For years, Wikipedia has been hailed as the digital encyclopedia of the people, a collaborative, open-source repository of knowledge built by volunteers across the globe. In theory, this democratic structure was its strength: a platform where anyone could contribute, correct, and refine the world’s understanding of nearly any topic. In practice, however, Wikipedia has become a deeply flawed system, riddled with inaccuracies, ideological censorship, and editorial manipulation. And thankfully, in the age of AI-driven intelligence, its days of dominance may be numbered.

The Myth of Reliability

The first and most dangerous illusion about Wikipedia is its perceived reliability. Though the platform is often one of the first search results to appear in Google and is used as a reference point by media, students, and even professionals, numerous studies have shown that Wikipedia is far from consistently accurate. A major German review of over 1,000 articles found that nearly 40% contained outdated or incorrect information. This isn’t a trivial margin of error. It’s a structural failure in a platform that bills itself as a trustworthy source of knowledge. Perhaps we should have gotten the clue when universities decided that Wikipedia was not credible enough to be a resource in papers.

While some mistakes may be benign or the result of benign neglect, others are far more concerning. Wikipedia has been the victim of well-known hoaxes that went undetected for years. The Bicholim Conflict, a completely fabricated war, was accepted as a historical fact on the platform for over five years. Even more damning was the Seigenthaler incident in 2005, where a journalist was falsely accused of involvement in presidential assassinations. The lie remained in his biography for months, damaging his reputation and exposing Wikipedia’s inability to ensure even the most basic fact-checking.

Truth as a Casualty of Gatekeeping

Far more dangerous than ignorance, however, is the active suppression or distortion of truth by those who control the editorial levers behind the scenes. Though Wikipedia touts its openness, the platform is actually ruled by a small, entrenched class of editors who wield disproportionate power over which sources are deemed credible, what narratives are permitted, and what “truth” is allowed to appear. These agenda-driven editors can block or delete material that challenges prevailing ideological frameworks, even when backed by credible evidence.

This isn’t a conspiracy. It’s documented and personally experienced by me. Just think about the manipulation of political pages during election cycles, where nearly 900 partisan edits were made to smear candidates like JD Vance in the midst of key campaign moments. Or the Operation Orangemoody scandal, which exposed a network of over 380 paid accounts creating and promoting articles for clients in violation of Wikipedia’s transparency rules. These aren’t just isolated incidents; they are symptoms of a broader problem: a platform that is no longer neutral, but increasingly ideological.

Meanwhile, organizations trying to make a difference in the world are blocked from creating pages because biased gatekeepers are hellbent on ensuring that pages that conflict with their worldview don’t make it onto the platform. I have experienced this firsthand. A group of doctors (social science) tried to share something with the world on that platform, but biased gatekeepers refused to let the page exist despite meeting all of the posted criteria. This is a big problem. When a small group of people decides what constitutes “reliable,” you can absolutely expect institutional bias.

Think about various scientific truths that are omitted. Would you know about it? Left-leaning sources are routinely privileged, while right-leaning sources like Breitbart and Newsmax are blacklisted entirely. Criticism of this bias, such as that voiced by Elon Musk, has been met with derision or silence from the Wikipedia establishment. But the concerns are legitimate: when truth becomes filtered through an ideological lens, what remains is not knowledge but propaganda.

Why It’s Hard to ‘Prove’ the Problem

One of the reasons Wikipedia continues to maintain a veneer of legitimacy is that much of its manipulation is subtle or transitory. Coordinated editing campaigns, ideological grooming, and agenda enforcement are often executed through deletion logs, rapid reverts, or obscure talk-page gatekeeping, all of which are typically invisible to the average reader. In other words, by the time you notice something’s missing, the edit war is already over.

Unlike traditional media with identifiable editorial boards and transparent accountability mechanisms, Wikipedia operates behind a curtain of usernames, moderators, and bots. There is no way to track who blocked what, for what reason, or under what bias unless you’re willing to dig through endless revision histories and opaque discussions. And by design, most people won’t.

Of course, it’s not just me seeing this. Even Larry Sanger, co-creator of Wikipedia, has come out against the platform he helped build, calling it “broken beyond repair” and warning that it no longer supports open, unbiased knowledge. He’s criticized its ideological slant, suppression of dissenting viewpoints, and vulnerability to PR manipulation, arguing that editors now operate more like gatekeepers than collaborators. Sanger has publicly stated that Wikipedia systematically favors establishment narratives while silencing alternative perspectives, and he’s since advocated for expert-led, decentralized knowledge networks as a more credible alternative in the age of AI. If anyone would know, it’s probably him.

The Inevitable Decline in the Age of AI

Wikipedia’s structural flaws may have been tolerable in an earlier era. But thankfully, like cassette tapes and CDs, we no longer live in a world where static, manually-edited articles suffice. With the rise of AI systems that can synthesize, source-check, and contextualize information in real time, the old encyclopedia model is starting to look not just outdated, but obsolete. Here’s your million-dollar idea. Create an unbiased AI-driven encyclopedia that allows input and topic ideas from humans.

AI models, when properly tuned and sourced, can pull from thousands of legitimate publications in seconds, cross-reference claims, and adapt to the user’s inquiry in ways Wikipedia cannot. Unlike Wikipedia, AI doesn’t rely on volunteers with unknown agendas or opaque edit wars to determine what information is allowed. It can show you the original source. It can contrast opposing views. And more importantly, it can give you proper context, which is something a list of bullet points or a biased summary never could.

Although I must admit, I take heart that even Wikipedia’s own foundation seems to know what’s coming. They’ve publicly lamented the steep decline in Gen Z editors, whose absence threatens the future of the platform. Why would younger generations donate time to a clunky, bureaucratic, and combative editing process when AI can produce more accurate, real-time knowledge at the push of a button? And think of it this way, if a biased agenda editor can block a team of doctors from sharing information, it’s probably time to rethink everything we thought we knew about Wikipedia.

The End of a Hollow Authority

I’ll admit that Wikipedia’s initial promise was noble, but its evolution has betrayed that vision. What once aimed to democratize knowledge has now calcified into an ideological echo chamber, more concerned with preserving its authority than uncovering truth. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Our current and future trajectory demands speed, accuracy, transparency, and plurality of thought. Wikipedia is none of these things.

It is no longer an encyclopedia. It is no longer a neutral platform. It is now a curated narrative shaped by a handful of gatekeepers. And with the rise of decentralized, AI-driven knowledge systems, I’m happy to say that its hold on public discourse may finally collapse under the weight of its own contradictions.

If you want my opinion… I think we should let it.

Want to watch a video that I did on the topic? Wikipedia Unveiled: Questioning Reliability
Keep digging: Read Reflexive Control and Perception Warfare