Larry Sanger, Wikipedia’s co-founder, exposes how the platform—once a neutral knowledge hub—became a tool for ideological control, with 85% of top editors anonymous and shielded by Section 230. He reveals CIA-linked edits, partisan source blacklists (banning Fox News but allowing CNN), and policies like "fringe theory" labels to silence dissent, especially post-2016. Proposing reforms—public editor IDs, article ratings, and elected oversight—Sanger warns Wikipedia now enforces a "GASP" (globalist, academic, secular, progressive) agenda, risking censorship by unaccountable elites. Carlson frames this as a battle for truth in an era of algorithmic suppression, urging resistance to reclaim editorial integrity. [Automatically generated summary]
Literally, I know it's a little creepy, because I think that Wikipedia is you can't overstate the importance of Wikipedia in shaping our collective memory.
And a collective memory really is a culture, a civilization.
Who are we?
And Wikipedia is the answer to that question.
Like, who are we?
Oh, it's on Wikipedia.
And it's so embedded in search that, I mean, it shapes America.
Wikipedia shapes America.
because of its importance, it's an emergency, in my opinion, that Wikipedia is completely dishonest and completely controlled on questions that matter.
So Jimmy Wales had registered newpedia.com, the domain name, and simply had the idea of a free public contributed encyclopedia.
And he hired me.
It was like my assigned job to get it started.
That happened in early 2000.
So I worked on Newpedia for about a year, and it was going very slowly.
And so a friend told me about wikis, and it was a revelation, this idea that somebody could just put up essentially a bulletin board, a blank bulletin board, invite other people to edit the text in real time, and it would become something actually useful.
And it wouldn't be just a lot of curse words and graffiti and so forth.
So I coined the name Wikipedia and a lot of the other sort of basic jargon, like Wikipedian and various other things.
I came up with a lot of the original policies, like the neutrality policy, which actually started with Newpedia and the requirement that original research may not be published for the first time in the encyclopedia and a number of other things, of course.
It's supposed to be a summary of what we all take ourselves to know, essentially.
And especially if it's a neutral encyclopedia, then it's supposed to canvass all of the views that can be found in humanity on every question, essentially, at a very high level, generally speaking.
Of course, specialized encyclopedias can get into the real nitty-gritty.
And my hope with Wikipedia in the beginning was that eventually it would become that specialized.
So it would be the equivalent of, you know, bookshelves worth of articles.
LLMs are trained on a lot of different data, not just Wikipedia, of course.
But there's a lot of questions.
I use LLMs all the time now.
And I can tell you, I've looked up specialized questions.
Exactly.
I've looked up a lot of questions in theology because I'm into theology now.
And there are some places where I just know the only source for that particular factoid that I could find online outside of the LLM itself is Wikipedia.
In the early years, we really did take neutrality seriously.
And it wasn't just a requirement of being unbiased, right?
It was the aim was to bring people together, enable them to work together, even though they were from all parts of the world, different religions, different viewpoints.
Yes.
And then to essentially record their knowledge.
So I intended it.
And I think Jimmy Wales is on the record in a few places saying that he intended neutrality as being a way of bringing people together.
And let me go on because if you look farther down on the page, they go on to discourage giving equal validity to, quote, minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claims, right?
So, and that such views should be labeled that way.
So, the neutral point of view policy essentially dictates that Wikipedians must write articles in a biased way.
So, most people, when they think about this, want to carry a firearm, and a lot of us do.
The problem is there can be massive consequences for that.
Ask Kyle Rittenhouse.
Kyle Rittenhouse got off in the end, but he was innocent from the first moment.
It was obvious on video, and he was facing life in prison anyway.
That's what the anti-gun movement will do.
They'll throw you in prison for defending yourself with a firearm.
And that's why a lot of Americans are turning to Burna.
It's a proudly American company.
Burna makes self-defense launchers that hundreds of law enforcement departments trust.
They've sold over 600,000 pistols, mostly to private citizens who refuse to be empty-handed.
These pistols, and I have one, fire rock-hard kinetic rounds or tear gas rounds and peppered projectiles, and they stop a threat from up to 60 feet away.
There are no background checks.
There are no waiting periods.
Burna can ship it directly to your door.
You can't be arrested for defending yourself with a Burna pistol.
Visit burnabyrna.com or your local sportsman's warehouse to get your stay.
Burna.com.
Well, the inclusion of the term fringe tells me right away that you're a freaking liar, a liar, if you use that word, because it's a word like terrorism and so many words, racism, that we can't really define and don't care really to define.
Like, what does that mean?
And if the whole policy turns on the word, then it's fair to demand a precise explanation of what it means, but we never get one.
I think Wikipedia developed in sort of in tandem with the development of media.
So basically, as a media from the founding of Wikipedia 2001 to about 2012 or so was became solidified in a center left establishment standpoint.
So if you were to read Wikipedia from 2012 or so, 2010, it read a lot like the New York Times or the BBC.
I remember saying that at the time.
And then, especially around about 2016 and maybe a few years before that, the media landscape changed almost overnight so that once stayed mainstream sources became totally biased.
They stated in their own voice that the president was lying and so forth.
I mean, so Wikipedia became a weapon of ideological, theological war used to, you know, destroy its enemies.
Of course, and that's what it remains.
But someone had to allow that.
And that's so far from what it was created to be.
In fact, it's the opposite, the mirror image of what it was created to be, that you have to ask, like, was there a fight over that?
Who allowed it?
Like, if you're getting to the point where you're disallowing, quote, fringe theories or conspiracy theorists or some other term made up by the CIA to hide its secrets, someone has to like, okay that.
I can't tell you what was going on behind the scenes, if there were any puppet masters that were controlling the process.
I don't know.
What I can tell you is that over the years, conservatives, libertarians were just pushed out.
They, in many cases, well, there is a whole army of administrators, hundreds of them, who are constantly blocking people that they have ideological disagreements with.
That's not new.
So if somebody really does become a problem from their perspective, then they can be simply gotten rid of on a pretext.
It's very difficult now.
It's possible.
It's possible, but it's very difficult for conservatives to get into Wikipedia and actually play the game.
But you have to play the game.
And that means you have to walk on eggshells.
So the point is, it wasn't always like this.
Over the years, basically, the left consolidated its power.
The way I like to put it is that, you know, the left has its march through the institutions.
And when Wikipedia appeared, it was one of the institutions that they marched through.
I sent money to, I'm on, I mean, you can check the records.
I have sent money, like significant money to Wikipedia because I was so thrilled by its existence.
So thrilled.
And so it wasn't always this.
And now it's like the leading source of dishonesty, or I would say disinformation.
I mean, most topics in Wikipedia seem totally straight to me, but if you go to anything that intersects any topic that intersects with theology, politics, ideology, power, and you know something about the topic, and in my case, a couple of topics I have first-hand knowledge, direct knowledge of it, they lie.
They leave out key information.
They load up the top of the entry with either superlatives or insults that are not, they're totally subjective and insane.
Far-right conspiracy theory.
I mean, with a straight face, like if you're calling someone a far-right conspiracy theorist before even explaining to me who this person is, then you're a propagandist.
So, no, yeah, I was only there for the first two years of the project.
I got it off the ground.
I said a lot of the original policies.
And then so the company that launched Wikipedia, Bomus Inc., so Jimmy Wales was the CEO of that.
And he had a couple of partners.
So it was my job to start it.
And I did.
And then the bottom fell out of the tech market, you know, that back in 2000.
So they lost a big contract with, I think it was Google.
And so they weren't able to pay people anymore.
I was laid off.
And I decided, I made the decision to, you know, just step back from my role.
I would have been welcome to continue on, but I decided not to basically devalue my professional labor.
But with distance in 2002, I saw that Jimmy Wales was essentially allowing troublemakers, leftists, really, to take over.
And they did.
As early as that, it took them time, I think, to really consolidate their power and create sort of internal processes and institutions and policies that really consolidated their power.
So the First Amendment is the one truly distinctive thing that makes America America.
It makes this country great.
You are a citizen.
That means you can speak openly and honestly without fear about what you actually believe.
The government doesn't own you.
You own the government.
That's the premise.
And for 250 years, we've lived it.
We hope to keep living it.
Our sponsor, Pure Talk, understands how important this has, how central it is.
So if you want to support brands that defend freedom and American values, we recommend switching your wireless service to Pure Talk, which is way cheaper and uses the same towers the other guys use.
It's the best.
We know what you're thinking.
Of course, giving business to companies that share your values sounds nice, but at the end of the day, you don't want to spend more for the privilege of buying products from a company that loves America.
Okay, so then you click on white grievance politics and it cites columnist Michael Gerson, who I happen to know.
Not someone who I think has passed away.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to make fun of him.
But he's not a relevant.
I mean, he was an ideologue, okay, big time ideologue.
And it quotes his quote, non-primary source needed, it says in brackets, that the Republican Party has been swiftly repositioned as an instrument of white grievance.
I guess was a column attacking me.
No doubt about that.
So they call me in the first paragraph a leading voice of white grievance politics.
Not how I describe myself.
I've never thought of myself that way.
I don't really care.
And in order to call me, basically they're calling me a Nazi, of course, they cite a Washington Post columnist who hated me.
If they were following a genuine neutrality policy, then they might say that if that was what your detractors were really focused on, and perhaps it is, but they would certainly, certainly quote you in response to that.
I mean, I do think white people have been completely mistreated and they have every reason to be mad about it, but I don't want them, anyone to be mad about anything.
There's a lot of history there, and we could take it in many different directions.
I mean, we've already talked about the policy that permits it.
We could also talk about the sources that are permitted.
Like if you look at only the sources that are permitted to be used in Wikipedia, so mostly secondary sources, and they are mostly left-wing or center, generally speaking,
Well, there are PR firms, just for example, that do nothing but edit articles on Wikipedia in order to be able to insert desired factoids according to how people pay them, essentially.
So it's a thing.
Oh, yes.
Wikipedia PR firms, essentially.
And this is not allowed officially.
It's called paid editing.
Big no-no.
And if you do do it, then you have to announce yourself.
A lot of people do it and they don't announce themselves, of course.
So my point then, to answer your question, is that there are a lot of people who have built up clout over the years in the Wikipedia system.
And a lot of them have been made into the leaders of the project.
There are 833 administrators, as they're called.
So these are sort of the rank and file cops.
Then you've got 16 bureaucrats who can name the cops.
And you've got 49 check users.
And these are accounts that can identify the IP address of accounts.
And then there are 15 members of an arbitration committee, which is sort of like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia.
So we've done a lot of segments over many years attacking college.
Most of them are not worth sending your kids.
They're definitely not worth paying for.
In fact, they're counterproductive.
They're the source of a lot of this country's problems.
But that doesn't mean that all colleges are bad.
We've looked far and wide for good ones, and Grand Canyon University is near the top of the list.
It's a private Christian university located in the Arizona mountains, the best part of Arizona.
Grand Canyon believes that every one of us is endowed by God with inalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Rights are not something that politicians give us.
Rights are something they are sworn to uphold and defend.
It's a totally different way of looking at the world.
At GCU, purpose starts with service equipping students to affect their families, communities, and the world for good.
Whether you're called to business, education, ministry, whatever it is, Grand Canyon University helps you honor that calling while glorifying God through your work, real purpose in life.
Over 340 academic programs offered online on campus in hybrid formats.
Take your pick.
GCU makes education accessible and is tailored to you and your goals, whether you're starting fresh, you're going back to school to advance your career.
If you're ready to pursue a degree and a purpose, Grand Canyon University GCU is ready for you.
It's private.
It's Christian.
It's affordable.
Visit gcu.edu today.
So my question is, there's nothing that can be done.
But presumably they can be shamed and reasoned with.
And the first step in that is just asking a question, on what grounds are you keeping the identities of some of the most powerful people in the country secret?
Why can't I know who's making these decisions?
Who's blacklisting entire news organizations on the basis of their politics, for example?
Who's responsible for the slander?
Why can't I know their names?
What would Wikipedia, the foundation, say if I asked that question?
They would say that according to the policies of the editorial side of their organization, which they're not responsible for, people can participate anonymously at all levels, right?
So you could be the most powerful person on the editorial side, and you don't need to reveal your identity.
Okay, so I think the answer is basically it goes back to like the zeitgeist of 1990s hacker culture when people went on like these funny names, nicknames, handles, not their real names.
And that has continued.
It never stopped all across Wikipedia.
People use these sort of cutesy names and they like to portray themselves to the public as just, you know, mop-wielding janitors of the site.
And of course, it's ludicrous, right?
But it's just, as far as I can tell, it's a game that they're playing.
They're putting on the air of being like harmless college students that are only interested in comma placement and that sort of thing.
So why do you need to know my identity and so forth?
But I'll tell you, people, they just haven't pressed them on this question.
But if all of a sudden every history professor at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, et cetera, decided, I'm not telling you my name as I teach your kids about the Renaissance or whatever, we would say that's freaking nuts.
And I, so here's, okay, so I'm, I'm sort of getting to one of my core concerns, which you've made me think is something to be concerned about, which is the influence of intelligence agencies on the work product of Wikipedia.
It's very obvious to me, having been around that world a lot, that they're influencing some of the answers, some of the entries on Wikipedia.
It's super, super obvious.
It's part, it's part of the propaganda campaign, which is the real war, the info war.
And like, you must have thought of that when you were building this thing.
Like, man, you know, the intel agencies could get involved and start changing the way people understand what they did, for example.
Yes, it wasn't until like, I think it was 2006, 2007, Virgil Griffiths did masters research.
He came up with a tool called Wiki Scanner that enabled people to look up the IP addresses of people who had done edits and like who had edited which articles.
And so they were able to find a whole bunch of edits coming from Langley.
I since have learned differently and learned much better.
I don't have the background that you have, but it's also very clear to me what we are told about the way that intelligence works now is that, Of course, there's the old-fashioned cloak and dagger spying going on, but a large part of their remit of intelligence today is to manipulate public opinion in various ways.
And Wikipedia is like just a gold mine for the intelligence agencies of the world because it's like a one-stop shop.
You know, you can just like type in the things that you want people to believe, I suppose.
Now, how that works, like which agencies are involved, how the heck should I know?
I actually asked Elon Musk and President and the president to use Doge or other government resources to investigate what United States employees were actually editing Wikipedia and perhaps stop that.
I don't know.
Maybe we shouldn't.
Maybe there's reasons, legitimate reasons for government employees to do this.
But at least Elon Musk did retweet that and got a lot of support.
I think that if like Israeli intelligence, for example, got together and made a real concerted effort to fight against this group of 40 Muslim activists that Ashley Rinsberg identified, they might be able to make some inroads.
I actually think concurrently, we're going to talk about the nine theses here, I assume.
So I would like to encourage people to at least test the waters.
Don't go to Wikipedia and be a jerk and get yourself kicked out right away because they will kick you out for sure if you are not playing by the rules.
But go there and maybe not all at once, but over the next few weeks, make some real efforts to make good faith edits to Wikipedia and build up some credibility within the community.
You can make a difference there.
I think it's a good idea to give it a try.
One thing that has never been tried is to simply get all of the libertarians and all of the conservatives and the Jews and the Hindus and the Christians and whoever else has grievances against Wikipedia, organize them.
Yes.
And descend on Wikipedia and actually try to make a change.
Could be a power outage, a hurricane, a supply chain breakdown, a pandemic, and God knows what else.
Literally, only God knows what else.
Are you ready to protect your family in case things are a little bit different tomorrow?
And we are.
In fact, we have an entire company dedicated to helping you be.
It's called Last Country Supply.
Here's what we have in our garage right now.
Emergency solar flashlight, five-in-one hatchet, 100-hour candle supply, multi-week food kits with meat, fruit, nuts, vegetables, grains, bean, milk, survival protein kits loaded with all the health benefits you need.
Our supply lasts up to 25 years.
In other words, you don't have to worry that if things go south for a short period or a long period, you're going to be okay.
And that's a huge relief.
You're not crazy or paranoid for wondering.
You're just wise and aware.
Is it lastcountrysupply.com, browse the same survival gear and fuel that we are grateful to have for ourselves.
Lastcountry Supply.com can keep you prepared.
That never occurs to most conservatives.
Their first instinct is to, I'll speak for myself.
My first instinct is run away.
I don't want to deal with this.
It's horrible.
I hate to hate these people.
And this is my internal monologue.
And if I'm mad enough, we should start something better.
It never occurs to your average conservative to take back the institution that's been perverted and corrupted.
It never occurs to them, well, maybe I should, I don't know, try to join the faculty at Harvard and stop lying, you know, or why don't I fix Wikipedia?
So I think it was either the first or second interview that you did of me was in 2019 when I started something called a social media strike.
And it actually went pretty well, but it always struck me that, first of all, I could have followed it up.
And second of all, it could have been much bigger, like if I had organized it properly, but it was mostly just me and my blog, you know, and still there were like a half a dozen or 10 different media sources that covered this social media strike.
So maybe we should organize something similar with regard to the.
I think part of the problem is that most non-liberals have just no patience for bureaucracy.
Right.
And liberals, because they, you know, as Ted Kaczynski famously wrote, the whole point of liberalism is safety and numbers.
These are people who are hollow and afraid inside.
And so they seek each other out and they create these institutions so they can feel safe.
And non-liberals just don't feel that way at all because they're not, you know, because they believe in something and they're not ruled by fear.
And so the average conservative, when told to sit through like a PTA meeting or join the Wikipedia, you know, editors process or something like goes crazy.
If you are really good at playing the Wikipedia game and you're like one of these, this power 62 and you're not in the pay of somebody, then you're just leaving money on the table.
Um, in the Wikipedia system, they are basically anyone who reveals their name and if they don't want their name revealed would be immediately blocked for doxing and it would be in a permanent block for sure.
And he, the article about him said that he had been under suspicion of being responsible in some way for the assassination of RFK.
And he was livid, of course, because he had actually like worked on RFK's campaign and things like that.
And he blamed me.
And like I kind of didn't, you know, blame him for doing so.
And he opened my eyes to just how reputations can be harmed by people's Wikipedia articles.
And I have heard from dozens and dozens, maybe over a hundred different reasonably famous people since then with grievances about the Wikipedia articles.
And they're like at their wit's end.
They know I'm long gone from Wikipedia and they don't know what to do.
Right.
So I've kept abreast of this issue on Wikipedia quite a bit.
And it bothers me because I take sort of personal responsibility.
I feel personal responsibility, which is one of the reasons why I came up with the nine theses in the first place.
I don't think he got an immediate response and immediate reversal.
But reasonably quickly.
But I can't remember if it was before or after they had changed his article that he called me, but he wanted me to know, right?
And I don't blame him.
And another time, Philip Roth, the famous journalist, Philip Roth, the novelist?
The novelist, yes.
He contacted me also and was complaining that the story of the origin of the inspiration of the human stain was wrong on Wikipedia.
He had gone to the Wikipedia talk page and said, hi, I am Philip Roth and you've got the story wrong and here's the real story.
And they said, sorry, we can't use that.
You're a primary source.
I mean, it's ridiculous, of course.
I mean, just what kind of person do you have to be to like to take that sort of disrespectful stance to somebody like Philip Roth and to twist your own rules in that way for almost petty reasons?
There's a lot of petty power players on Wikipedia, I find.
And I believe that the people behind this, they hide behind their anonymity.
So there is no legal recourse when somebody is seriously libeled.
So that, you know, their career is damaged.
I've heard from people whose careers were materially damaged.
I mean, my recourse has just been to, you know, stay cheerful, focused on God and my family, you know, like not get mad, I think is kind of the only, that's the only thing I've been able to do about it.
And not read it.
Don't marinate in that.
But I don't think it's just petty power.
It's like global power because they're aligned with Google, the biggest search engine, the search monopoly that dominates English language search completely, has a monopoly on it.
Well, look, in the early days, Wikipedia was the only source of information on a whole bunch of topics.
Okay.
And then the way that the Google algorithm worked back then, if you ended up being the first source for a lot of topics, then your Google PageRank score was higher.
And so Wikipedia just shot to the top of Google's page rank algorithm, or at least this is the story they tell.
Right.
And so one of the reasons why Google or Wikipedia rather took off so quickly is this feedback loop that it had with Google, right?
So, you know, Wikipedia would write 100 articles that never had any coverage by Google before.
They would appear on Google.
People would search for those topics and they would come to Wikipedia and then the number of contributors would expand and blather its repeat and there was exponential growth.
Well, I mean, Wikipedia is a servant to the ruling class, obviously, which is corrupt.
So Wikipedia is itself corrupt, the most corrupt.
Yeah, you can't over.
I must say my last editorial comment, then I want to get to what we can do to make this better.
And you've written extensively about it.
But my last comment is that when people grouse about the media or corrupt news media, they're always referring to like companies that really don't matter, like CBS or NBC or CNN or Fox News.
It's like, who cares?
They're all going away.
They're totally discredited.
Everyone knows that.
And they won't even be here in 10 years.
Wikipedia has a much greater effect on how people understand the world than any of those media outlets.
Wikipedia is a media outlet and it's never included in the list of corrupt media outlets.
Well, I know for a fact that I'm more honest than the New York Times.
I mean, take a live tech test.
I really believe that I am, but I'm blacklisted and they're not.
So like, I just think that's not neutral, whether I'm right or wrong.
Okay.
You have, you know, following the example of our beloved German monk 500 years ago, written some theses that you want to nail to the front door of Wikipedia.
So this is a little bit out there, but I think it's a good one.
Since true neutrality is impossible, as we've been discussing under the current editorial monopoly, Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles written from different declared perspectives, each striving for neutrality within its own framework.
So let the people write alternative articles.
And for this, let me quickly tell you about what I think.
Number four, revive the original neutrality policy.
Wikipedia must return to genuine neutrality by refusing to take sides on controversial issues, even when one view dominates Wikipedia, well, academia and mainstream media.
So I suppose that one is fairly straightforward.
And we've already discussed it quite a bit, that the neutrality policy right now defines neutrality in terms of what are called significant views and the reliable sources.
And significant views are significant views according to the faculty members of Harvard and things like that.
And if your view is held only at conservative seminaries, for example, or other bastions of conservatism, then they're not significant.
At least that's how it's treated on Wikipedia right now.
So that needs to be Wikipedia should be a big tent as it used to be, enabling many, many different people to come together, you know, in a big, I just think of it as like old-fashioned liberal kumbaya.
You know, people should be able to come together and talk to each other from radically different points of view and just make sure that their views are all respected on the same page.
There's a good way to characterize the currently only permitted viewpoint on Wikipedia, and that is with the acronym GASP, which stands for globalist, academic, secular, and progressive.
And each one is necessary.
And together, they just give a perfect picture of the viewpoint of Wikipedians today, of most Wikipedians.
Do they know that they're like representing, selling the views of, say, the Aspen Institute or the Atlantic Council or the CIA or the Washington Post editorial board, like such a tiny minority of the globe's population, but the most powerful people in the world.
Like they are the Praetorian Guard protecting the powerful.
Well, generally what happens is if somebody can't think of a covering rule in a special case, but it just seems plausible to the people who are working on an article.
This really ought to be against the rules, but whatever, just ignore all rules and they'll just say that.
And they usually say in a kind of tongue-in-cheek way, but in a way that's serious enough to actually have an effect.
But a lot of lesser contributors, they wouldn't be able to get away with that sort of thing.
So there is one guy who said at the height of COVID, if there is one serious application of ignore all rules, it should be now.
We should be able to ignore all the rules regarding whatever in order to get people to believe that COVID is serious and they should be jabbed.
So Wikipedia's most powerful editors remain overwhelmingly anonymous despite wielding enormous influence over one of the world's most powerful media platforms.
These leaders must be publicly identified for accountability and given liability insurance as, you know, as volunteers of nonprofits often are.
If you're wielding real power, I think it's, and by the way, I like anonymity online a lot of the time because I think it helps the underdog tell the truth.
And so I am for anonymity on social media, for example.
I don't think you should have to register with the government to give your opinions, just to be clear.
But if you're wielding real institutional power, I think it's fair to require people to say who they are.
Just like Supreme Court justices have to give their real names.
Well, and look, if there's one place where an actual rating system would matter and actually be important, it would be Wikipedia because we, I think you and I agree that Wikipedia does have some decent articles.
So, so, I mean, wouldn't it be nice if there were some independent reviews independent of Wikipedia that would, you know, give the public a notion of whether they can actually trust the information?
And I actually think that you should be able to identify and even rate the raters and say, okay, these accounts who have rated the Trump article very highly are mostly Democrats.
And those that rate the article very poorly are mostly Republicans.
And then there should be a system that would enable you to go and learn what the best articles are, especially if they're competing articles, again, from anybody's point of view.
I don't know if it'll be on the user page or maybe it will be linked from the user page, but it'll be on Wikipedia itself.
So I actually want to take the debate to them.
You know, I still have an account in good and good standing for now.
We'll see if they block me over this.
I'm not sure.
But I would like to start a debate there.
So that's why I've posted it there.
I also have a version of the nine theses on my blog.
And it's identical, but it also has links to archived versions of all the resources that I cite.
So they can't like take anything down without people knowing.
Let's see.
So I think that basically indefinite blocks should be extremely rare.
They should require multiple administrators to agree because right now one person can, for arbitrary reasons, practically block another account, an account in good standing that might have had like thousands of edits without really any meaningful recourse, right?
So at least let's have a panel of people convened if you want to block somebody permanently.
And of course, you should be able to appeal your permanent block if you are permanently blocked every maybe three, six, maybe 12 months, right?
So the idea is it's only fair to give people the opportunity to say, well, I've reformed.
I'm not going to do what I've done before.
People, you remember the movie Escape from Alcatraz?
There was a character in it who's befriended by Clint Eastwood's character, who's this great painter.
And he makes a painting of the warden.
The warden sees a copy of this as he's snooping around in a cell.
And it's an unflattering picture of the warden.
So that man's his painting supplies are taken away by the warden.
And they have so few joys in this place.
It's like living death.
And so the painter then commits suicide.
A lot of people feel very strongly about Wikipedia because it is a significant hobby in some cases, you know, in the way that like I play Irish fiddle.
That's like my one of my big hobbies.
And I don't know, you're fly fishing, I guess.
If you're to take this away from people forever, you know, just disallow them, then, you know, it can be really upsetting to people.
One person, there's a story I quote in the essay of a guy who came close to suicide when his account was blocked.
So what I propose is that because they lack any method of major reform, there is nothing like an editorial council on Wikipedia.
Because it needs major reform now, especially, it needs an elected editorial legislature with real powers to implement reforms established through Wikipedia's first constitutional convention.
So Wikipedia should treat itself as a kind of polity, which until now has been a strange mixture.
For years and years, I have said this.
It is a strange mixture of oligarchy and anarchy, right?
So, and what they really need to do is have a serious Constitutional Convention take their own governance, editorial governance seriously.
And I'm not saying this would be run by the Wikimedia Foundation.
It would be run by the volunteers.
Of course, the Wikimedia Foundation would pay for the Constitutional Convention and also for, you know, the travel expenses of people who later come together in an editorial assembly, which would meet face to face, right?
Because these people have to be identified, one person, one vote.
And for that matter, I also say that if you vote for the people in such an editorial assembly, then you have to be identified, not necessarily publicly, but to someone to ensure that there is indeed only one person, one vote.
Because right now, that's one of the big problems about voting in the Wikipedia community.
Because Wikipedia is anonymous, it's only too possible for people to run multiple sock puppets or they run separate accounts that they pretend belong to different people, right?
I donate in a real way to that because what you're, I think what you're really saying, which is what Martin Luther was really saying, is this is really serious.
By the way, the idea of Wikipedia is a beautiful idea, an important idea.
You know, broadcasting truth at scale, like that's just always a good thing, right?
And so it's worth saving.
It's imperative to save it.
And like running it like out of your garage without the safeguards that you've described just makes you prey, of course, to the worst people in the world, Pure firms, intelligence agencies, paid liars.
I think that if there is one of all of these theses, if there is one that the mainstream media and governments around the world might be able to get behind, it is this idea that they need to get their house in order and start have a council of people that take responsibility for the shape of policy.
So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show.
On one level, that's not surprising.
That's what they do.
But on another level, it's shocking with everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics with the wars on the cusp of fighting right now.
Google has decided you should have less information rather than more.
And that is totally wrong.
It's immoral.
What can you do about it?
Well, we could whine about it.
That's a waste of time.
We're not in charge of Google.
Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive.
The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our channel.
Subscribe.
Hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video.
That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information.