Larry Sanger’s Nine Theses on Wikipedia, Ranked

Plus my notes on his theses.

Update: Before you read, note that I originally wrote this post simply responding to the list-and-paragraph version of Sanger’s Nine Theses. I realized there were essay versions and made the assumption that the theses themselves were enough to respond to and that anything in the essay versions was only an elaboration of the theses themselves. I invited Sanger to respond and he did so in the comments, suggesting that I read his full essays. I have now read the essays and will be responding accordingly with separate posts, particularly for the three that I labeled “bad.” I will link from this post to those new posts as they are complete. As of now, my opinions have not substantially changed, as the essays themselves are fundamentally longer versions of the theses. But they do give more context on his recommended solutions and reasoning behind his theses. The rest of this post remains as I originally wrote it.

On September 29 2025, Larry Sanger released his “Nine Theses on Wikipedia.”

If you’re not familiar with Larry Sanger, Wikipedia describes him as “an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales.” On Twitter, he calls himself a “purveyor of obvious truths, ex-founder of Wikipedia.” His LinkedIn calls him an “Online Knowledge Organizer.”

This guy.

Whatever you call him, he is someone who played a major role in the early days of Wikipedia and has lately become an outspoken critic of it. A lot of his recent press has come from conservative outlets, including Tucker Carlson, the Free Press, the National Review, and Fox News.

In terms of his “Nine Theses on Wikipedia,” he has gotten some good publicity, coming from both inside Wikipedia circles and its typical critics. I don’t mean that all the reactions have been positive but that he has done a good job of getting people to discuss Wikipedia.

Unlike a lot of the criticism I see, I’m more inclined to consider Sanger’s criticisms for two reasons:

• Sanger, unlike a lot of Wikipedia’s critics, has an understanding of what he is criticizing.

• Rather than throw stones at Wikipedia from the outside, he is attempting to make change both inside and outside of Wikipedia. He has even gone as far as to resurrect his user page and post his theses as a Wikipedia essay.

That’s a vintage account.

I have read and considered his nine theses and would like to offer my own point of view. I have re-ordered these to rank them from best to worst.

Before I get into my own ranked version of Sanger’s list, here is the list of his nine theses in the order he presents them:

1. End decision-making by “consensus.”

2. Enable competing articles.

3. Abolish source blacklists.

4. Revive the original neutrality policy.

5. Repeal “Ignore all rules.”

6. Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.

7. Let the public rate articles.

8. End indefinite blocking.

9. Adopt a legislative process.

Now, here’s my ranking of Sanger’s theses, with my own editorializing.

Sanger’s best thesis: End indefinite blocking.

His argument:

Wikipedia’s draconian practice of indefinite blocking—typically, permanent bans—is unjust. This is no small problem. Nearly half of the blocks in a two-week period were indefinite. This drives away many good editors. Permanent blocks are too often used to enforce ideological conformity and protect petty fiefdoms rather than to serve any legitimate purpose. The problem is entrenched because Administrators largely lack accountability, and oversight is minimal. The current block appeals process is ineffective; it might as well not exist, because it is needlessly slow and humiliating. These systemic failures demand comprehensive reform. Indefinite blocks should be extremely rare and require the agreement of three or more Administrators, with guaranteed periodic review available. Blocks should nearly always be preceded by warnings, and durations should be much more lenient.

My response: Viable and reasonable. A lot of people do dumb things when they first start editing Wikipedia. You can even do dumb things while editing Wikipedia for years, especially if no one notices that you are doing dumb things. This includes COI edits, sockpuppeting, edit warring, and just all around bad edits. If you fly under the radar doing dumb things, you can stack up a ton of experience—right up until you find yourself blocked for years of flagrant rule violations. (See “Ignore all rules” below for more on why people do this.)

All of this said, I think problematic editors should get blocked and editors who will never stop being problematic should not be allowed to edit. But I think Sanger has made a reasonable argument on the problematic nature of “indefinite” blocking, even if he’s being a little dramatic in making his argument.

Sanger’s second best thesis: Repeal “Ignore all rules.”

Larry’s argument:

On February 6, 2001,⧉ I wrote this humorous rule—“Ignore all rules”—to encourage newcomers. Ironically, my joke now serves to shield insiders from accountability. It no longer supports openness; it protects power. Wikipedia should repeal it.

My response: I think “Ignore all rules” is mostly confusing. I don’t really get it. I have never really understood it and I am very confused to see Sanger say he proposed it ironically. Whatever. Repeal it, I guess.

Sanger’s third best thesis: Revive the original neutrality policy.

His argument:

In short, Wikipedia must renew its commitment to true neutrality. The present policy on neutrality⧉ should be revised to clarify that articles may not take sides on contentious political, religious, and other divisive topics, even if one side is dominant in academia or mainstream media. Whole parties, faiths, and other “alternative” points of view must no longer be cast aside and declared incorrect, in favor of hegemonic Establishment views. Solid ideas may be found in some of the first policy statements, including the first fully elaborated Wikipedia policy⧉ and the Nupedia policy of 2000.⧉

My response: I call this one of his better theses but I do have mixed feelings on it. This is obviously a reference to the idea that Wikipedia “has a liberal bias.” I do think there are systemic biases inside Wikipedia.

What puzzles me on this one is that the current Wikipedia policy on “neutral point of view” is this:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

This does not seem too far from what Sanger wishes. I think his desire is less about the neutrality policy itself and more about its manifestation. I think he is also guilty here of the same thing many Wikicritics do: he’s complaining about it from the outside instead of attempting to make the edits to the articles seen as problematic.

I’m glad Sanger has dipped his toes back in the Wikiwaters and is attempting to effect some kind of change and improvement, but it’s worth noting that he himself is not blocked (indefinitely or otherwise) and could start making edits on articles he considers to be problematic.

So are there some edits to be made to the neutrality policy? I’m open to the idea. But the policy is already that Wikipedia should be neutral. The editors are needed to make it so.

Those are the three theses that I consider to be good. Next let’s get into the grayer territory.

Sanger’s fourth and fifth best theses: End decision-making by “consensus” and Adopt a legislative process.

Sanger’s arguments:

Wikipedia’s policy of deciding editorial disputes by working toward a “consensus” position is absurd. Its notion of “consensus” is an institutional fiction, supported because it hides legitimate dissent under a false veneer of unanimity. Perhaps the goal of consensus was appropriate when the community was small. But before long, the participant pool grew so large that true consensus became impossible. In time, ideologues and paid lackeys began to declare themselves to be the voice of the consensus, using this convenient fiction to marginalize their opponents. This sham now serves to silence dissent and consolidate power, and it is wholly contrary to the founding ideal of a project devoted to bringing humanity together. Wikipedia must repudiate decision-making by consensus once and for all.

And:

Wikipedia’s processes for adopting new policies, procedures, and projects are surprisingly weak. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has launched initiatives, but these do not establish major editorial policy. Incremental policy tweaks cannot deliver the bold reforms Wikipedia needs. No clear precedents exist for adopting significant innovations. The project is governed by an unfair and anonymous oligarchy that likes things just as they are. This stagnation must end. Wikipedia needs an editorial legislature chosen by fair elections: one person, one vote. To establish legitimate and fair governance, the WMF should convene a constitutional convention to create an editorial charter and assembly. This assembly would be empowered to make the sorts of changes proposed in these “Nine Theses.”

As far as I can tell, these two theses are fundamentally the same. Sanger wants Wikipedia to “repudiate decision-making by consensus” and to “convene a constitutional convention to create an editorial charter and assembly.”

In terms of consensus building, I recently defended the art of Wikipedia debates in a conversation with The Verge, when I said:

One of the things I really love about Wikipedia is it forces you to have measured, emotionless conversations with people you disagree with in the name of trying to construct the accurate narrative.

This, to me, is what he means when he refers to consensus building. I think he desires to eliminate this practice and replace it instead with voting. It worries me to think that this would simply turn into sockpuppets or meatpuppets overrunning every Wikipedia discussion in order to game votes.

Or maybe not. I don’t know precisely what this would look like but I’m open to the idea and the conversation around it. It could even be fun.

Sanger’s sixth best thesis: Abolish source blacklists.

His argument:

An anonymous “MrX” proposed a list of so-called perennial sources⧉ just seven years ago, which determine which media sources may, and may not, be used in Wikipedia articles. The page is ideologically one-sided and essentially blacklists disfavored media outlets. Wikipedians now treat this list as strict—but unofficial—policy. This approach must be reversed. Wikipedia should once again explicitly permit citations even from sources that the page currently blacklists. Rather than outright banning entire sources that can contain valid and important information, Wikipedia articles should use them when relevant, while acknowledging how different groups assess them. Neutrality requires openness to many sources; such openness better supports readers in making up their own minds.

My concern with this one is that there are three different lists being conflated:

• The Wikipedia spam blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist

• Deprecated sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources

• Perennial sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Only one of these is a true “blacklist” and that’s the list of spam websites. I don’t know if Sanger is guilty of willful ignorance on this one or if he’s genuinely confused. Yes, the blacklist prevents a website from being added but that’s because, most of the time, it’s true spam. The deprecated and perennial sources do not automatically prevent a website from being added as a source.

He argues above that “Wikipedia should once again explicitly permit citations even from sources that the page currently blacklists,” and the fact is, Wikipedia does allow it. They aren’t literally blacklisted. He even uses the word “essentially” in front of blacklisted at one point, showing he knows these aren’t a literal blacklist.

Should the lists be considered and evaluated on an ongoing basis? Sure. Would the legislative process he’s suggesting be a good way to do that? Perhaps.

And I do genuinely agree with him on this point: Rather than outright banning entire sources that can contain valid and important information, Wikipedia articles should use them when relevant, while acknowledging how different groups assess them. Neutrality requires openness to many sources; such openness better supports readers in making up their own minds.

I am not a Fox News reader but I have used Fox News as a source when appropriate on Wikipedia. (You can see an example of when I thought it was appropriate to use Fox News as a source in my previous post, I am one of the (many) editors of Elon Musk’s Wikipedia page.) I just wish that Sanger was more clear in what he’s talking about (spam, deprecated, perennial) so that it was easier to discuss this one.

In general, I think the Wikipedia policy around sources has become outdated, and this is a good conversation to have, even if it doesn’t end exactly where Sanger wants it to.

Now let’s talk about the three theses that I think are bad.

Sanger’s third worst thesis: Enable competing articles.

His argument:

Neutrality is impossible to practice if editors refuse to compromise—and Wikipedia is now led by such uncompromising editors. As a result, a favored perspective has emerged: the narrow perspective of the Western ruling class, one that is “globalist,” academic, secular, and progressive (GASP). In fact, Wikipedia admits to a systemic bias, and other common views are marginalized, misrepresented, or excluded entirely. The problem is that genuine neutrality is impossible when one perspective enjoys such a monopoly on editorial legitimacy. I propose a natural solution: Wikipedia should permit multiple, competing articles written within explicitly declared frameworks, each aiming at neutrality within its own framework. That is how Wikipedia can become a genuinely open, global project.

My response: This sounds like a mess. Seriously, this just sounds like a total mess. And I do not understand how “neutrality within its own framework” could possibly function. Imagine how confusing of an experience this would be. My suspicion here is that Sanger worries he won’t get his way on some of the other theses above, so he’s throwing this one out as a Hail Mary. It also seems like this is where competitors to Wikipedia (i.e. Grokipedia or Conservapedia or RationalWiki) would be better off filling the void.

Sanger’s second worst thesis: Let the public rate articles.

His argument:

A system of public rating and feedback for Wikipedia articles is long overdue. Articles now boldly take controversial positions, yet the public is not given any suitable way to provide feedback. This is disrespectful to the public. There is an internal self-rating system, not visible to readers. The platform experimented with an external ratings system but scrapped it after a few years, and it didn’t help readers. Wikipedia does not need a complex system to get started. An open source AI rating system would not take long to develop. The platform already collects relevant objective data such as number of edits and word count: make that public. As to human raters, they should be provably human, unique, and come from outside of the editor community. When articles are evaluated by a diverse audience, content quality and neutrality will be improved.

My response: This also sounds like a mess. This sounds like a proposal to turn Wikipedia into Reddit. Now, I like Reddit, but do we really need downvotes on Wikipedia articles? Can you imagine the brigading that would take place? I don’t feel the need to discuss this one at length. I think it’s simply a bad idea.

Sanger’s worst thesis: Reveal who Wikipedia’s leaders are.

His argument:

It is a basic principle of sound governance that we know who our leaders are. So why are the 62 Wikipedia users with the most authority—“CheckUsers,” “Bureaucrats,” and Arbitration Committee members—mostly anonymous? Only 14.5% of such users reveal a full, real name. These high-ranking individuals obviously should be identified by their real and full names, so they can be held accountable in the real world. After all, Wikipedia is now one of the world’s most powerful and well-funded media platforms. Wikipedia’s influence far exceeds that of major newspapers, which follow basic standards of transparency and accountability. Such standards are not mere ideals but real requirements for any media organization of Wikipedia’s stature. As of 2023, Wikipedia’s endowment was $119 million, its annual income $185 million. Therefore, if safety is a concern, funds should be used to indemnify and otherwise protect publicly identified editorial leaders. Wikipedia, admit that your leaders are powerful, and bring them out into the open; great power requires accountability. If you continue to stymie accountability, government may have to act.

My response: This is dangerous and undemocratic.

The first thing I think of, reading this, is the story of Osama Khalid. If you aren’t familiar, Khalid is a medical doctor and Wikipedia editor who is currently serving a 32 year sentence in a Saudi Arabian prison for editing Wikipedia.

There are multiple people in prison right now for editing Wikipedia. Belarus, Saudi Arabia, and Syria have all imprisoned people whose Wikipedia edits upset their governments. In the case of Bassel Khartabil, he was executed by the Syrian government for editing Wikipedia.

I’m going to translate what I think Sanger is suggesting here: “If you don’t reveal who your volunteer administrators are, the government will be forced to take control of your non-profit organization, seize your servers and shut down your operation.”

Maybe I’m wrong. It certainly doesn’t sound like something a libertarian or traditional conservative would advocate for. (And I think that’s what Sanger is.)

I don’t even know which government he’s referring to. But “government may have to act” is frightening stuff.

Meanwhile, I will say that I edit Wikipedia without any attempt at anonymity. I used to try to keep some distance between the name I use for editing and writing (D. F. Lovett) and my professional and personal name (David Lovett), but that ship has sailed. I would like it if all editors felt safe to do the same, but that’s not the world we live in. And I don’t think threats of government intervention is the answer to making Wikipedia editors and administrators feel safer.

I’ll end this with a note to Larry Sanger himself:

If you read this and I misrepresented you in any way, I am happy to provide a correction or even to discuss this with you. Thank you for attempting to improve one of the most important and powerful websites on the planet.