Here’s receipts on the bias of Wikipedia, and how that would impact AI not to mention AI hallucinations, just making things up. Years ago when I had a WSJ subscription, it had better reporting but always still promoting propaganda in the end, I noticed that when commenting there would be the same people responding and pushing talking points of the left. They’d just drown out conservatives with their volume, and it became obvious you were dealing with people whose job it was to push propaganda in the comments and counter conservative voices. I suspect this is the same with Wikipedia when it comes to contributors, and you’d have to suspect editors too, which also discourages and sidelines conservatives from even trying. And the feds have several of these propaganda operations, as the 4th Psychological Operations-Airborne was running a video for recruitment. Furthermore, it was under Obama that a law was passed making it permissible for the federal government to now propagandize citizens, not that the federal government necessarily follows the letter of the law except in prosecuting enemies of the state (they actually embellish the law then while using corrupt federal judges to disallow the defense from presenting their lawful case). If you’re not employing critical thinking and manually searching for truth, you’re not seeing it.
by Jim Hoft
Anyone can add information to the pages of Wikipedia, even without an account. However, senior volunteer editors have a tight grip on what remains. Oftentimes, information is removed minutes later if they don’t like it.
If that information comes from The Gateway Pundit, Newsmax, Breitbart, Media Research Center, O’Keefe, and others on the right, it will likely be removed.
Wikipedia editors have determined that almost every conservative news outlet is unreliable and disallowed their content in some fashion.
In fact, The Gateway Pundit finished a study on this, and it is worse than we thought.
LEFT SOURCES ALLOWED: 37 of 75 reviewed (49%).
RIGHT SOURCES ALLOWED: 2 of 75 reviewed (3%).
Since 2018, Wikipedia has created an ecosystem where left-leaning sources are favored. Of the 75 conservative outlets we listed, only 2 are approved as sources (see PDF list below).
Other conservative publishers are restricted in different ways. The “entertainment” content could possibly be sourced from the New York Post, but not its general news.
For example: TGP breaks a story that non-citizens on DHS’s “Worst of the Worst” list are also on MI voter rolls. Someone enters it on the “Michigan Department of State” wiki page, which runs MI elections. Wiki editors quickly remove it because they consider TGP and all its content unreliable.
It’s the volunteer editors who decide which news organization can be used as a source, not Wikipedia’s parent, the Wikimedia Foundation.
TGP learned that a cabal of these editors has a history of removing favorable material and adding critical wording only on right-leaning pages. They have made 60,000 to 90,000 edits each over the years.
The same editor who quickly removes accolades on TGP’s horribly vicious Wikipedia page criticizes the accurate vaccine reporting on award-winning journalist Sharyl Attkisson’s page. He negatively edits pages of FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, EPA Admin Lee Zeldin, and many others.
We know this and did the research.
One alarming inclusion is the Media Research Center (MRC) and its subsidiaries CNSNews, NewsBusters, and MRCTV. They have a robust archive that includes exact transcripts, even videos of what biased news outlets have stated.
However, Wikipedia editors have deemed the entire organization an unreliable source.
This is ludicrous!
Only 3% of conservative outlets are listed as trusted sources!
49% of leftist outlets are listed as trusted sources.
Here’s one trick Wikipedia editors rely on. All editors need is 1-2 sources claiming the organization is not reliable. It’s a rigged game; right-leaning sources are not allowed. In the case of MRC, they quoted Columbia Journalism Review calling MRC “propaganda clothed as critique.” The exact same could be said of CJR.
For MRC, a community discussion called a Request for Comment (RfC) was opened in 2020. Of the 32 editors involved, 23 voted against MRC. Many editors wanted the stricter step of deprecation, which is what happened to Breitbart, O’Keefe, The Gateway Pundit, and many others.
Deprecated is Wikipedia’s strictest rating for a source. The outlet is considered so untrustworthy it should not be cited at all. In contrast, Wikipedia says leftist rags like The Nation, Mother Jones, and The New Republic are reliable.
Blacklisting goes further. Wiki’s software refuses to save any link to that site, no matter who enters it, including Administrators. There are 11 blacklisted conservative organizations in the list of 75, including Breitbart and O’Keefe Media Group, which is insane.
Another example is Wiki’s deprecation of James O’Keefe personally, O’Keefe Media Group, Project Veritas, and any future O’Keefe outlets.
“Deprecating” the person means the ban covers whatever outlet he publishes through, including ones that don’t exist yet!
Only 2 of the 19 editors involved in the O’Keefe decision showed concerns. This is clear evidence of the inherent leftist bias in this senior editor cabal. One editor stated there wasn’t “any precedent” for deprecating a person as a whole. The other said it’s “premature to rate an outlet nobody had asked about yet”.
Many know the efforts taken by James O’Keefe to comply with laws. This is how he won every lawsuit for years. His “Wall of Shame” displayed corrections and retractions news outlets were forced to make. They represent a small portion of over 380 successful corrections or retractions. These types of lies are what Wikipedia editors rely on. Wiki’s decision here is disgusting.
A 2024 Manhattan Institute study by David Rozado found a “tendency” in Wikipedia articles to associate right-leaning public figures with more negative sentiment than those on the left. Wikipedia’s community newsletter called the evidence “ample”.
Rozado’s study noted that Wikipedia content is routinely used to train artificial intelligence systems, and warned that its biases could carry over into AI models.
Also, Google broadcasts these negatively created pages about conservative organizations and people through its services, such as Google Search. This has been a HUGE problem, especially for TGP.
In August 2025, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer and Rep. Nancy Mace opened an investigation into whether Wikipedia has organized efforts, especially from those in academia, to inject bias into articles. No progress has been made public since then.
For now, people who want to cite conservative news face a simple answer from Wikipedia: look somewhere else.
Note: TGP evaluated what we determined are the top 75 news outlets on both sides, not every news organization. It’s a portion of leftist outlets, and nearly all the right-leaning outlets.
TGP’s CONSERVATIVE OUTLET LIST
(We apologize in advance if we missed your site.)
Here is the PDF. If not listed, check Wiki’s page directly.