Wikipedia Co-Creator Reveals All: CIA Infiltration, Banning Conservatives, & How to Fix the Internet

Larry Sanger, thanks for being here. Wikipedia shapes how we remember everything, and because it’s fused to search, it steers the culture; that’s why its dishonesty on charged topics feels like an emergency—so take us back to the start and what you intended.

Jimmy Wales hired me to launch a free, public encyclopedia; Newpedia was too slow, so a friend showed me wikis, and that unlocked it. We re-launched as Wikipedia in January 2001, I named it, set early policies like neutrality and no original research.

Why ban original work?

An encyclopedia should summarize what’s already established and present the major viewpoints fairly. Specialized depth can come later, but the baseline is a neutral survey of what reliable sources report.

Tied to AI, its influence explodes.

Totally; large language models learn from many places, but on obscure facts I often see Wikipedia as the only thing feeding their answers.

So how did it drift from that ideal?

Early on we used neutrality to let people with different beliefs work together; over time the policy narrowed into “significant views from reliable sources,” and it discouraged so-called fringe views. That wording lets editors enforce bias while claiming neutrality.

“Fringe” is a rubber word used to smear and exclude—define it or drop it.

Exactly; ideas labeled fringe today can become standard later, so the label is a cudgel, not a safeguard.

Who let that happen—was there a fight?

It tracked the media’s shift; by 2016 mainstream outlets moved to advocacy, and Wikipedia echoed it, calling politicians liars and critics conspiracy theorists. Meanwhile, admins steadily pushed out conservatives and libertarians, consolidating control.

I loved Wikipedia and donated, but on anything touching power or ideology it reads like a hit—loaded labels, missing facts.

By 2020 I called it propaganda; before then the tilt was growing but less blatant.

When did you leave, and what about Jimmy Wales?

I left in 2002 after a layoff and chose not to continue free; even then I saw combative leftists gaining ground and Wales allowing it. He once leaned libertarian, now keeps left-leaning company; what he truly believes today is unclear.

It’s a nonprofit, but money still moves—how?

The Wikimedia Foundation raises huge sums and makes grants, so funds can flow through affiliated projects while the Foundation owns the platform.

On my own page they lead with a smear like “white grievance politics,” sourced to a hostile columnist; that’s propaganda, not description.

A neutral biography would balance detractors with your own words and solid counter-sources. But a blacklist blocks many right-of-center outlets, so defenses never make it in.

Who sets that blacklist?

A “reliable sources” crowd debates it, while PR firms quietly pay editors despite rules; power accrues to insiders. There are approximately 833 admins, 16 bureaucrats, 49 checkusers, and 15 arbitrators; among roughly sixty-two top accounts, about 85 percent are anonymous.

So anonymous gatekeepers shape reality, shielded by Section 230, and you can’t sue.

That’s right.

Why is anonymity allowed at the top?

It’s a holdover from nineties handle culture and now a habit; they frame themselves as harmless janitors. No one has forced a real conversation about it.

Newsrooms and professors put their names on work; with power comes accountability.

Exactly; in journalism you can be fired for bad work, but Wikipedia’s anonymous leaders face few real-world consequences.

Intelligence services clearly shape some entries; did you anticipate that?

Not at launch; later, Wikiscanner linked edits to Langley. Modern intel spends major effort on opinion shaping, and Wikipedia is a one-stop influence hub.

Paid PR is banned, so how is intel editing okay?

I publicly asked for investigations; there’s talk on Capitol Hill, and communities like Jews and Hindus have pressed me about bias. The larger point is organized groups can make a dent if they work within the rules.

Most conservatives run from captured institutions.

If you try, avoid “brigading,” which bans off-wiki coordination; earn trust with good-faith edits over time.

Meanwhile intel coordinates in secret anyway.

That’s their job now—shape public opinion—and Wikipedia is prime terrain.

With anonymous power, bribery seems inevitable.

If you wield that much influence and remain nameless, money will chase you; that’s one reason identities should be public.

I joked about doxing, but is naming them even allowed?

No; revealing a name is treated as doxing and gets you permanently banned, so I’m not advocating that.

It’s still in the public interest to know who’s making these calls.

Real people are harmed; John Seigenthaler was smeared as tied to RFK’s murder, and Philip Roth’s correction of his own novel’s inspiration was rejected as a “primary source.” I’ve heard from dozens whose careers suffered, which is why I wrote nine reform theses.

Before that, explain why Wikipedia dominates search.

Early on, it published first on many topics, Google rewarded that, readers flowed in, and the loop fed rapid growth; from the start it got establishment attention, including early reviews in major outlets.

Wikipedia shapes understanding more than fading legacy TV; it should be counted among powerful media.

It likely has more influence than any single outlet, and it often moves in lockstep with places like the New York Times.

You’ve drafted theses to save it—walk us through them.

Stop pretending factional decisions are “consensus,” and allow competing articles with declared perspectives that each strive for fairness. Scrap the partisan source blacklist and revive genuine neutrality so contested issues aren’t settled by aligning with academia or corporate media.

Retire “ignore all rules,” which became a shield for insiders; make leaders identifiable and insured so accountability is real. Let the public rate articles and even the raters, exposing partisan skew and surfacing trusted work.

End routine permanent bans; make them rare, require multiple admins, and allow appeals on a schedule because this is a meaningful hobby for many. Finally, create an elected editorial legislature via a constitutional convention, with identity-verified voting and face-to-face deliberation to defeat sockpuppets and actually reform policy.

That’s the scale of change the platform deserves; the idea itself is worth rescuing, but without structure it’s prey for PR shops and intel. I’d support a real editorial council with names and responsibility.

If anything can win broad support, it’s forcing real governance so someone is answerable for policy and outcomes.

Larry Sanger, thank you; your seriousness matches the stakes. I hope people hear you, because this isn’t about me—it’s about our shared memory, which is another word for civilization.