Talk:Larry Sanger

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Larry Sanger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 12 months

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Larry Sanger. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Larry Sanger at the Reference desk.

Larry Sanger was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 19, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 2, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 11, 2010	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept
October 22, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
November 24, 2019	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Philosophers / Epistemology / Contemporary Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophers
	Epistemology
	Contemporary philosophy

Wikipedia Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Larry Sanger (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.

Recent Sanger criticism of Wikipedia

Unproductive thread

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Should this link be added to the article where it talks about his criticisms of the wiki??--1.152.111.77 (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to add it unless its covered by reliable sources. We shouldn’t treat Sanger differently from any other semi-reliable blogger just because he is connected to the project. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is mentioned based on a single Fox News source. A sentence or two seems fine. Anything more than that would need better, secondary sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, i don't think it should be mentioned at all. To rephrase my original point, fox news is not a reliable source, and Larry Sanger is not as significant to the wikipedia project as they want people to think. Which means his comments are nothing more than yet another instance of Fox News pushing post-truth alternative facts, and they want to use Sanger's past connection to wikipedia to legitimize their conspiracy theories about left wing bias. Wikipedia should not contribute to legitimizing them further. If other sources find it his claims notable enough to debunk, or expose whatever ulterior motives he may have had for echoing pro trump talking points, then sure. Let it be covered. Otherwise, it's just not relevant. 46.97.170.78 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fox news is not a reliable source "FOX News was determined by consensus to be generally reliable per WP:NEWSORG," per perennial sources. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant for inclusion here. News at 10: "Sanger, self-proclaimed libertarian, rails against perceived liberalism. (Also requests more funding)." Remind me, is his latest project in favour of experts, or opposed to them? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sanger is pro-expert, as long as that expert is himself. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a section was added https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&type=revision&diff=958265951&oldid=958217744&diffmode=source ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 18:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, pending more widespread coverage and/or consensus changing here. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstated, you don't have any consensus to remove (in fact it's pretty clearly in favor of inclusion here), maybe start an RfC if you feel that strongly against it. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 10:11, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. There's clearly no such consensus as you claim, and, per policy: The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content. ——Serial^# 10:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. When I removed this, there was one person asking should it be included, one person saying yes, and three saying no. Not seeing how you could have arrived at the conclusion that there was clear consensus for inclusion, by the evening of 29 May, MPUWT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming to the conclusion there is objectively more support here to include than against, in which case the side against is only you and an IP. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear I support linking reliable sources which cover the blog post (obviously where WP:DUE etc etc etc), the topic as presented is whether or not to include the link to Sanger’s subpar blog which I strongly object to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I think we're all in agreement regarding that. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you clearly don't know how to count. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you don't know how to respond to the right person. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 12:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t *all* in agreement but I think there is a general consensus. If we want to talk about changes to the text I would remove all the direct quotes and tighten up our summary a little bit. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to make the improvements you see fit. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Greyfall, it should be included here. I don’t see why his essay would garner widespread coverage, Wikipedia isn’t usually a topic in media, but the coverage from one RS is enough for inclusion here IMO. petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should've been more clear. I don't think it adds anything important to the article, and I don't think it should be include... but I don't think a single sentence is worth removing, either. It absolutely should not be expanded without much better sources, and it would benefit the article for this sentence to be trimmed to avoid becoming a WP:FART-collection. Grayfell (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Sanger's criticisms of Wikipedia are not noteworthy. He's been bitter ever since he left (which was early on, before Jimmy Wales turned it into a huge success) and has had nothing but a string of failed endeavors ever since. All this, despite desperately clinging to the title of "co-founder" which is his only real claim to notoriety. His opinions should not be given undue weight. TempDog123 (talk) 05:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the small Greek WP "community", he is 110% correct. If he is not notable, why has an article in WP?--Skylax30 (talk) 09:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is right that the "neutral" in NPOV is a perennial source of confusion. But his criticism would be totally obliterated by renaming NPOV to PPOV (i.e. proportional point of view). tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tudor. I partially agree, but only partially.

I suspect your point mostly applies to the Due weight part of NPOV, while "neutral" primarily applies to editorial behavior, as explained in my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content:

"NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. We do not document exclusively neutral facts or opinions; we write about facts and opinions neutrally. The "Neutral" in NPOV refers to an editorial attitude and mindset; it is not a true "point of view".

Editors must edit neutrally when they deal with biased content. Since Wikipedia does not take sides, and because it documents all types of biased points of view, often using biased sources, article content cannot be neutral. Source bias must remain evident and unaffected by editorial revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. We document all aspects of reality, whether we like it or not."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include it and allow everyone to use their own judgment? https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/ 2600:1700:1580:4290:F0D4:53E:2FD1:FB1D (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have the internet for that. Here we use reliable sources (RS), and Sanger is a fringe and pitiful character who is far from a RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger Interviews on YouTube are considered unreliable sources?

I added this to the article: He further adds that since Wikipedia encourages the use of secondary sources instead of primary sources, Wikipedia is heavily censored by center-left-wing media, saying that, "You can’t cite the Daily Mail at all. You can’t cite Fox News on socio-political issues either. It’s banned. So what does that mean? It means that if a controversy does not appear in the mainstream center-Left media, then it’s not going to appear on Wikipedia."^[1] Despite having a neutrality policy, he said that the viewpoint of Wikipedia articles represent the consensus viewpoints, and users are prohibited from adding counter-arguments, which would help create a more neutral article, to established views.^[2] He claimed that Wikipedia can give a "reliably establishment point of view on pretty much everything" and "if only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power. And they do that."^[3]

It was removed on the basis that my sources were unreliable. The information shouldn't be removed, since I provided a video interview with Sanger that was uploaded onto YouTube. YouTube is generally considered unreliable, but an exception should be made in this situation. It's literally a video interview with Sanger. Timestamps are also provided in the reference tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LilAhok (talk • contribs) 02:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no reason why an exception should be made. "It's an interview" is not a reason. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger can't even be represented using his own words? Well done Wikipedia ... you are truly a modern marvel of mis/dis-information! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 16:28. Retrieved May 25, 2022.
^ Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). [https:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created"]. youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 8:30. Retrieved May 25, 2022. {{cite podcast}}: Check |url= value (help)
^ Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

We just keep unreliable sources out. Sanger can talk and write all day long on all subjects he likes, but his ideas only become noteworthy for Wikipedia if reliable sources notice them. It's not that difficult to understand, except for people who think that the opinion of a Random Guy on the Street must be heard together with the experts. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And who decides the list of "reliable sources" but a group of highly experienced WP editors and admins? Would you state that WP is "neutral" and "without bias"? Plenty of research shows that WP is very much left-leaning and biased, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and [6].

If WPs main editors and admins are biased, then this curated list of allowed "experts" will be biased. That's it. Am I missing anything?

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:A851:8803:B06B:49D1 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:YESBIAS. That Wikipedia is 'biased' is not the problem you seem to think it is. MrOllie (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what is missing is a better solution. If you have one, go to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources. Pro tip: Sanger's solution is not better, all his encyclopedias failed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but startups always have trouble, especially if you consider that they probably dont get assistance from large scale donors like Wiki does. Bgrus22 (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experts

I don't understand this newly-added quote: "One thing that I would have done, could have done, and should have done right away would be to create a process whereby articles were approved by experts."

But then, it would have exactly the same "biases" he complains about: against lunatic charlatans and against wacky Republican fantasies. So, he does not seem very consistent. Maybe the quote is out of context? --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... if articles were approved by experts then Wikipedia might qualify as a reliable source! 2001:8003:70F5:2400:3CA1:B224:8640:8140 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You want articles approved by experts? Cos this is what happens when you have articles approved by experts... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's being taken out of context. As the article mentions, Sanger created another wiki project called Citizendium, which had the goal of having all of its articles approved by experts. However, many of these "experts" turned out to be pseudoscience-pushing cranks with questionable credentials. I think we can safely assume that if he was still actively involved with the project, any articles on election fraud would have to be approved by the World's Leading Experts™ on the subject, Dinesh D'Souza and Mike Lindell. Partofthemachine (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger would consider their POV the right one. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Life and Religion

Presently, the article claims that Sanger is agnostic. This appears to no longer be true. The statement is well-sourced with three citations, yet these citations are at least three years old, and in the most recent, Sanger expressed openness to religion.

More recently, in March 2023, Sanger posted to his website an article indicating deep Bible study habits. The article itself does not confirm a change in religion, but outlinks to a Telegram chatroom where his Christian belief is explicitly stated.

Perhaps a better source is needed, but at the very least, it seems the current article content is incorrect. Doughbo (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An update may be needed depending on what the explicitly stated belief actually says. I don't see any conflict with being agnostic and studying the Bible or expressing an openness to religion. It doesn't say he's an atheist. --Onorem (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to link to Telegram (software). Partofthemachine (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you to determine what branches of the U.S. government-if any!-have employees paid to edit, monitor, update, lobby, etc., Wikipedia?

Post by Larry Sanger:

Larry Sanger Follow.@lsanger

Hi @ElonMusk. Wikipedia co-founder here. May I ask you to determine what branches of the U.S. government-if any!-have employees paid to edit, monitor, update, lobby, etc., Wikipedia?

Such operations should be defunded, if any. If there are *none*, we'd like to know. Agree?

March 9, 2025 x.com formerly twitter

Should this be included in the article?

FalloutInfinity2 (talk) 08:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a reliable source talks about this specific delusion by Sanger, we should ignore that. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I found Mr. Hob Gadling:

Wikipedia co-founder calls on Elon Musk to probe possible government influence on ‘fully woke’ site https://nypost.com/2025/03/07/media/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-on-elon-musk-to-investigate-government-influence-over-online-encyclopedia March 7, 2025. New York Post

Wikipedia co-founder calls on Elon Musk to investigate government influence over online encyclopedia https://www.yahoo.com/news/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-elon-100007584.html March 7, 2025 Yahoo News.

Wikipedia co-founder asks Musk, DOGE to investigate FoxNews http://www.foxnews.com/video/6369719496112 March 7, 2025

Wikipedia co-founder's open challenge to Musk: Which US govt branches 'paid to edit, monitor, update, lobby' the website? https://www.businesstoday.in/latest/world/story/wikipedia-co-founders-open-challenge-to-musk-which-us-govt-branches-paid-to-edit-monitor-update-lobby-the-website-466179-2025-02-27 Feb 27, 2025 businesstoday.in

Wikipedia co-founder may just have agreed with Elon Musk in his 'first viral post in a few years' http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/118593724.cms Feb 27, 2025 Times of India

Elon Musk responds to Wikipedia co-founders suggestion. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/elon-musk-responds-to-wikipedia-co-founders-suggestion/articleshow/118623300.cms India Times Feb 28, 2025. “Good idea,” Musk said in a response to Sanger’s post.

Wikipedia co-founder asks Donald Trump and Elon Musk to investigate how deep state manipulated the platform: Read why Wikipedia isn’t free or fair opindia com 2025 02 wikipedia-co-founder-asks-donald-trump-and-elon-musk-to-investigate-how-deep-state-manipulated-the-platform-read-why-wikipedia-isnt-free-or-fair 27 February, 2025 OpIndia blacklisted,

For people who don’t know me:

– 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 (etc.)

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...Elon Musk previously urged people to quit giving money to Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organsiation of Wikipedia. (etc.)

"Hi, Elon Musk. Wikipedia Co-Founder Here": Larry Sanger's Dare To X Chief. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/wikipedia-co-founders-dare-to-elon-musk-request-to-donald-trump-7804978 Feb 27, 2025 NDTV.

Wikipedia co-founder asks Elon Musk to check if US govt paid employees to ‘edit, monitor, update, lobby’ the website https://www.hindustantimes.com/business/wikipedia-co-founder-asks-elon-musk-to-check-if-us-govt-paid-employees-to-edit-monitor-update-lobby-the-website-101740623526115.html Feb 27, 2025. Hindustan Times

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger on journey from skeptic... http://foxnews.com/media/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-announces-conversion-from-skeptic-christianity Fox News. March 10, 2025.

Wikipedia co-founder asks Musk, DOGE to investigate government influence on online encyclopedia https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/wikipedia-co-founder-asks-musk-doge-to-investigate-government-influence-on-online-encyclopedia/vi-AA1ArOjK?ocid=spartandhp MSN. March 7, 2025.

Reveal 'If Any': Sanger Asks Musk to Investigate US Govt's Funding On Wikipedia Editing https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/reveal-if-any-sanger-asks-musk-to-investigate-us-govt-s-funding-on-wikipedia-editing Feb 27 2025. Republic World.

Wikipedia Co-Founder Larry Sanger Explains How His Website Became 'Woke' & 'Leftist' Wikipedia co-founder, Larry Sanger, said, "Wikipedia made a real effort at neutrality for its first five years or so, and then it began a long, slow slide into what I would call 'leftist propaganda'." https://news.abplive.com/technology/wikipedia-co-founder-larry-sanger-explains-how-website-became-woke-leftist-propaganda-1741012 31 Dec 2024 ABP News Bureau

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has urged President Trump and Elon Musk to investigate federal employees for editing the online encyclopedia. The New York Sun. March 3, 2025.

Wikipedia co-founder calls on Elon Musk to investigate government influence over online encyclopedia. https://www.fox8tv.com/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-on-elon-musk-to-investigate-government-influence-over-online-encyclopedia Fox News. Fox 8 TV.

Larry Sanger Urges Elon Musk to Investigate Government influence on Wikipedia. https://techstory.in/larry-sanger-urges-elon-musk-to-investigate-government-influence-on-wikipedia Feb 28 2025. Tech Story. India

Larry Sanger lanza un llamado a Elon Musk y DOGE para investigar la influencia gubernamental en Wikipedia https://hoydiario.es/noticias/tecnologia/doge/sanger-musk-doge-influencia-gubernamental-wikipedia.html 07/Mar/2025

Wikipedia vs. Musk: Cofundador exige saber si EE. UU. pagó a empleados para manipular la web https://diariodevigo.com/wikipedia-vs-musk-cofundador-exige-saber-si-ee-uu-pago-a-empleados-para-manipular-la-web 9 March, 2025 Sociedad en Constitución , hereinafter Diario de Vigo , with registered office for notification purposes at Rúa Condesa Casa Bárcena, 11, 36204-Vigo (Pontevedra) Spain

Wikipedia Co-founder: It's Not Neutral, Needs to Be Investigated https://www.newsmax.com/us/wikipedia-founder-investigation/2025/03/10/id/1202131/ News Max. 10 March 2025.

Wikipedia co-founder challenges Elon Musk: Did the US govt pay staff to edit and control content? https://socialobserver.in/latest-news/wikipedia-co-founder-challenges-elon-musk-did-the-us-govt-pay-staff-to-edit-and-control-content Social Observer February 2025 (2 weeks ago)

La nueva polémica de Elon Musk sobre la productividad en el trabajo: "Por eso pierden tan rápido" https://www.20minutos.es/tecnologia/actualidad/nueva-polemica-elon-musk-productividad-trabajo-por-eso-pierden-tan-rapido-5689460 10.03.2025 20 Minutos

Other:

'I Was Wrong': Wikipedia Co-Founder Embraces Bible, Abandons Skepticism https://cbn.com/news/world/i-was-wrong-wikipedia-co-founder-embraces-bible-abandons-skepticism CBN 03-08-2025.

FalloutInfinity2 (talk) 00:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lot. New York Post is generally unreliable, Republic World and Newsmax are deprecated, and the reliability of Fox News and Times of India are context-dependent, Yahoo and MSN just link to Fox, but some of the rest may be theoreticallyly useful. Though... I looked at several of the others and they seem to either just give the bones without any deeper analysis, or agree with Sanger. ABP says Sanger, in an interview, admitted that Wikipedia has indeed shifted to the Left. "Admitted" is stupid and misleading on so many levels. Are there any non crazy-hard-right-wing sources in there? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created". youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 16:28. Retrieved May 25, 2022.

[2] Freddie Sayers (July 14, 2021). [https:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0P4Cf0UCwU "Wikipedia co-founder: I no longer trust the website I created"]. youtube.com (Podcast). UnHerd. Event occurs at 8:30. Retrieved May 25, 2022. {{cite podcast}}: Check |url= value (help)

[:3-3] Cite error: The named reference :3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]

[2]

[3]