Elon Musk Wants What He Can't Have: Wikipedia
A recent target in Elon Musk's long and eminently tweetable list of grievances: the existence of the world's most famous encyclopedia. Musk's latest attack—'Defund Wikipedia until balance is restored!' he posted on X last month—coincided with an update to his own Wikipedia page, one that described the Sieg heil–ish arm movement he'd made during an Inauguration Day speech. 'Musk twice extended his right arm towards the crowd in an upward angle,' the entry read at one point. 'The gesture was compared to a Nazi salute or fascist salute. Musk denied any meaning behind the gesture.' There was little to be upset about; the Wikipedia page didn't accuse Musk of making a Sieg heil salute. But that didn't seem to matter to Musk. Wikipedia is 'an extension of legacy media propaganda!' he posted.
Musk's outburst was part of an ongoing crusade against the digital encyclopedia. In recent months, he has repeatedly attempted to delegitimize Wikipedia, suggesting on X that it is 'controlled by far-left activists' and calling for his followers to 'stop donating to Wokepedia.' Other prominent figures who share his politics have also set their sights on the platform. 'Wikipedia has been ideologically captured for years,' Shaun Maguire, a partner at Sequoia Capital, posted after Musk's gesture last month. 'Wikipedia lies,' Chamath Palihapitiya, another tech investor, wrote. Pirate Wires, a publication popular among the tech right, has published at least eight stories blasting Wikipedia since August.
Wikipedia is certainly not immune to bad information, disagreement, or political warfare, but its openness and transparency rules have made it a remarkably reliable platform in a decidedly unreliable age. Evidence that it's an outright propaganda arm of the left, or of any political party, is thin. In fact, one of the most notable things about the site is how it has steered relatively clear of the profit-driven algorithmic mayhem that has flooded search engines and social-media platforms with bad or politically fraught information. If anything, the site, which is operated by a nonprofit and maintained by volunteers, has become more of a refuge in a fractured online landscape than an ideological prison—a 'last bastion of shared reality,' as the writer Alexis Madrigal once called it. And that seems to be precisely why it's under attack.
The extent to which Wikipedia's entries could be politically slanted has been a subject of inquiry for a long time. (Accusations of liberal bias have persisted just as long: In 2006, the son of the famed conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly launched 'Conservapedia' to combat it.) Sock puppets and deceptive editing practices have been problems on the site, as with the rest of the internet. And demographically speaking, it's true that Wikipedia entries are written and edited by a skewed sliver of humanity: A 2020 survey by the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that runs Wikipedia, found that roughly 87 percent of the site's contributors were male; more than half lived in Europe. In recent years, the foundation has put an increased emphasis on identifying and filling in these so-called knowledge gaps. Research has shown that diversity among Wikipedia's editors makes information on the site less biased, a spokesperson pointed out to me. For the anti-Wikipedia contingent, however, such efforts are evidence that the site has been taken over by the left. As Pirate Wires has put it, Wikipedia has become a 'top-down social activism and advocacy machine.'
In 2016, two researchers at Harvard Business School examined more than 70,000 Wikipedia articles related to U.S. politics and found that overall they were 'mildly more slanted towards the Democratic 'view'' than analogous Encyclopedia Britannica articles. Still, the finding was nuanced. Entries on civil rights had more of a Democratic slant; articles on immigration had more of a Republican slant. Any charge of 'extreme left-leaning bias,' Shane Greenstein, an economist who co-authored the study, told me, 'could not be supported by the data.' Things could have changed since then, Greenstein said, but he's 'very skeptical' that they have.
Attacks will continue regardless. In June, the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank, published a report suggesting that Wikipedia articles about certain organizations and public figures aligned with the right tend to be associated with greater amounts of negative sentiment than similar groups and figures on the left. When asked about bias on the site, the Wikimedia spokesperson told me that 'Wikipedia is not influenced by any one person or group' and that the site's editors 'don't write to convince but to explain and inform.' (They certainly like to write: A debate over the spelling yogurt versus yoghurt was similar in length to The Odyssey. In the end, yogurt won, but three other spellings are listed in the article's first sentence.)
The fact that Musk, in his most recent tirade against Wikipedia, didn't point to any specific errors in the entry about his inauguration gesture is telling. As he gripes about injustice, the fundamental issue he and others in his circle have with Wikipedia seems to be more about control. With his acquisitional approach to global technology and platforms, Musk has gained influence over an astonishing portion of online life. He has turned X into his own personal megaphone, which he uses to spout his far-right political views. Through Starlink, his satellite-internet company, Musk quite literally governs some people's access to the web. Even other tech platforms that Musk doesn't own have aligned themselves with him. In early January, Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta would back away from third-party fact-checking on its platforms, explicitly citing X as an inspiration. (Zuckerberg also announced that the company's trust and safety teams would move from California to Texas, again borrowing from Musk.)
One thing Musk does not control is Wikipedia. Although the site is far from perfect, it remains a place where, unlike much of the internet, facts still matter. That the people who are constantly writing and rewriting Wikipedia entries are disaggregated volunteers—rather than bendable to one man's ideological views—seems to be in the public interest. The site's structure is a nuisance for anyone invested in controlling how information is disseminated. With that in mind, the campaign against Wikipedia may best be understood as the apotheosis of a view fashionable among the anti-'woke' tech milieu: Free speech, which the group claims to passionately defend, counts only so long as they like what you have to say. Attempts to increase the diversity of perspectives represented on the site—that is, attempts to bring about more speech—have been construed as 'censorship.' This group is less interested in representing multiple truths, as Wikipedia attempts to do, than it is in a singular truth: its own. (Musk, Maguire, and Palihapitiya did not respond to requests for comment.)
Ironically, Wikipedia resembles the version of the internet that Musk and his peers speak most reverently of. Musk often touts X's Community Notes feature, which encourages users to correct and contextualize misleading posts. That sounds a lot like the philosophy behind … Wikipedia. Indeed, in a recent interview, X's vice president of product explained that Community Notes took direct inspiration from Wikipedia.
Strike hard enough and often enough, the Wikipedia-haters seem to believe, and the website might just fracture into digital smithereens. Just as Twitter's user base splintered into X and Bluesky and Mastodon and Threads, one can imagine a sad swarm of rival Wikipedias, each proclaiming its own ideological supremacy. (Musk and others in his orbit have similarly accused Reddit of being 'hard-captured by the far left.') Musk can't just buy Wikipedia like he did Twitter. In December 2022, months after he purchased the social platform, a New York Post reporter suggested that he do just that. 'Not for sale,' Jimmy Wales, one of the site's co-founders, responded. The following year, Musk mockingly offered to give the site $1 billion to change its name to 'Dickipedia.'
Even if he can't buy Wikipedia, by blasting his more than 215 million followers with screeds against the site and calls for its defunding, Musk may be able to slowly undermine its credibility. (The Wikimedia Foundation has an annual budget of $189 million. Meanwhile, Musk spent some $288 million backing Trump and other Republican candidates this election cycle.) Anyone who defends free speech and democracy should wish for Wikipedia to survive and remain independent. Against the backdrop of a degraded web, the improbable success of a volunteer-run website attempting to gather all the world's knowledge is something to celebrate, not destroy. And it's especially valuable when so many prominent tech figures are joining Musk in using their deep pockets to make their own political agendas clear. At Donald Trump's inauguration, the CEOs of the companies who run the world's six most popular websites sat alongside Trump's family on the dais. There was no such representative for the next-most-popular site: Wikipedia.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The Trump-Musk feud that wasn't: Media distracted by another MAGA spectacle
If one correctly understands the large role that spectacle and distraction play in the Age of Trump, then its full horror and ugliness are easily demystified and revealed. Unfortunately, too many Americans, especially those in the mainstream news media and the responsible political class, refuse to do so. Why? It is very frightening to wake up one day and realize that you are a stranger in your own country. Billionaires Donald Trump and Elon Musk recently engaged in a major and highly publicized dispute. Its origins have been well-documented: ego, ambition, money and power. The news media were predictably obsessed with this fight, labeling it a 'divorce' and using other such dramatic language. Applying the logic of professional wrestling and carny culture, I do not know (nor do I care) if the fight between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is a 'work' (a pretend fight or some other scripted part of the business) or 'a shoot' (a real fight) or something in between ('a work' that becomes 'a shoot' and the audience is not exactly sure what is happening). We may never know the whole truth. What really matters is that this fight, be it real or not, is a distraction from Trump's 'big beautiful bill' and how it further guts the social safety net and gives trillions of more dollars to the richest individuals and corporations. It is critically important to emphasize how Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans' gutting of the social safety net, and further immiseration of the middle class and working poor to give even more money to the kleptocrats and plutocrats, is not separate and apart from the country's rapid collapse into authoritarianism. These destructive forces gut and weaken democratic life. Moreover, such forces may bring a people closer to the authoritarian leader in an attempt to win favor as a protected group. Learned helplessness becomes a survival mode. At the risk of mixing my metaphors, the fight between Donald Trump and Elon Musk is ultimately an example of the old African proverb that when two elephants fight, it is the grass beneath their feet that suffers. To that point, the economic and larger societal harm that Trump's 'big beautiful bill' will cause is well-documented, easily predictable and not hypothetical. In a public letter addressed to the Senate Finance Committee, public health experts at Yale University and University of Pennsylvania are warning that Donald Trump and his MAGA Republican policy changes and budget cuts to programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act and the social safety net more broadly will kill at least 51,000 Americans a year. Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' also guts educational funding, science and health research. These cuts will also imperil the health and well-being of the American people, making the country less prosperous and dynamic, both in the present and for future generations. Decades of social science research have repeatedly shown that right-wing and 'conservative' policies across a range of issues cause harm to the American people. To that point, Republican-controlled parts of the country are a type of laboratory for what happens when these policies are applied without sufficient pushback: People who live in Red State America live shorter lives, have less economic mobility, wealth, and income, are less educated, have higher rates of preventable diseases, more suicides, higher rates of addiction, experience higher rates of murder and in total enjoy a worse quality of life. As journalist William Kleinknecht documents in his book 'State of Neglect,' 'What this means is that not all of us are living in a declining nation, only half of us": If the United States were thought of as two countries, the Blue Nation would have much more in common with the America of the mid-twentieth century, when we led the world in almost every measure of progress, whereas the Red Nation would be middling and second-rate.' When enacted, Trump's 'big beautiful bill' will take the harmful policies that have been inflicted on Americans who live in Republican-controlled parts of the country and make them national. In a new essay at the Guardian, Brigid Schulte and Haley Swenson detail the harm that Trump's 'big beautiful bill' will cause tens of millions of the most vulnerable Americans and the fictions about poverty that are being used to justify this Darwinian right-wing social engineering: Here's the reality check: a majority of those receiving this aid who can work are already working. More than 70% of working-age people who receive nutrition benefits or Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income children and adults that covers one in five Americans, are already working, according to the Government Accountability Office. Those who aren't working, research shows, are mostly ill, disabled, caring for a family member, or in school.… There is a problem with making policy decisions based on the unfounded belief that poverty is about people with bad moral character making bad choices, or on debunked racial tropes of undeserving 'welfare queens.' (In fact, white people make up the largest group receiving public food and healthcare aid.) Shaping policy around false stereotypes, rather than the complex reality, prevents policymakers from working together on real solutions. Why is the American news media so easily taken in by the professional wrestling-like feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk? On a basic level, this is a story that has heroes and villains, conflict and intrigue, an easy storyline to follow (and therefore is comparatively easy to write), and is 'fun' for mainstream liberals, progressives, and 'centrists." Perhaps most importantly, the Trump versus Musk narrative attracts attention (the clicks and downloads that drive the 21st-century media) and ad revenue. In so many ways, Trump versus Musk is a type of sugar high for the news media (and those pro-democracy Americans who are desperate for some good news to distract them from the reality that their side is getting rolled over, rather easily, by MAGA). Al Jazeera's Andrew Mitrovica explains this as Trump's great power as 'the magician-in-chief': Trump understands better, I reckon, than any US president since Ronald Reagan how to bend and manipulate the squirrel-like attention spans of much of the new and 'legacy' media to his will and advantage…. He does this by flashing shiny, fleeting baubles that further his parochial interests, while more consequential matters drift by like a passing cloud, unnoticed – leaving the hard, complex stuff to fade into neglect. Trump is the human equivalent of a 24/7 cable news outlet pumping out intriguing content that the real cable news channels are happily addicted to – admitted or not…. What Trump wields is far more practised and pernicious. He doesn't just distract – he rewrites the story in real time, making the serious seem trivial, and the trivial seem epochal. Oh, and he figured out long ago that most political observers are far more captivated by personality than policy. The Beltway press is conditioned to look where the president points – again and again…. The antidote to manipulation is not detachment – it's sharp, vigilant coverage of the profound, human consequences of the president's actions, not his antics. In its exhausting dance with Donald Trump, the fourth estate can and must stop mistaking the fireworks for the fire. In the end, the American news media, the responsible political class, and the general public who are closely following the Trump-Musk feud will likely end up being marks who were being worked the whole time. As journalist D. Earl Stephens writes in a new essay, 'Right-wing media will trumpet 'Hail to the Victors' and Democrats will be pointing at the smoking carnage of what was, while what is actually happening is even worse than it was 24 hours before": Two weeks from now, all this will be forgotten, and we will be smack in the middle of the next existential crisis that will demand all of our time, while even more of our rights have been incinerated, and billionaires like Trump and Musk have even more of our money. While Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' is being forced through Congress by his MAGA Republicans, he has federalized thousands of National Guard troops and 700 active-duty United States Marines to help put down protests in response to the ICE deportation raids in the Los Angeles area (and per Trump's Executive Order other parts of the country as well). This is a violation of long-standing norms and laws governing how the United States military should not be used against the American people. The United States Marines are the country's elite shock troops and an expeditionary force that specializes in amphibious assaults. The potential for a nightmare scenario is growing by the hour. Once again, the American people and their news media and other leaders and gatekeepers are, in the words of media scholar Neil Postman, 'amusing themselves' and their democracy to death. Professional wrestling and carny culture can be great fun. Having a ringside seat for the end of American democracy and the rule of law in real-time is not.
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Warren urges Trump to "abandon" DOGE's "inefficient and harmful" agenda in new letter
Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Elon Musk on DOGE and his work in and out of government Washington — Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is urging President Trump to "reverse course" on the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to cut government spending and agencies, advocating instead that he implement her policy proposals to find savings, days after a split between Elon Musk and the president spilled into public view. "Although Mr. Musk and DOGE have failed at achieving their purported savings goals, you could choose to end this government waste while avoiding dangerous cuts to important federal Programs," Warren wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump along with Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, the top Democrat on the House DOGE subcommittee. "You should learn from Elon Musk and DOGE's mistakes, end your attacks on critical federal programs, and instead act on these recommendations." The Democrats penned a letter to Mr. Trump outlining "DOGE's failures," along with recommendations that they said would save the U.S. more than $2 trillion over 10 years. The letter, obtained exclusively by CBS News, follows a letter Warren wrote to Musk in January, outlining the 30 recommendations. "Mr. Musk ignored these recommendations — but you could choose to reverse course, abandon Mr. Musk's inefficient and harmful DOGE actions, and instead carefully review and implement our policy proposals," the lawmakers wrote. Musk initially pledged to cut $2 trillion of government spending, but later lowered the benchmark to $1 trillion. Ultimately, the White House said DOGE's efforts saved roughly $170 billion in spending. But that figure has been disputed, with a number of errors and miscalculations on the initiative's "wall of receipts." Musk said he expected the DOGE cuts would achieve the $1 trillion goal "over time." Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during a press conference on the Republican budget, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2025. BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images Warren's suggestions include cracking down on prescription drug middlemen known as Pharmacy Benefit Managers; eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in federal charter school programs and ending support for-profit schools; reforming the estate tax exemption; negotiating better Defense Department contracts; and ending practices surrounding "unnecessary federal arrests." "It is time to eliminate the real waste, fraud, and abuse in government spending, rather than ravaging programs that keep Americans safe, secure, and healthy just to pay for tax cuts for billionaires and large corporations," Warren and Stansbury said. The letter comes after Musk's opposition to a massive budget bill central to enacting the president's agenda erupted into a dramatic and public feud between him and Mr. Trump last week. The spat marked a swift turnaround, coming one week after Mr. Trump gifted Musk a key to the White House as the world's richest man wrapped up his time in the federal government. Despite the public blowup, administration officials told CBS News last week that there had been no efforts to oust officials who came from Musk's orbit. And the White House's top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, praised DOGE's work in recent days, while expressing doubt that the feud would affect its continued efforts. "Waste, fraud and abuse, unfortunately, is alive and well in America, and the DOGE folks here, they're good folks," Navarro told reporters at the White House Friday. "When you work with them and bring to them the institutional knowledge of how bureaucracies work and what's important in a bureaucracy and what's not, when you wed to that, it's a great thing. So, we're happy." Musk expressed some remorse for the spat on X on Wednesday, after deleting some of the most inflammatory posts days earlier. "I regret some of my posts about President @realDonaldTrump last week," Musk said. "They went too far."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Seth Meyers Mocks Donald Trump's Relationship With Son Barron Trump
Seth Meyers on Wednesday cracked wise about President Donald Trump's bond with son Barron Trump. (Watch the video below.) 'In a new interview President Trump said that his children have a future in politics and added that his son Barron is, quote, 'very tall and good.' Nice,' the 'Late Night' host began. 'Sounds like Trump knows as much about Barron as your grandma knows about LeBron James.' Barron Trump, a 19-year-old NYU student, was credited with guiding his dad to the right podcast hosts to help him win the young male vote in the election. But in a previous interview the president hinted his youngest son's future may be outside of politics. 'He's got an unbelievable aptitude in technology,' Trump said. Meyers' monologue featured an additional dig that hinted Father's Day might not be Trump's best holiday. Excerpting another moment from Trump's recent podcast interview, the comedian said: 'Asked if his eldest son Donald Trump Jr. might run for president, Trump said that Don is 'a good guy' and added, quote, 'he's an outdoorsman.' 'Oh my god he talks about his kids like he's reading their Wikipedia profiles,' Meyers cracked. Fast-forward to 1:05 for Meyers' family segment: Melania Trump Breaks Silence On Whether Barron Was Rejected From Harvard Donald Trump Hints At Barron Trump's Future Career — And It May Surprise You NYU GOP Group's President Resigns After Calling Fellow Student Barron Trump An 'Oddity'
