean that the spirit world is true,” he says, adding, “Demons exist."

"Doesn’t that mean it’s possible that God exists?”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Wikipedia blacklists Blaze News and other right-leaning sources, ensuring it's a one-stop liberal propaganda shop



Wikipedia maintains that articles on its site "should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered."

A new study by Media Research Center Free Speech America highlighted that Wikipedia has discounted right-leaning sources as reliable and prohibited their citation in articles, all but guaranteeing that the site is little more than a repository for liberal propaganda.

It's no secret that Wikipedia's volunteer editors are predominantly ideological myopes favorable to leftist causes, ideas, and personalities and antipathetic to conservatives of various stripes.

For instance, editors at Wikipedia, whose parent company blew 29.2% of its 2023-2024 budget on race-obsessive DEI programs, tried to hide Vice President JD Vance's military accomplishments in the lead-up to the 2024 election; strategically eliminated any mention of Kamala Harris' appointment as border czar on the list of executive branch czars; advocated deleting the entry detailing the mass killings executed by communist regimes, citing an anti-communist bias; labeled Elon Musk's temporary suspension of journalists who allegedly violated his platform's terms of service as the "Thursday Night Massacre"; and gaslighted readers about the history, existence, and nature of cultural Marxism, characterizing the well-defined and well-chronicled offshoot of Marxism as a a "conspiracy theory."

'Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead.'

A 2024 study published in Online Information Review found that Wikipedia — now run by the former chief operating officer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America and previously run by a censorious alumna of the World Economic Forum's Young Global Leader program who stated that "our reverence for the truth might be a distraction that is getting in the way of finding common ground and getting things done" — suffers a "significant liberal bias in the choice of news media sources."

The Dutch researchers noted further that "this effect persists when accounting for the factual reliability of the news media."

Wikipedia, which now deals primarily in "propaganda" and exists only to "give an establishment point of view" according to co-founder Larry Sanger, has apparently leaned harder into its bias.

The new MRC study noted that Wikipedia editors are permitted to cite a variety of leftist publications that have a reputation for pushing false narratives and fake news, including Jacobin, Mother Jones, NPR, and Rolling Stone, but are precluded from citing publications not similarly staffed by liberal activists.

Citing the Wikipedia page on reliable and perennial sources, the study highlighted that numerous reputable right-leaning publications have been blacklisted.

Wikipedia states, for instance, that Blaze News, the Daily Wire, the Daily Caller, the Epoch Times, Fox News, ZeroHedge, the Washington Free Beacon, the Federalist, RedState, the Media Research Center, and the Alexander Hamilton-founded New York Post "should normally not be used" as sources and "should never be used for information about a living person."

"Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate," added the Wikipedia entry on reliable sources.

'It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative.'

Whereas most right-leaning publications were flagged as "generally unreliable," Breitbart News appears to have been among the few singled out for a formal blacklisting. Wikipedia alleged that the "site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories as fact" and complained that the publication had revealed the identity of multiple Wikipedia editors.

The New York Times qualifies as reliable despite falsely accusing President Donald Trump of lying about Democrats' abortion ambitions; characterizing the suggestion that COVID-19 originated in the Wuhan lab that conducted dangerous experiments on coronaviruses as a "fringe" "conspiracy theory lack[ing] evidence"; printing false Hamas propaganda; pushing the Russian collusion narrative; and misleading readers on various other issues.

Rolling Stone, which has paid out millions in the past for false and defamatory reporting, appears not to have learned its lesson, lying, for instance, in recent years about an imagined Florida book ban and smearing Michael Knowles of the Daily Wire. It was also characterized as "generally reliable."

Politico similarly received a reliable rating despite — or perhaps as a result of — its willingness to help a cabal of former intelligence officials interfere with the 2020 election by mischaracterizing the New York Post's reliable Hunter Biden laptop story as "Russian disinfo," and to mislead Americans about the working relationship between former President Joe Biden and Kamala Harris for the benefit of the former vice president's campaign.

According to the MRC study, only 16% of left-wing media sources were unable to secure Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Meanwhile, 100% of right-leaning sources were effectively blacklisted.

The MRC study noted further that the predicable result is that "conservatives, Republicans, and Trump appointees are smeared, maligned, and slandered by the most popular online source for information about people."

Christopher Bedford, senior editor for politics and Washington correspondent for Blaze Media, noted, "You've got to remember, none of this — none of it — is based in fact. We were right about COVID, right about Biden, right about immigration, right about trans. We were right about virtually every major contested issue impacting this country for the past 10 years, while over and over again outlets from the New York Times to PolitiFact were embarrassingly wrong."

"They can't handle that, and so the ideologues ban us," continued Bedford. "It's pathetic, but it's also dangerous, and every penny you give to support this project is a penny given against speech and truth."

Dan Schneider, MRC vice president, noted, "There used to be a joke about how Wikipedia could not be relied on by historians and academics. Wikipedia has now become the joke."

"Its radical editors and staff reveal their contempt for conservatives in almost everything they inject into descriptions," continued Schneider. "It was never something people could rely on for accurate information. It is now only reliable for pushing a radical narrative."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Wikipedia Declares Hamas the Victor in Nearly Every Battle Against Israel Since 10/7—Then Quietly Deletes Section

Wikipedia editors quietly deleted an entry claiming that Hamas has won nearly every battle against Israel since Oct. 7, setting off a fiery debate about the online database’s bias and inability to accurately portray the war.

The post Wikipedia Declares Hamas the Victor in Nearly Every Battle Against Israel Since 10/7—Then Quietly Deletes Section appeared first on .