Like Luther, “out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it,” Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia. Many of us have lost hope for the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded as a source on contested subject matter, but Sanger is keeping the faith. He argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a reliable source of information and instead represents a partisan slant in its orientation that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. For those of us in the intelligent design community, the futility of seeking a fair hearing at Wikipedia for our ideas and leading proponents is acutely felt. Sanger’s proposals, the fruit of his labor for the better part of a year, give shape to what a reformed Wikipedia could look like. Here are Sanger’s theses.

End decision-making by “consensus”

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

Sanger’s proposal brings to mind the sham of consensus science about which Michael Crichton famously opined, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science”. Scientifically derived truth, and truth claims more broadly, ought to be based on evidence. Consensus opinion, especially when it is achieved through surreptitious means that exclude dissenting voices, can be no basis for casting final judgment as Wikipedia entries often do, as when its editors and gatekeepers prepend every mention of intelligent design with the modifier “pseudoscientific”, foreclosing the argument.

Enable competing articles

Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

Sanger has been pursuing this idea of competing articles for some time through his Knowledge Standards Foundation. Its Encyclosphere collates numerous articles from multiple sources, as does Encyclopedia.com. I imagine the implementation of multiple articles at Wikipedia may pose navigation and usability issues for Wikipedia, especially in terms of its syndication in search results and tools like Alexa which rely on having a single source. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting proposal.

Abolish source blacklists

Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

For my part, this is the most obviously right and needed of Sanger’s reforms. Nowhere is Wikipedia’s bias so manifestly obvious as in its de jure exclusion of conservative news sources. Indeed, its house of cards is built on this dubious foundation. It is a quintessential example of an argument from authority, where dissenting authorities are excluded. Knowing this, approved sources game the system by refusing to even write about many stories, knowing that it leaves nothing to cite.

Revive the original neutrality Apolicy

Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

With numerous alternatives in the offing, now may be the time that Wikipedia’s leaders will be most open to changes. Though less comprehensive, Britannica provides much fairer and reliable information. Alternatives like Citizendium already aim to provide a more balanced encyclopedia. Promised alternatives like Botipedia and Grokipedia lurk. But it’s probably popular LLMs like ChatGPT and Perplexity that threaten Wikipedia’s dominance. By drawing from a broader set of sources, these rewording engines best Wikipedia in terms of neutrality and breadth on many questions, in spite of being heavily influenced by Wikipedia in their training data.

Wikipedia’s brand is already in tatters amongst large swaths of society. Character assassination of disfavored individuals has been a long standing problem, with no remedy so far.

Like Luther, “out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it,” Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia. Many of us have lost hope for the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded as a source on contested subject matter, but Sanger is keeping the faith. He argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a reliable source of information and instead represents a partisan slant in its orientation that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. For those of us in the intelligent design community, the futility of seeking a fair hearing at Wikipedia for our ideas and leading proponents is acutely felt. Sanger’s proposals, the fruit of his labor for the better part of a year, give shape to what a reformed Wikipedia could look like. Here are Sanger’s theses.

End decision-making by “consensus”

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

Sanger’s proposal brings to mind the sham of consensus science about which Michael Crichton famously opined, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science”. Scientifically derived truth, and truth claims more broadly, ought to be based on evidence. Consensus opinion, especially when it is achieved through surreptitious means that exclude dissenting voices, can be no basis for casting final judgment as Wikipedia entries often do, as when its editors and gatekeepers prepend every mention of intelligent design with the modifier “pseudoscientific”, foreclosing the argument.

Enable competing articles

Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

Sanger has been pursuing this idea of competing articles for some time through his Knowledge Standards Foundation. Its Encyclosphere collates numerous articles from multiple sources, as does Encyclopedia.com. I imagine the implementation of multiple articles at Wikipedia may pose navigation and usability issues for Wikipedia, especially in terms of its syndication in search results and tools like Alexa which rely on having a single source. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting proposal.

Abolish source blacklists

Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

For my part, this is the most obviously right and needed of Sanger’s reforms. Nowhere is Wikipedia’s bias so manifestly obvious as in its de jure exclusion of conservative news sources. Indeed, its house of cards is built on this dubious foundation. It is a quintessential example of an argument from authority, where dissenting authorities are excluded. Knowing this, approved sources game the system by refusing to even write about many stories, knowing that it leaves nothing to cite.

Revive the original neutrality Apolicy

Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

Like Luther, “out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it,” Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia. Many of us have lost hope for the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded as a source on contested subject matter, but Sanger is keeping the faith. He argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a reliable source of information and instead represents a partisan slant in its orientation that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. For those of us in the intelligent design community, the futility of seeking a fair hearing at Wikipedia for our ideas and leading proponents is acutely felt. Sanger’s proposals, the fruit of his labor for the better part of a year, give shape to what a reformed Wikipedia would look like. Here are Sanger’s theses.

End decision-making by “consensus”

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

Sanger’s proposal brings to mind the sham of consensus science about which Michael Crichton famously opined, “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science”. Scientifically derived truth, and truth claims more broadly, ought to be based on evidence. Consensus opinion, especially when it is achieved through surreptitious means that exclude dissenting voices, can be no basis for casting final judgment as Wikipedia entries often do, as when it prepends every mention of intelligent design with the modifier “pseudoscientific”.

Enable competing articles

Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

Sanger has been pursuing this idea of competing articles for some time through his Knowledge Standards Foundation. Its Encyclosphere collates numerous articles from multiple sources, as does Encyclopedia.com. I imagine the implementation of multiple articles at Wikipedia may pose navigation and usability issues for Wikipedia, especially in terms of its syndication in search results and tools like Alexa which rely on having a single source. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting proposal.

Abolish source blacklists

Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

For my part, this is the most obviously right and needed of Sanger’s reforms. Nowhere is Wikipedia’s bias so manifestly obvious as in its de jure exclusion of conservative news sources. Indeed, its house of cards is built on this dubious foundation. It is a quintessential example of an argument from authority, where dissenting authorities are excluded. Knowing this, approved sources game the system by refusing to even write about many stories, knowing that it leaves nothing to cite.

Revive the original neutrality Apolicy

Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

Like Luther, “out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it,” Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia. Many of us have lost hope for the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded as a source on contested subject matter, but Sanger is keeping the faith. He argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a reliable source of information and instead represents a partisan slant in its orientation that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. For those of us in the intelligent design community, the futility of seeking a fair hearing at Wikipedia for our ideas and leading proponents is acutely felt. Sanger’s proposals, the fruit of his labor for the better part of a year, give shape to what a reformed Wikipedia would look like. Here are Sanger’s theses.

End decision-making by “consensus”

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

Enable competing articles

Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

This

Abolish source blacklists

Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

Revive the original neutrality policy

Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

Like Luther, “out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it,” Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia. Many of us have lost hope for the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded as a source on contested subject matter, but Sanger is keeping the faith. He argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a reliable source of information and instead represents a partisan slant in its orientation that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. For those of us in the intelligent design community, the futility of seeking a fair hearing at Wikipedia for our ideas and leading proponents is acutely felt. Sanger’s proposals, the fruit of his labor for the better part of a year, give shape to what a reinvigorated

End decision-making by “consensus.

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

2. Enable competing articles.
   Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

3. Abolish source blacklists.
   Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

4. Revive the original neutrality policy.
   Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

In an act of bold faith, Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia, the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded for which many of us have lost all hope as a source of reliable information on contested subject matter. Sanger argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a neutral source and instead represents a partisan slant he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive.

1. End decision-making by “consensus.

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

2. Enable competing articles.
   Since true neutrality is impossible under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its framework. Let people write alternative articles.

3. Abolish source blacklists.
   Wikipedia maintains a list of “Perennial sources,” which serves as an ideologically one-sided blacklist of media sources. You can’t cite the New York Post or Fox News, or you, on Wikipedia. The blacklist should be abolished; diverse sources should be cited with acknowledgment of how different groups assess their credibility.

4. Revive the original neutrality policy.
   Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on contentious topics, even when one view dominates academia or mainstream media.

In an act of bold faith, Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia, the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded for which many of us have lost all hope as a source of reliable information on contested subject matter. Sanger argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a neutral source and instead represents a partisan slant he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive.

1. End decision-making by “consensus.

Wikipedia pretends to make difficult editorial decisions based on “consensus.” This is a sham that allows ideologues to silence dissent, by falsely claiming unanimous agreement. “Consensus” must be abandoned as a description of how they actually reach decisions.

In an act of bold faith, Larry Sanger has proposed nine reforms to Wikipedia, the ubiquitous encyclopedia he cofounded for which many of us have lost all hope as a source of reliable information on contested subject matter. Sanger argues that Wikipedia has strayed far from its mission as a neutral source and instead represents a partisan slant that he dubs GASP: globalist, academic, secular, and progressive.