This week, Tucker Carlson sat down for an interview with Larry Sanger, a developer known for his role as co-founder of Wikipedia.
During their conversation, Tucker found himself in fits of laughter as Sanger shared Wikipedia’s notorious BLACKLIST of banned sources.
“It’s so funny. This is amazing,” Carlson exclaimed, and viewers are likely to join in his amusement when they take a look at which websites are deemed “reliable” and which are excluded.
The full list can be found in Wikipedia’s reliable sources entry.
BLACKLISTED:
- Breitbart
- Daily Caller
- Epoch Times
- Fox News
- New York Post
- The Federalist
- The Gateway Pundit
Green Lit:
- New York Times
- Washington Post
- CNN
- MSNBC
- The Nation
- Mother Jones
- GLAAD
- TV Guide
The segment from Tucker’s interview was shared by Vigilant Fox.
STORY #9 – Tucker Carlson bursts out laughing as Wikipedia’s Co-Founder Larry Sanger shows him the website’s BLACKLIST of banned sources.
“It’s so funny. This is amazing.”
Once you see which websites count as “reliable” and which are excluded, you’ll be laughing alongside… pic.twitter.com/xzxupVAeoJ
— Vigilant Fox (@VigilantFox) September 30, 2025
For years, The Gateway Pundit has been highlighting Wikipedia’s perceived leftist bias.
T. D. Adler reported in December 2019 for Breitbart News that Wikipedia’s blacklists now include outlets like The Epoch Times and The Gateway Pundit, targeting them due to their critical reporting on the Russiagate narrative.
Wikipedia has cited Gateway Pundit for factual reporting, only to then use these same citations as a rationale to ban the site.
Prominent critics of China, such as The Epoch Times and conservative media like The Gateway Pundit, have been labeled unreliable sources on Wikipedia, reflecting a broader trend of marginalizing conservative voices that support President Trump. The ban on The Epoch Times was notably triggered by negative coverage from NBC concerning their reporting on the Russia investigation, while Gateway Pundit faced similar scrutiny shortly thereafter.
Specifically, the proposed ban on The Epoch Times stemmed from a citation related to Joseph Mifsud—an essential, yet controversial figure tied to the discredited Russia investigation. Meanwhile, the push for Gateway Pundit’s exclusion appeared linked to their coverage regarding Ukrainian election interference.
The past year has seen Wikipedia editors actively remove conservative news sources in a flurry of bans. Following the ban on the Daily Mail, similar actions targeted an additional fifteen conservative sites, solidifying a pattern heavily tilted against right-leaning publications. Notably, Breitbart News was also blacklisted in 2018.
Gateway Pundit’s ban was initiated soon after The Epoch Times’ proposal, aligning with a broader trend of censoring conservative views. The narratives targeting Gateway Pundit were often reinforced by left-leaning editors with a history of bias against the site.
Wikipedia has long been accused of censoring, targeting, and smearing conservative platforms like The Gateway Pundit.
The Gateway Pundit ranks among the leading conservative media outlets in the U.S. and globally, averaging over three million page views per day. The left often targets TGP because it consistently breaks impactful stories, shapes narratives, and proves to be more trustworthy than many established liberal media.
Guest contributor T. D. Adler elaborated in November on Wikipedia’s operational dynamics, highlighting the concept of “citogenesis”—a form of circular reporting used to disparage and undermine conservative outlets.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
The Hill has reported that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has begun an inquiry into Wikipedia’s perceived leftward leaning.
Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC), who chairs the subcommittee on cybersecurity and information, have issued an information request directed at Maryana Iskander, the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation, concerning the influence of foreign entities and academic institutions on U.S. public perception.
They have asked for the following information as part of their ongoing investigation:
1. Documentation regarding any suspected coordination by foreign state actors in Wikipedia’s editing processes.
2. Insights into communication or analysis regarding potential collusion from within educational institutions or organized efforts to edit or influence content deemed to violate Wikipedia guidelines.
3. Complete records of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, including all editor conduct disputes and outcomes.
4. Information showing unique identifiers of accounts (like names, IPs, registration dates, and activity logs) for users subject to Arbitration actions.
5. Official documents detailing Wikipedia’s editorial policies aimed at ensuring neutrality and addressing bias, along with disciplinary procedures for violations.
6. Any assessments conducted by the Wikimedia Foundation (or third parties acting on their behalf) reviewing patterns of bias or manipulation related to antisemitism and Israeli conflicts.
A complete copy of the demand letter sent to Wikipedia earlier this week is available for review.
