Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger pulled back the curtain on the online encyclopedia’s controversial source ranking system during an appearance on “The Tucker Carlson Show” Monday, revealing which news outlets the platform deems acceptable and which it has effectively banned.
The platform maintains a “perennial sources” page that assigns reliability ratings to various media outlets through what it describes as “public discussion and consensus.”
Sanger walked Carlson through the list during the broadcast, demonstrating how Wikipedia categorizes different news organizations.
Sanger pointed out that major mainstream outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Nation, Mother Jones and GLAAD all received approval from Wikipedia.
Carlson expressed disbelief at the revelation.
“These are all green lit, fully green lit,” Sanger told the host as they reviewed the approved sources together.
The Wikipedia co-founder then shifted to reading the “blacklisted” sources, which included Breitbart News, the Daily Caller, The Epoch Times, Fox News, the New York Post and The Federalist.
“So, you can’t use those as sources on Wikipedia,” Sanger explained to Carlson.
Carlson examined the list on his phone while Sanger broke down the color-coding system Wikipedia employs.
Red designation means a source is blacklisted and cannot be cited as a source of facts, though it might be used as a source of opinion in some cases.
Additional outlets marked with red coding included Blaze News, Catholic-Hierarchy.org, CounterPunch and the Caller.
Carlson disclosed he founded the Caller but currently has no involvement with the publication.
“Well, this is kind of incredible. Okay. I never hear about this! And we don’t know who made this decision?” Carlson asked during the segment.
Sanger indicated an account named Mr. X played a role in creating the list, though he acknowledged that numerous individuals edit it, similar to other Wikipedia pages.
Wikipedia assigns the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) a “generally reliable on topics related to hate groups and extremism in the United States” designation, despite controversies surrounding the organization’s classifications.
The SPLC labeled Turning Point USA as a hateful, white nationalist-friendly movement, even though founder Charlie Kirk denounced such ideologies.
TPUSA appeared on the SPLC’s Hate Map four months before Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, based on the organization’s conservative positions.
The SPLC has placed right-leaning organizations like Moms for Liberty and Gays Against Groomers on its Hate Map alongside the Ku Klux Klan for opposing LGBTQ ideology and other liberal priorities.
The Nation published an article on Sept. 12 featuring an incorrect quote from Kirk, according to the Caller.
The publication later issued a correction with the accurate statement, which read: “If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists.”
“Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us. They’re coming out and they’re saying, ‘I’m only here because of affirmative action.’ We know. You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.”
Wikipedia rates ProPublica as “generally reliable for all purposes,” citing the outlet’s “excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy” and noting its multiple Pulitzer Prizes.
A Daily Caller review of Federal Election Commission records from July 2023 found that most ethics experts ProPublica cited in stories about Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s alleged ethics violations had donated to Democratic campaigns and left-wing causes.
Seven of nine ethics experts quoted in ProPublica’s articles about the justices had contributed over $100,000 combined to Democratic campaigns and left-wing causes, according to FEC records.
Several worked for organizations advocating for Thomas’ resignation that received funding from donors who also supported ProPublica.
ProPublica did not disclose these experts’ political contributions or the shared donor relationships between the publication and organizations calling for Thomas to step down from the Supreme Court.
WATCH:
