Bronze-level article

Larry Sanger

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Sanger in 2006
Someone is wrong on
The Internet
Icon internet.svg
Log in:
There is a massive irony in the fact that Wikipedia is so extremely biased: it was started by someone who cares unusually deeply about neutrality (me), who developed and defended its neutrality policy at great length. Man makes plans, and God laughs.
—Sanger in a Twitter post, September 3, 2020.

Lawrence "Larry" Mark Sanger (1968–) is an American philosopher and the infamous cofounder of Wikipedia (leaving it in 2002). Besides being the cofounder of one of the biggest websites on the Internet, he is mostly known for two things; criticising Wikipedia, and having created many failed WikiProjects to fix said criticisms. His concern trolling and arguments on why Wikipedia is biased have been lapped up by several far-right media outlets of America,[1] Britain,[2] and India,[3][4][5] and have provided cover for various cranks and advocates of pseudoscience, ranging from intelligent design[6] to climate change denial.[7] Sanger is a balance extremist, though he does draw the line against giving equal time to some "whacked-out conspiracies" like flat Earth.[8] As to which conspiracy theories Sanger regards as "whacked-out", he relies on either "no good evidence"[8] (not for example refuted evidence), or "morally or epistemologically bankrupt" ideas,[9] or argumentum ad populum.[note 1] Problematically, these three criteria are arbitrary and can conflict with each other.

Sanger was also a consultant for Ballotpedia,[9] where he allowed for Ballotpedia to call him a neutrality expert,[10] though he has not written any peer-reviewed publications on the subject.[11]


See the main article on this topic: Neutral point of view

Sanger was an early consultant for Ballotpedia[12] since leaving the leadership of Wikipedia in 2002, and he has become critical of Wikipedia not hewing to a strictly neutral point of view (NPOV).[13][14] Sanger wrote a 2015 essay on NPOV for Ballotpedia, which presumably also explains Ballotpedia's position on NPOV.[12] Although Sanger acknowledges the existence of "false balance" (balance fallacy), his example of NPOV for global warming is rather skewed away from adequately acknowledging the balance fallacy:

A majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW); exactly which scientists to include as “experts,” and thus which surveys to consider and what percentage endorse it, is a matter of debate. In any case, while there are some distinguished climate science experts who are skeptics [of AGW], a decided majority are not.[12]

Sanger wrote this in 2015, but by 2004 it was already the case that there was scientific consensus[15] and by 2010, it had reached 97-98% agreement among climate scientists that climate change was real and anthropogenic.[16] and has since risen to >99%.[17] Sanger was arguing that there was still a debate on the reality of climate change in 2015, when there wasn't one at all, i.e., the balance fallacy. Arguably, Sanger and subsequently Ballotpedia are NPOV extremists.

Later in the essay, Sanger argued along the lines of supporting the argumentum ad populum fallacy measles vaccination, thereby giving oxygen to Andrew Wakefield's antivax bullshit:

For example, suppose in a piece of writing, you discuss the measles vaccination controversy. If you’re going to write in accordance with the canons of science (and also rationality and objectivity, no doubt), then in my opinion, you will support the view that children should be vaccinated, period. But if what you write is going to be neutral with respect to current American society, you will have to withhold any such forthright claim. Rather, you’ll report that while a very large majority of doctors and scientists strongly advise vaccination, something like 9% of the population thinks that the measles vaccine is unsafe.[12]

Sanger does not even acknowledge that the Centers for Disease Control says that the MMR vaccine is extremely safe and effective,[18] or that deaths in the US from measles dropped from 503,282 pre-vaccine availability to 89 post-vaccine availability.[19]

Neutrality is all well and good when dealing with easily verified facts, such as who and what is on an election ballot, what responses a candidate for office has given on issues, etc. However, once one starts getting into more complex issues such as science, medicine or general politics, neutrality becomes fraught with the balance fallacy (giving equal weight to refuted or crank ideas), and argumentum ad populum.


Stephen Colbert[20]

Ironically for someone having criticising Wikipedia for its lack of credibility and expertise in the past, Sanger serves as a very good case study of conservative crank magnetism.

A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be.

—Larry Sanger[9]

What Sanger consistently fails to understand in each of his "criticisms"[21][22] (which would never have been taken seriously even if it weren't his status as cofounder) is that neutrality is not about giving equal weight to every fringe opinion and viewpoint. It means to state the complete relevant information without bias. What even is the opposite viewpoint to the facts? Lies? It is literally impossible to entertain all possible viewpoints on an issue all at once, since not everything can be neatly categorised as a "left" vs "right" debate.

Note the fact that neutralityWikipedia is only one part of Wikipedia’s core policiesWikipedia; the others being "verifiabilityWikipedia" and "no new researchWikipedia"; meaning you can not present unverifiable information for which reliable sources do not exist. This makes it almost impossible to sneak topics like global warming denialism, anti-vaccination, flat-eartherism, Holocaust denial etc. onto Wikipedia pages.


See the main article on this topic: Liberal media
The Left: We hate the 1%!
Also the Left: We love Soros, and Bill Gates, and the lovely globalist organizations various 1%ers fund, and we want to do everything they say, because they represent social justice and science.
—Just another normal Larry Sanger tweet.[23]

He believes that the Democrats are actually left-wing parties and openly support socialism,[24] basically straight-up admitting he has no idea what socialism actually is, just like your average conservative.

He thinks that the global cooperation in making the COVID-19 vaccine is evidence of a deep state that secretly controls the world.[25]

While the claim about apples causing cancer may be true, since the source is hardly reliable, this can't be said for certain unless a more reliable source can be found.

He finds the absence of conservative news outlets on Wikipedia very concerning, stating:[22]

A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in Fox News, the Daily Mail, and the New York Post—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia. Beyond that, many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller. Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly “radical”; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no “reliable sources” available to report about them.

Yes, Wikipedia does ban certain websites from being used as a source. However, this is not because of their biases. Wikipedia also bans certain leftist news sources, such as Occupy Democrats. (Also, out of the six sources Sanger mentions, only the Daily Mail and The Daily Caller are actually "banned" on Wikipedia.) Wikipedia does this because all of those "news" sites simply kept making shit up, over and over again, and it was made abundantly clear that they were not driven by the need to inform but to mislead. While they may be right in certain aspects is not the point because they simply can’t be trusted to be reliable at all.


See the main article on this topic: Barack Obama

Sanger describes Barack Obama as "Wikipedia’s favorite president," indicating the fact that his article fails to mention some of his "well-known scandals."[21] Of course, if this were the case with every article, most articles about companies would host a lengthy section detailing each of their unethical practices on their same page. Leaving aside the veracity of the allegations, Wikipedia does host detailed articles on each of the "scams" mentioned by Sanger, Specifically…

The 2012 Benghazi attack is actually mentioned in the main Obama article, specifically in the infoboxes and the section on the Libya intervention.

The fact that Sanger thinks that Obamagate, a conspiracy theory, should be mentioned in his article shows how deep he has fallen.


See the main article on this topic: Donald Trump

Sanger believes that Wikipedia page on Donald Trump is badly biased against him; pointing out the frequent use of the words "false" and "falsely" in the article, stating: "Wikipedia frequently asserts… that many of Trump’s statements are “false.” Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so…"[21] Once again, he fails to understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy;Wikipedia stating objective truth about a persona is not an indication of bias. In fact, rejection of basic facts and instead replacing it with a more "neutral"-sounding "some people believe…" would be a better indication of bias. Nonetheless, Sanger is pissed at Trump for his supposed vaccine pushing.[31]


See the main article on this topic: QAnon

Sanger has had frequent flirtations with the alt-right conspiracy theory QAnon; having retweeted tweets from QAnon accounts,[32][33] defending QAnon a few times,[34][35] and repeating false QAnon statements.[36] More than 50% of his followers believe QAnon is true, according to a twitter poll done by Sanger.[37]

He criticised a Christianity Today article that attacked QAnon by saying that the article gives "no such evidence" as to why QAnon is wrong.[34] As the article he criticised itself states: "…here’s the genius of QAnon: For those already convinced, it’s unfalsifiable."[38]

Although he says that he is “not… a big Qanon supporter”[39] and that he is “open to the idea (given evidence) that Qanon is itself seriously wrong”.[34]


See the main article on this topic: Pro-life

Sanger thinks that the Wikipedia article on abortion is written with a "left-liberal point of view," stating:[21]

No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices.

In this case, Sanger is absolutely correct; conservatives would obviously never inform about the medical consensus on the safety of abortion. Sanger then performs a non sequitur while ignoring how not getting an abortion would be even more psychologically taxing and lengthy.


See the main articles on this topic: Homophobia and Transphobia

Sanger is upset that the Wikipedia article on LGBTQ adoption doesn't list all the reasons why homophobes think it is a bad idea.[21] This is not surprising for a person with a history of transphobic and homophobic tweets.[40]

Sanger believes that trans people have a "mental problem" and repeats the famous and beaten-to-death "Facts don't care about your feelings" argument saying people changing their pronouns "willy-nilly based on "how they feel inside" is "one of the cringiest pop culture fads ever" and says that it is "just an attempt to control others and force them to play a frankly pathological game with you".[41]

He has spread false statements about trans activists being closet pedophiles and being after your children while sourcing a Reddit post as evidence.[42][43] He frequently and fallaciously equates children having self-determination to them being raped,[44][45][46] implying that any amount of freedom given to children will eventually lead to pedophilia and bestiality.

Christian fundamentalism[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Christian fundamentalism

In his essay, Sanger produces a laughably poor argument as to why Wikipedia is biased:[21]

What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the Jesus article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many Christians would take issue with such statements, which means they are not neutral for that reason alone.

Suddenly, the facts don’t care about your feelings crowd is very concerned about the feelings of Christians who may feel disheartened after knowing that Santa wasn’t real 😢.

Of course, some Christians believe that the Gospels are reliable. However, people who aren’t Christian (which happens to be around 70% of the entire global population)[47] do not believe so. Hence describing their reliability as uncertain is correct.

White genocide/Christophobia[edit]

See the main articles on this topic: White genocide and Christophobia
What if we discover people we assumed were tolerant liberals are in fact repressive authoritarians who harbor murderous hatred for Bible-believing Christians, who sincerely believe that such people are the source of all the ills of society—and are ready to take drastic action?

Global warming denialism[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Global warming
The balance fallacy in a nutshell.

In his essay, Larry grossly misinterprets what scientific consensus is about:[21]

It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. This point is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually follows any lively scientific debate at all closely. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when certain people seem unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted as the Establishment one, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

The global warming and MMR vaccine articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject.

This is false because citing scientific consensus is not the same as using argument from authority. If more than a hundred people say it is raining outside, but one says it’s not, an editor shouldn’t state both so that the reader can make up their mind , or pretend that there is some debate going on between the two when there isn’t.

Similarly, there is no debate between scientists as to whether global warming is real or not, or whether vaccines work or not. Pseudoscientists aren’t "scientific minorities"; a snake oil peddler shouldn’t be receiving the same amount of credibility as actual scientists. Entertaining fringe views of a sensitive issue like vaccination would not only be most likely factually incorrect, but also risk endangering lives. All this in the name of "neutrality" and representing "scientific minority viewpoints"…

When Wikipedia deleted its page on "List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming",Wikipedia Sanger unsurprisingly jumped to call the action "indefensible" and "extremely biased".[7] He once again fails to understand Wikipedia policies, and he also makes clear he didn't actually read the discussion about the deletion of the article. An article is never deleted because it violates the NPOVWikipedia policy, as Larry assumes. Articles that violate NPOV are not deleted but rewritten from scratch. The only articles that are deleted are which do not meet notabilityWikipedia guidelines. Specifically, the article was deleted for failing the Wikipedia LISTNWikipedia criteria. Another problem with the article was that the list didn't include just climate scientists, but a mish-mash of random people who had no credentials on climate science. Of course, there is no article titled "List of scientists who agree with the consensus on global warming" because that would just be extremely long.

Sanger also denies global warming's effect on the planet[49] and calls global warming a "manufactured crisis" and a leftist "boogeyman" manufactured by "globalists".[50][51]


See the main article on this topic: Anti-vaccination movement

As seen above, Sanger also happens to be a bit of an anti-vaxxer,[52] even criticising Donald Trump for promoting the vaccine.[31]

Sanger's views on vaccines are peculiarly imbalanced, alternately fearmongering about vaccines,[53] and threatening to block anyone who tweets him promoting vaccine mandates.[54]

Alternative medicine promotion[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Alternative medicine

In his essay, Sanger complains:[21]

Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.”

Sanger fails to explain how this definition is wrong or biased in any way. In fact, it describes alternative medicine quite aptly; for if it were tested and proven effective, it wouldn’t be alternative, just medicine.


See the main article on this topic: Face mask

Sanger is an anti-masker,[55] saying that it has more “potential harm” than their value[56] and was incredibly distressed and felt “miserable”[57] when was asked to wear a mask at a bookstore, calling it a “totalitarian dystopia”.[58] Sanger's anti-mask rhetoric has even verged into paranoid fantasies, "What happens when crazy people start hunting down the unmasked unvaxxed?"[59]

Coronavirus downplay[edit]

See the main article on this topic: COVID-19 denialism

Sanger has downplayed coronavirus in the past.[60][61]

He calls the COVID-19 pandemic a leftist "boogeyman" by "globalists".[50] He says that “the ongoing lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, despite almost-zero deaths, is due to a desire to demonstrate to the world how international elites can fraudulently call the shots in defiance of facts and science,”[25] despite there having been a hundred thousands of deaths due to COVID-19 and several studies showing that lockdowns and masking works. Whether he thinks there is a nationwide global conspiracy to fake millions of deaths from a completely nonexistent virus or just being oblivious to the truth, we will let you decide.

Antifa did the coup[edit]

See the main article on this topic: 2021 U.S. Capitol riot § But, but, antifadidit!
What’s more likely: that MAGAs suddenly cracked and, for the first time, started rioting Antifa-style? Or that Antifa were LARPing, which they love to do, in order to discredit MAGAs?
—Larry Sanger[62]

George Floyd conspiracy theory[edit]

See the main article on this topic: George Floyd

Sanger's Twitter thread on the death of George Floyd are mainly a piling up of tangential coincidences and just asking questions, while cautioning not to spread rumors,[63] ignoring the fact that asking inane questions about coincidences is a good way to start rumors.

He also asks his followers “what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros?”[64]

Election fraud[edit]

See the main article on this topic: 2020 U.S. presidential election § Fraud claims

Sanger spreads false claims about the 2020 US presidential election.[65][66]

Views on RationalWiki[edit]

No points for guessing what Larry thinks of us.

—Larry Sanger[67]
Of course the creepoids that crawled out of the slime of RationalWiki are going to defend lolicon. LOL
—Sanger, accusing us of being pedophile apologists[68]
Leading the charge against crypto in general on Wikipedia is one David Gerard, who is, let’s just say, one of the people responsible for the mess that Wikipedia has become—and a leader of the libelous, silly RationalWiki. Has been a friend of Jimmy Wales.
—Larry Sanger[69]
I'll leave you with another piece of advice: do not make this a partisan encyclopedia, biased in the opposite direction. Then it is likely to end up like Conservapedia or RationalWiki, which nobody (outside of some true believers) takes seriously.
—Sanger, while addressing his rather large Hindutvavadi (right-wing Hindu) audience who also share a similar persecution complex with regards to Wikipedia's handling of topics that the BJP find inconvenient.


List of (mostly failed) projects by Larry Sanger.



See the main article on this topic: Citizendium

Sanger's contempt for Wikipedia's supposed lack of expertise inspired him to found Citizendium. The main idea of CZ was that anyone who made edits had to prove they were accredited in a given area (proof of medical licence, Ph.D., Bachelor's degree, etc); of course, this severely limited the amount of people who could actually edit the wiki, or, given how personal the account request form was, how many people wanted to edit the wiki. The main problem became which areas of study Sanger recognized as valid; pseudoscientific and fringe studies like homeopathy was, but women's studies wasn't. Sanger's slight persecution complex made it so that submitted articles were locked from editing, thus creating echo chambers that no one could change. As a result, pseudoscience and woo spread across the site, and relatively little was done about it.


See the main article on this topic: Everipedia

Another of Sanger's attempts (and failures) to make a Wikipedia offshoot.[70] This time, the gimmick was that anytime you made an edit, you'd get a Bitcoin Dogecoin IQ token, Users with higher token counts were more or less admins with full power over the other helpless plebians. Sanger stated he was abandoning the project in 2019.[note 2]


The current project.[71] Sanger describes his goal as a "totally decentralized network, like the Blogosphere—or like email, IRC, blockchains, and the World Wide Web itself." In essence, he wants to create a massive, centralized hub where people can link or upload encyclopedic articles, and search for any encyclopedia article on the Internet. So Wikipedia, with a dozen extra steps. Some proposed features include:

  • article publishing without the need for review by anyone
  • some kind of rating system
  • a search engine
  • data aggregation

It all feels a little eerily similar to both Citizendium and Everipedia. Unlike CZ, though, which created echo chambers because of excessive emphasis on accreditation, Encyclosphere is probably going to create echo chambers due to its disregard for pre-release review. One can only imagine what shit will get dumped there before anyone has the chance to proofread it.

To support Encyclosphere, Sanger has created the "Knowledge Standards Foundation", which will act as the tech support and developers for the site. Again, this Management Council, so to speak, is reminiscent of Everipedia's IQ token system and the social classes it created as a result. History repeating itself? So far, we have yet to see. It is unknown how far along the project even is; the website mainly promotes Sanger's upcoming Encyclosphere conference, and his blog has little, if any, mention of the project (as far as his posts go). The project was announced in late 2019, and for all we know it hasn't progressed.

Time will tell the success of Encyclosphere. All we can do right now is wait.


Minifeed is Sanger’s knockoff of Wordpress[72] that may or may not be totally abandoned in favor of a revamped version of the site. It claims it has "enhanced privacy," but this is not explained anywhere on the site. The rest of the "About" page is terribly vague, and the most recent post (from December 2021) is a post noting the progress of the new version of the site. The future of the site is unknown.

Sanger Academy[edit]

Sanger Academy is basically knock-off Khan Academy.Wikipedia Sanger also has homeschooled his kids, which might be the inspiration for the project.[73] It has videos on several topics, all taught by Sanger himself using PowerPoint presentations, including art, music, metaphysics, a three part series on free speech.[74]


  1. "But if what you write is going to be neutral with respect to current American society, you will have to withhold any such forthright claim. Rather, you’ll report that while a very large majority of doctors and scientists strongly advise vaccination, something like 9% of the population thinks that the measles vaccine is unsafe. You will not take or project any stand one way or another, although, to be fair to the vast majority of the public in favor of measles vaccination, in some kinds of articles you might spend only about 9% of the article on the anti-vaccination position."[9]
  2. Sanger might as well be a deist, considering his history of creating worlds and then abandoning them…


  1. "'Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever' Writes Disaffected Co-Founder Larry Sanger" by "Tyler Durden", ZeroHedge, 2021 July 5 (archived from July 5, 2021)
  2. "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger slams the site's left wing 'woke' bias and claims its days of 'neutrality are long gone'" by Adam Schrader, Dailymail, 2021 February 21, archived on February 21, 2021)
  3. ‘Nobody should trust Wikipedia’, warns its co-founder Larry Sanger, says the site is taken over by leftists who reject content that doesn’t fit their agenda (16 July, 2021) OpIndia (archived from July 16, 2021).
  4. Please help voiceless Hindus Larry! We will be forever grateful! The smears, the outright lies, the anti Hindu propaganda is rife through all wiki pages on India! Our histories and our present is being erased before our eyes! Help us! We will be forever grateful! by sudeepj2 (7:28 AM - 5 Mar 2020) Twitter (archived from March 5, 2020).
  5. Sharing because I promised I would. What do you Westerners reckon? Or should we stay out of such things? by Larry Sanger (9:57 PM - 18 Jul 2021) Twitter (archived from July 19, 2021).
  6. Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design by David Klinghoffer (December 12, 2017, 1:00 PM) Evolution News.
  7. 7.0 7.1 1/ Some 15 years ago, Wikipedia's global warming/climate change articles were neutral on the issue of AWG, as their policy requires. Today they are extremely biased. Now they go further even to delete lists of climate apostates. by Larry Sanger (11:37 AM - 7 Mar 2020) Twitter (archived from March 7, 2020).
  8. 8.0 8.1 I'll pass. I have zero interest in investigating flat Earth stuff. There are plausible conspiracies, and then there are whacked-out conspiracies that are pure crazy speculation with no good evidence behind them, that it requires suspending all rationality to take seriously. by Larry Sanger (8:22 AM - 16 Apr 2020) Twitter (archived from April 17, 2020).
  9. 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 Why Neutrality? by Larry Sanger (December 30, 2015) Ballotpedia.
  10. The Ballotpedia Podcast: Episode 5
  11. See the Wikipedia article on Larry Sanger § Selected writings.
  12. 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 Why Neutrality? by Larry Sanger (December 30, 2015) Ballotpedia.
  13. “Wikipedia is a broken system,” says co-founder Larry Sanger by Sophie Foggin (May 23, 2019) 150 Sec.
  14. Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried: "The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger said. by Maxim Lott (February 18, 2021) Fox News (archived from February 18, 2021).
  15. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change by Naomi Oreskes (2004) Science 306:1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.
  16. Expert credibility in climate change by William R. L. Anderegg et al. (2010) Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(27):12107–12109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
  17. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature by Mark Lynas et al. (2021) Environmental Research Letters 16(11):1-7. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.
  18. Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine (Page last reviewed: September 9, 2020, 12:00 AM) Centers for Disease Control.
  19. Epidemics have happened before and they’ll happen again. What will we remember? A look back at past epidemics reveals progress in research and medicine as well as reminders of what still needs changing by Aimee Cunningham (October 27, 2021 at 12:00 pm) Science News.
  20. Re-Improved Colbert transcript (now with complete text of Colbert-Thomas video!), Daily Kos, 30 April 2006
  21. 21.0 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 Wikipedia Is Badly Biased by Larry Sanger (May 14, 2020).
  22. 22.0 22.1 Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever
  23. The Left: We hate the 1%! Also the Left: We love Soros, and Bill Gates, and the lovely globalist organizations various 1%ers fund, and we want to do everything they say, because they represent social justice and science. by Larry Sanger (7:14 PM - 1 Sep 2020) Twitter (archived from September 2, 2020).
  24. ? It’s perfectly obvious that the Democrats have moved far left, particularly in the last few years, embracing leftist things like socialism, openly, and political violence. No, it’s the same goddamned people. They hate the 1% in the abstract...and love everything they stand for by Larry Sanger (8:08 AM - 9 Sep 2020) Twitter (archived from September 9, 2020).
  25. 25.0 25.1 1/ If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think the ongoing lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, despite almost-zero deaths, is due to a desire to demonstrate to the world how international elites can fraudulently call the shots in defiance of facts and science. by Larry Sanger (1:27 PM - 16 Aug 2020) Twitter (archived from August 16, 2020).
  26. See the Wikipedia article on 2012 Benghazi attack.
  27. See the Wikipedia article on IRS targeting controversy.
  28. See the Wikipedia article on Solyndra.
  29. See the Wikipedia article on Hillary Clinton email controversy.
  30. See the Wikipedia article on Category:Obama administration controversies.
  31. 31.0 31.1 Not gonna lie—Trump, still the self-described “Father of the Vaccine,” pisses me off in his intransigent vaxx-pushing. by Larry Sanger (5:29 AM - 23 Oct 2021) Twitter (archived from October 23, 2021).
  32. @lsanger by Larry Sanger, Twitter (archived from 28 Jun 2020 15:46:31 UTC).
  33. Former Wikipedia Insider (co-creator) has written a book on its downfall in context of the wider decline of access to factual information. Looks interesting! More details below. #GreatAwakeningWorldwide by @99freemind (8:05 AM - 8 Sep 2020) Twitter (archived from Septmeber 8, 2020).
  34. 34.0 34.1 34.2 I saw a Christianity Today column attacking Qanon: … I’m open to the idea (given evidence) that Qanon is itself seriously wrong, but this article gives no such evidence. This guy’s video takedown also exhibits no comprehension of Q: by Larry Sanger (12:12 PM - 27 Aug 2020) Twitter (archived from August 27, 2020).
  35. In other Internet censorship news, let’s talk #Qanon: Did you know that when Cloudflare deplatformed 8chan (you should know about it because it’s important news …) they also deplatformed the only medium by which #Qanon communicates with the general public? by Larry Sanger, Twitter (archived from 6 Aug 2019 8:45 PM UTC).
  36. You know, the evidence that #BillClintonIsAPedo is outrageously strong at this point. Yes, I’m jumping on the bandwagon. You should too. And that’s one of the main reasons to think we don’t have an honest media class anymore. If we had one, this would be all over the news. by Larry Sanger (4:15 PM - 3 Aug 2020) Twitter (archived from August 3, 2020).
  37. So...what do you think? by Larry Sanger (9:15 am - 7 Aug 2019) Twitter
  38. QAnon Is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing: There’s nothing sheepish about this insidious internet demon. by Bonnie Kristian (August 26, 2020) Christianity Today.
  39. All, if I happen to be caught up in this purge—not that I’m a big Qanon supporter, but I’m interested and I’m friends with many who are—then go to for future updates from me. by Larry Sanger (5:01 AM - 22 Jul 2020) Twitter (archived from July 23, 2020).
  40. I'll bet they won't have any problem with this wedding dance. by Larry Sanger (1:11 PM - 5 May 2021) Twitter (archived from May 5, 2021).
  41. I would never, ever, ever subject a child to this sort of insanity, which is frankly exactly what this is. People changing their pronouns willy-nilly based on "how they feel inside" is a fad. It will be looked back on as one of the cringiest pop culture fads ever. by Larry Sanger (1:39 PM - 3 Dec 2021) Twitter (archived from December 3, 2021).
  42. So is this the poison pushed on trans kids—stories that encourage six-year-olds to think oral sex is normal? 🤢🤢🤮 Do you have no filters, @susankuklin? Is that what you want kids to believe and act on? by Larry Sanger (9:21 AM - 16 Nov 2021) Twitter (archived from November 16, 2021).
  43. OP calls an author a pedo. Hundreds blindly believe it and spout transphobia. (November 17, 2021) Reddit (archived from November 17, 2021).
  44. If you allow a child to determine whether he or she "transitions" without parental consent, it is a very, very small step to allowing the child to determine whether he or she will have sexual relations with adults. What's the moral difference? by Larry Sanger (9:56 AM - 20 Mar 2021) Twitter (archived from March 20, 2021).
  45. No. If you say children have the right (independent of their parents) to decide to do something as devastating as a procedure and treatment that might sterilize them and commit them to a lifelong condition, then why don't they have the right to "consent" to sex with adults? by Larry Sanger (8.41 - 26. helmik. 2021) Twitter (archived from February 26, 2021).
  46. If they can do that, why can't they declare that they love adults? "Consent?" Sure they can consent. Who are you to say they don't love who they love? Love is love! (That's a "MAP" catchphrase too.) (I hope it's clear that this is all tongue in cheek.) by Larry Sanger (8:25 AM - 2 Jul 2021) Twitter (archived from July 2, 2021).
  47. See the Wikipedia article on List of religious populations.
  48. What if we discover people we assumed were tolerant liberals are in fact repressive authoritarians who harbor murderous hatred for Bible-believing Christians, who sincerely believe that such people are the source of all the ills of society—and are ready to take drastic action? by Larry Sanger (18:50 - 24. Nov. 2020) Twitter (archived from November 25, 2020).
  49. Interesting how the left pulls out all the stops to fight a disease with a 99.5+% survivability rate, and a global warming disaster which has yet to appear, but not sky-high murder and addiction rates among their core constituencies. by Larry Sanger (7:15 AM - 27 Sep 2021) Twitter (archived from September 27, 2021).
  50. 50.0 50.1 I think the globalists expect us to come together against the manufactured crises of the virus, the boogeyman of racism, and global warming. Little did they know that, yes, the "crises" will bring us together...against them. by Larry Sanger (4:54 PM - 30 Aug 2020) Twitter (archived from August 30, 2020).
  51. From the News-of-the-Insane Dept.: Biden’s climate plan would allegedly limit American per capital[sic consumption of beef to 4 pounds per year, I.e., a bit over 5 oz. per month. This is what fascism looks like] by Larry Sanger (8:38 PM · Apr 24, 2021) Twitter (archived from December 7, 2021).
  52. Hi @WHO and others: If any future Covid-19 vaccine is made mandatory in the U.S., I will not take it for that reason alone, as a n act of civil disobedience. Just don't try it. I will also go out of my way to protest in meatspace, which is something I almost never do. by Larry Sanger (10:08 PM • May 18, 2020) Twitter, reposted by @wikigamaliel at 9:40 AM - 19 May 2020 (archived from May 19, 2020).
  53. Just because the current totalitarianism doesn’t precisely resemble a previous variety, it hardly follows that it isn’t every bit as much totalitarianism. Depending on how damaging the vaccines and lockdowns and social turmoil turns out, this could be far more fatal than WWII. by Larry Sanger (4:02 PM - 1 Dec 2021) Twitter (archived from December 2, 2021).
  54. I enthusiastically instablock the following categories of Twitter accounts: - defenders of vaccine mandates - leftist ideologues and drones - Satanists and some other occultists - particularly annoying crypto shills - racists - leftists LARPing as conservative racists by Larry Sanger (1:12 PM - 20 Oct 2021) Twitter (archived from October 2020, 2021).
  55. I agree with this much: wearing a mask these days is a not just a badge of conformity, it is damaging our chances of getting through this year with our freedom in tact. In other words, the masked are acting like collaborators of our future overlords. If you can, don't do it. by Larry Sanger (August 2020) Twitter, reposted by @wikigamaliel at 7:01 AM - 14 Aug 2020 (archived from August 14, 2020).
  59. What happens when crazy people start hunting down the unmasked unvaxxed? “Better start wearing a mask...or else!” by Larry Sanger (6:44 AM - 14 May 2021) Twitter (archived from May 14, 2021).
  60. - virus deaths greatly inflated - lockdown length associated with deat - any higher rates due to old folks alone - lockdowns caused excess deaths due to other causes - no scientific basis for "social distancing" We've been had, folks. Now ask why. by Larry Sanger (May 19, 2020) copied from Gab by @thewikipedian (11:19 AM - 19 May 2020) Twitter (archived from May 19, 2020).
  61. Interesting how the left pulls out all the stops to fight a disease with a 99.5+% survivability rate, and a global warming disaster which has yet to appear, but not sky-high murder and addiction rates among their core constituencies. by Larry Sanger (7:15 AM - 27 Sep 2021) Twitter (archived from September 27, 2021).
  62. Not *convinced*. But what’s more likely: that MAGAs suddenly cracked and, for the first time, started rioting Antifa-style? Or that Antifa were LARPing, which they love to do, in order to discredit MAGAs? If you’re honest and rational, you’ll admit it’s a reasonable question. by Larry Sanger (16:49 - 6. Jan. 2021) Twitter (archived from January 7, 2021).
  63. 1/ Must read. Let's demand an explanation for this from police/reporters: *Why* was it that George Floyd worked with his killer, Derek Chauvin, on the security team for the El Nuevo Rodeo club on Tuesday nights "for much of the year before" the killing? by Larry Sanger (June 2, 2020) Twitter (archived from June 3, 2020).
  64. Help me out with links: what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros? by Larry Sanger (6:32 AM - 30 May 2020) Twitter (archived from May 30, 2020).
  65. The claims that Biden has won, when poll watchers were prevented from closely observing the mail-in ballot counting (as is normal) and when there is an *amazing* amount of excelent evidence of fraud, is a shocking, devastating indictment of Democrat-run elections. by Larry Sanger (9:14 AM · Nov 7, 2020) Twitter (archived from August 13, 2021).
  66. The co-creator of the Internet's encyclopedia has been factchecked by Twitter. 2020 everybody! by @wikigamaliel (10:26 - 7. Nov. 2020) Twitter (archived from November 7, 2020).
  67. RationalWiki is an irrational, far left troll site. Trust me, you don't want to be citing them. You need a better source. Snopes is also long discredited as a left-wing source when writing about political issues. We need a fair judge. Those two sources won't do. by Larry Sanger (8:00 AM - 25 Jul 2019) Twitter (archived from November 17, 2021).
  68. Ahhhhh I see… Of course the creepoids that crawled out of the slime of RationalWiki are going to defend lolicon. LOL by Larry Sanger (6:06 AM - 10 Dec 2021) Twitter (archived from December 10, 2021).
  70. Everipedia is the Wikipedia for being wrong, the Outline.
  71. Introducing the Encyclosphere, Larry Sanger.
  72. Minifeed -- About
  73. "I'm co-founder of Wikipedia and with my new startup, Infobitt, I want to make a Wikipedia for the news. Ask me anything!" by u/LarrySanger, Reddit, /r/IAmA subreddit, 2014 December 16 (archived on December 16, 2014).
  74. What is free speech? - an intro for young people - Sanger Academy by Larry Sanger (Mar 3, 2016) YouTube.