{"id":528991,"date":"2025-09-13T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-09-13T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=528991"},"modified":"2025-12-25T10:49:23","modified_gmt":"2025-12-25T09:49:23","slug":"wikipedia-activism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/company\/wikipedia-activism\/","title":{"rendered":"Alert on the ideologization of Wikipedia"},"content":{"rendered":"

In their recent book published by Editions du Cerf, Michel Sandrin (not his real name) and Victor Lefebvre document the militant drift of the online encyclopedia. The book also explains how the platform works.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

It has become customary to learn about a subject by consulting its Wikipedia entry. Pedants who despise this online encyclopedia as a breeding ground for false information should read La face cach\u00e9e de Wikip\u00e9dia (\u00abThe hidden face of Wikipedia\u00bb)<\/em> released in April. Journalist Victor Lefebvre and platform contributor Michel Sandrin (not his real name) report that the platform is reliable overall: \u00abOne of the reasons for this structural reliability is simple: Wikipedia is not out to make money, nor to make itself attractive to advertisers, nor to flatter its readership.\u00bb What's more, the fact that any changes are checked after they have been made, and that everyone can contribute, optimizes the rapid correction of errors. There is, however, a danger lurking in this remarkable voluntary undertaking to share knowledge: militancy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The French-language version of Wikipedia, on which this essay focuses, is particularly affected by this drift. It manifests itself in many ways: the creation of files on subjects of no encyclopedic value in order to put them forward, the \u00abrallying\u00bb of activists from one's camp to vote for the deletion - or maintenance - of a page, the removal of compromising information about a person one wishes to promote or, conversely, the demonization of an opponent...<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read also | Neither reason without debate nor debate without reason<\/a><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

This type of behavior can be observed on both sides of the Atlantic. The case of Eric Zemmour's campaign team, who \u00absmoothed\u00bb his Wikipedia entry (since corrected) during the last presidential campaign, is highlighted. With figures and testimonials to back them up, the authors demonstrate that this activism, which runs counter to the platform's principles, is mainly the work of the radical left, and that it results in a double standard:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u00abIf Wikipedia reproduces Release<\/em> that Laurence Ferrari or Pascal Praud are paragons of the extreme right, why not mention, for example, the criticisms levelled by Values<\/em> current<\/em> to Jean-Michel Apathie? The editorialist (...) has never hidden his left-wing allegiance and defines himself as woke. Yet there is no mention of this on his profile.\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n