Nine Theses

I

 submit these nine theses to Wikipedia's community and to the world. I do this, as Martin Luther said when he posted his famous 95 theses, "Out of love for the truth and the desire to elucidate it."

A quarter of a century ago, Jimmy Wales' company Bomis hired me to start a free encyclopedia. The first draft, from which we learned much, was Nupedia—it made slow progress. So, a year later, on January 2, 2001, when a friend told me about wikis, I immediately began imagining a wiki encyclopedia. I proposed it to Jimmy, then CEO of Bomis. He agreed and installed the software, and I went to work getting things ready. After I named it, we launched Wikipedia on January 15, 2001, and just nine days later, I was able to write, "Wikipedia has definitely taken on a life of its own; new people are arriving every day and the project seems to be getting only more popular. Long live Wikipedia!"

The title I claimed at the time was "chief instigator." My daily leadership for the 14 months after that was essential to transforming a completely empty, blank wiki into what would soon become the largest written resource in the history of the world. I was responsible for several policies that were and are fundamental to the project: the exclusive focus on an encyclopedia; neutrality; "no original research"; "be bold"; aspects of the verifiability policy; and other things. I even proposed the tongue-in-cheek "rule" to "ignore all rules." For more, see this page on my role in Wikipedia, my Slashdot memoir, and my book, Essays on Free Knowledge. I say these things not to brag but to show why my proposals deserve a careful hearing.

The Nine Theses

1. End decision-making by "consensus."

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.

2. Enable competing articles.

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.

3. Abolish source blacklists.

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.

4. Revive the original neutrality policy.

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.

5. Repeal "Ignore all rules."

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.

6. Reveal who Wikipedia's leaders are.

It is a basic principle of sound governance that we know who our leaders are. So why are the Wikipedia users with the most authority—"CheckUsers," "Bureaucrats," and Arbitration Committee members—mostly anonymous? Only 14.7% 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.

7. Let the public rate articles.

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.

8. End indefinite blocking.

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.

9. Adopt a legislative process.

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."

Further theses

When I began this project, I had more than nine ideas, of course. The following are some further theses, which I submit undeveloped. The fact that so many plausible proposals for improvement come so readily to mind underscores the platform's dysfunction.

Wikipedia should join the Encyclosphere.

The Encyclosphere is a project I started in 2019 to collect all the encyclopedia articles in the world in a single decentralized network, with each article shared according to the ZWI (Zipped WIki) file format. This is an enormous and very worthwhile project, and, by supporting both EncycloReader and EncycloSearch, the Knowledge Standards Foundation has made a credible start on this network. While the Encyclosphere has collected some 65 encyclopedias so far, Wikipedia could motivate the rest to contribute to the world's knowledge—by their own lights—by running an Encyclosphere node. If Wikipedia does not enable competing articles (i.e., Thesis 2), this would be an excellent fallback position.

Implement term limits.

Administrators, as a class, tend to become too impressed with their own power on Wikipedia. If this really is a "janitorial" sort of duty (see Thesis 6), then a much larger body of people should be called upon to help. Therefore, I believe Administrators—and other positions of power and authority—should be subject to some system of term limits. I am not dogmatic about the length. One idea would be: two-year terms; may be elected to back-to-back terms; cannot be elected three times in a row; cannot be elected more than three times in a ten year period; otherwise, no limit to number of times one may serve as an Administrator. But there are many ways to implement such a system. Whichever is chosen, the election process would have to be made easier for experienced Wikipedians to get on board in this role.

Require yearly Administrator performance reviews.

Administrators, as a condition of their continuance in the role, should be subject to annual anonymous reviews of their Administrator work. Open source LLMs and other automated tools could be very useful in collecting data for such reviews.

Partner with an independent organization to handle appeals.

This is a much more ambitious way to solve the problems introduced in Thesis 8. Establish a fully and provably independent appeals body, which is nationally, politically, and religiously balanced. It must be answerable neither to the Wikipedia community nor to the Wikimedia Foundation. This body would oversee appeals against repeated blocking and on select editorial issues, ensuring decisions are balanced, just, and transparent—free from the internal politics of current administrative structures in which the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

End IP editing.

From the beginning, Wikipedia has allowed people to edit without logging in. This initially helped to attract contributors, but it is no longer needed and is now counterproductive. IP editing is now widely abused by insiders as a tool of gamesmanship, rather than making it easier for outsiders to contribute. It is long past time for this startup feature to be retired. Wikipedia has grown up. It is time for the community to act like it.

Replace or augment the edit counter with work assessments.

The edit counter has helped create an insider class that does not deserve the degree of power it wields in the system. Some of the most qualified people in the world have little time to edit Wikipedia, and so they will naturally not make many edits. But their opinion about their field of expertise ought to be worth more than that of a teenager with 50,000 edits. If not replaced, then maybe the edit counter could be augmented by independent work assessments (i.e., performance evaluations) by open source LLMs and other automated tools. It would be best to move away from the simplistic metric of edit counts and towards a more nuanced evaluation of contributions based on content quality and impact. This would reflect a true measure of a contributor's value to the project, if that is regarded as important. The use of automated tools for this task would help keep it free of corruption and cronyism.

End or loosen restrictions on "meat puppetry."

My understanding is that off-wiki collaboration is a thing that insiders do all the time anyway; the rule is selectively enforced, in a way that is extremely hypocritical. It should be possible to have meaningful discussions of how the Wikipedia article should look outside of Wikipedia. It is time for Wikipedia to become an open and explicit part of larger, off-wiki conversations. This is already happening. If this is not acknowledged, the conversations will take place sub rosa among secret confederates, which is much worse.

Label pages that are not appropriate for children under 13.

"Adult" content on Wikipedia should be labeled as such. By implementing age-appropriate labels to ensure the safety and appropriateness of content for younger audiences, Wikipedia would meet societal standards of protection for minors. The encyclopedia does not do so now. This is a problem I brought to Wikipedia's attention in 2012, when I proposed a solution. The proposal was never implemented.

Allow memorial articles about elders and deceased friends and family.

I claim that our elders are all noteworthy. Regardless of whether they were ever in the news, they have had a lifetime's impact on the rest of us. Therefore, the children, other relatives, and friends of persons over 65 years old should be permitted to memorialize their lives, but only if their next of kin agree. Existence could be confirmed through public records or reliable testimony. Such articles could be placed in a new namespace. Articles could be written based on oral histories. While the latter primary sources would not meet traditional reliability policies, they would be a valuable record of what family and friends said about our elders and dear departed, as permanent lore about a person. The result would be an amazing resource for future historians.

Embrace inclusionism.

The firm tendency to delete perfectly good articles because somebody thinks the topic is not "noteworthy" enough (called deletionism) is an innovation. Deletionist tendencies are toxic to a healthy, free, and open encyclopedia. Generally speaking, if someone can be found to write an article on a topic, and it otherwise meets Wikipedia's standards, it is best to include the article. Thus, Wikipedia's rules on what counts as "noteworthy" need to be revised, to be made more lenient and inclusive.

1. End decision-making by "consensus."

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.

Note: The first four theses all concern different aspects of neutrality. This involves some repetition and expansion of analysis, because the issues involved are so central and important.

The Problem

When Wikipedia launched, we borrowed a principle from the original wikis of the 1990s: Wikipedia articles would represent a "consensus view."

A consensus is, of course, a position that everyone can agree to. Not on Wikipedia, though. On Wikipedia, an article that is completely one-sided and quite controversial is often declared—with furrowed-brow seriousness—to represent the community "consensus." If this sounds ridiculous, that's because it is. As someone who was there at the beginning, I can tell you that this is not Wikipedia's original notion of consensus.

But a consensus view was not a single view of a controversy. It was a frank admission that there were multiple, competing views; it was an exploration of the "lay of the land" that all could agree upon. Indeed, our original practice of representing multiple views fairly was why decision-making by consensus could be made policy in the first place. We, full of the foolish idealism of youth, imagined that motivated ideologues could be taught to write neutrally, all coming together to make the text express all relevant possibilities. The rule was simple: When we disagree, we should not fight over whose views should be stated by the article. Rather, we attribute our own views to their best representatives, and we allow others to do the same with theirs. In this way, we thought, we could avoid hashing out controversies and focus on recording facts. The practice of neutrality was a framework in which we could work toward a "consensus text." The consensus was not about the facts, but about how a neutral exploration of the debate should read. This was the original understanding of consensus—but now it is long forgotten. Of course we could not agree on the facts. What we could agree upon was a text that represented many different views of the facts side-by-side.

But that was, as I said, foolishly idealistic. We never made proper allowances for the harsh reality that there would be truly intractable disagreements, even among people who say they agree with the framework of neutrality—some people simply refuse to let others have their say at all, or not in any fair way. This became obvious even in the first year of the project, which cooled me on the very idea of "consensus" as a method of conflict-resolution.

Then, surely, the naïve idea of decision-making by consensus was dropped. Right?

Wrong. Instead, after I left, Wikipedia became increasingly strange and insular, and the notion of "consensus" was actually twisted into its opposite. Today, the new reality is admitted frankly:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote.

...

When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus.

A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often, we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal.

Long gone is any suggestion that neutrality is a framework that permits a true consensus to be achieved. We early Wikipedians find this sad. Let us analyze what has changed, in terms of the goal, the process, and the community.

(1) The goal has changed; pluralistic expression of different viewpoints is not specifically preferred. Gone is any notion that consensus involves laying out a plurality of viewpoints in a coherent and balanced way. In fact, sometimes, when people attempt to explore various competing views in an article, this is rejected—wrong-headedly, I believe—as a "synthesis of published material," and thus original research. When there is conflict, positions often harden. Rather than allowing multiple views to emerge, the "community" winds up selecting one view, or a few leading views, and calling that "the consensus."

(2) The method of reaching "consensus" has also changed; real negotiation among equals has largely disappeared, regardless of what the guidelines say. Gone is the practice of friendly negotiation toward agreement or collaborating in flat, self-managing groups, usually without administrative interference. In its place is fiat judgments made by insiders, sometimes preceded by the adversarial process of pushing the issue through a complex dispute resolution bureaucracy. The end result of this often abusive process is cynically dubbed "the consensus."

The aim of the winning side, all too often, is to exclude ideological opponents. Thus, the consensus is engineered: one side's arguments are declared by an editorial bureaucracy to fit well with an alphabet soup of acronym-laden policies, guidelines, and "essays." This determination ultimately turns on which side boasts the most senior editors and administrators. Sometimes, the true heavies are called in, who rule peremptorily, as if they were high-ranking commissars settling matters between underlings. The Wikipedians themselves now rightly mock such displays of power, but without stopping the charade.

(3) And the community has changed—perhaps saddest of all, for those who remember the early days. A truly polite, collegial atmosphere has largely disappeared. I warned Wikipedians when I left to be "open and warmly welcoming, not insular." They did not take my advice. Long gone is the sincere, friendly collegiality of people who really are committed to synthesizing diverse viewpoints into a single cohesive document. In its place is the ill-will begotten of an adversarial game in which bureaucratic types face off, calling out every minor infraction and citing acronyms at each other. No wonder friendly, decent people are so often driven away by the sheer hostility of the Wikipedia "community."

The plain fact is that Wikipedian "consensus" is no consensus at all. That is the elephant in the room. I am pointing right at it. One is hard pressed to know what precisely to call the current decision-making process. Wikipedians deserve ridicule if they continue calling it "consensus." That is an institutional fiction, and a darkly cynical one.

The Reasonable Solution

To begin, stop calling your process "consensus." At least rename it. As to what description replaces it, this is important, but I leave that to the Wikipedians.

I will also abstain from proposing a different decision-making process. Mainly I am saying is that this institutional fiction must, for the sake of honesty, be dropped. I will say this, however. Anyone who has the honesty to admit that "consensus" was an impossible fiction all along should also be able to see that there is a need for some reform in how editorial disputes are resolved. The fiction itself plays a role in the Wikipedia game: it cynically papers over what is, in fact, the raw exercise of power. Yet, since the description of the existing process as "consensus" is official policy, it might be changed only through strong leadership within the community or imposition by the Wikimedia Board.

For those Wikipedians who are willing to try to think through the difficult issues involved in fair community decision-making, let me suggest just a few possible ideas:

1. Create an open editorial committee of persons known to be uniquely identified (if not known publicly), so that there is always one person, one vote. Controversies are settled by a vote of some randomly selected subset of the committee, who can escalate important issues upward.
2. As a variant on the foregoing, weight the votes in the same way that X.com does with its "Community Notes."
3. Those who submit a dispute to some deciding agency must precisely identify the issue on which the users disagree. They must spend at least 24 hours attempting to arrive at consensus on at least what the issue is that they disagree about.

If Wikipedia neither changes its decision-making practice nor changes the description of its practice as "consensus," it is clear that their editorial process has lost all credibility. The bickering baboons of bias will continue to fight among themselves until the most powerful emerges. Oblivious to the high comedy of it all, Wikipedia's self-appointed deciders congratulate themselves on being the voice of the "consensus"—of all who think exactly as they do.

2. Enable competing articles.

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.

Note: The first four theses all concern different aspects of neutrality. This involves some repetition and expansion of analysis, because the issues involved are so central and important.

The Problem

Wikipedia was started by two libertarians devoted to openness and freedom. For us, it was a foregone conclusion that it would be pluralistic. Of course we wanted Wikipedia to represent a wide variety of views—the more, the merrier. We wanted the whole world to come together and articulate their opinions with the best sources, allowing others, holding quite different views, to do the same. We originally expected there to be a global smorgasbord of thinking recorded, reflecting widely divergent politics, nationality, religion, and more. Wikipedia was supposed to be like a big ethnic food fair. It's food (for thought) from everywhere in the world. It doesn't matter who you are—you're guaranteed to be puzzled, surprised, and delighted. Your taste buds will be tantalized, and you will inevitably enjoy yourself (barring gastrointestinal complaints). This ideal is reflected in the Wikipedia logo.

![]

The current Wikipedia logo.

But that is not how it works today.

To some extent, Wikipedia even admits this. For many years, Wikipedians have wrung their hands over their own "systemic bias." They are—and this is by their own account—too white, male, technically inclined, formally educated, English-speaking, younger, etc. Also, apparently, they have too many Christians. On their own telling, it is a terrible thing that women and people from the Global South are underrepresented in Wikipedia's ranks. But they are more right than they know.

What the authors of the "Systemic bias" page seem to overlook is the fact that articles take little or no cognizance of anyone's concepts, doctrines, theories, and so forth, except as represented by a very narrow slice of Westerners. I would describe this thin slice as globalist, academic, secular, and progressive (GASP). This is the true systemic bias of the platform.

"Perhaps," the GASP advocates might respond,

but what's wrong with that? Who better to represent the broad assortment of views on our diverse planet? 'Global' means 'not provincial'. We may be tolerant globe-trotters, but it is good not to be a bigoted rube. Academia stands for objectivity and rigor, and we have that in spades. Secularism is not biased in favor of any one religion; we carefully study and document them all. This is a good thing. As to progressivism, reality is biased in favor of progressive ideas; progressives are not biased by any outmoded old ideas. One wants an encyclopedia to be progressive.

This is precisely how many Wikipedians think. In fact, however, Wikipedia is subject to a syndrome of related biases, represented by the handy acronym GASP. Let us take each letter in turn:

• Globalism, as ordinarily understood, is the view of a remarkably provincial group: typically wealthy, university-educated, and concentrated in a few cities in Western Europe, the coastal United States, and the Anglosphere. Most people on the globe are not globalists.
• Academia, for all its virtues, reflects peculiar assumptions not shared elsewhere. In many fields, especially the humanities, there is a dominant philosophical outlook: secular, progressive, relativistic, and now often hostile to most Western traditions. Objectivity has increasingly given way to activism; the careful rigor that once defined scholarship has eroded.
• Secularism itself is hardly neutral: most people, including many of the most intelligent, are religious. This is a worldview alien to most of humanity, one that scorns all faiths or feigns a perfunctory respect in order to treat them clinically, taking their claims seriously only as objects of study.
• Progressivism, too, is not some inevitable, universal norm or default position. It is at bottom a parochial ideology of Western "elites," drilled into students at a small class of expensive institutions.

But in the Wikipedia article, we read that Yahweh

was an ancient Semitic deity of weather and war in the ancient Levant, the national god of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, and the head of the pantheon of the polytheistic Israelite religion. Although there is no clear consensus regarding the geographical origins of the deity, scholars generally hold that Yahweh was associated with Seir, Edom, Paran, and Teman, and later with Canaan. The worship of the deity reaches back to at least the early Iron Age, and likely to the late Bronze Age, if not somewhat earlier.

According to Wikipedia, Yahweh was (past tense) one god (lower case) in a whole pantheon, the chief god in a polytheistic religion. The article thus presents as uncontroversial fact a theory that is held by Bible critics. The claim that Yahweh was a tribal war god is not a neutral, historical fact, but a modern theory, rejected by many of the most deeply erudite Bible scholars around the world, Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. But to Wikipedia, the claim is treated as "neutral." The page's chief maintainers do not tolerate internal debate on the matter. But the article's stance certainly is not neutral, precisely because it deliberately ignores the majority view on the topic named by the title, a view taken by the billions worldwide who worship Yahweh. Even the views of serious scholars critical of the supposed secular "consensus" are omitted and treated with scorn.

On the talk page, one gatekeeper writes, "This article is neither about Judaism, nor Christianity. It is an article about Ancient history." And later, "The Bible isn't a valid source for evidence of authenticating history. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE ... There is no Biblical perspective upon Yahwism [i.e., the religion of the ancient Israelites of the First Temple period]." This is convenient for those who like the article in its present state; it means Wikipedians who want to add the Jewish or Christian perspectives about Yahweh are simply not welcome to work on this article, despite the fact that it is indeed the name of their God. They are instructed to proceed to articles titled "God in Judaism" and "God in Christianity." In the latter, the name "Yahweh" does not appear until some 1,400 words into the article. Hence, the view about the topic described as "Yahweh," according to the largest religious grouping of people whose God is Yahweh—the Christians—is systematically marginalized by a comparatively tiny minority of gatekeepers.

Here is a different sort of example of Wikipedia's cultural bias: "Chennai." An Indian acquaintance of mine told me that, from an Indian point of view, while it's a good article in many respects, it is strange. It dwells on topics and attractions perhaps of interest to British colonials and Western tourists, but it does not provide all the sorts of facts and analysis that a native would want. Also, the current lede and history sections are "colonial-centric."

They treat the British East India Company's arrival like an origin story, as if nothing of importance existed at the site of Chennai before that. Yet, long before the British showed up, the area was already part of major South Indian empires: Chola, Pandya, Pallava, and later, Vijayanagara. There were established settlements, temples, trade routes, and a distinct Tamil identity in the area. The current lede reads as though Chennai began with colonialism. The problem in this case, it seems to me, is not factuality but selection or emphasis. Perhaps it is true that the history of the modern, Westernized city began with the British East India Company. But from an Indian point of view, many centuries of history are glossed over.

The point is that different groups of people find different facts relevant to emphasize, even in cases when all such facts are, in some sense, "neutral." An article written exclusively by Indians, using Tamil sources, would probably look rather different and be of more use to Indians—even if it were scrupulously neutral.

Skeptics might protest: Where are these robust alternative traditions capable of supporting excellent encyclopedia articles? Any such argument, however, would evince appalling ignorance of the mere existence of independent intellectual traditions in many places in the world. China and India have truly ancient intellectual traditions and quite active practices of journalism and education; while these are influenced by Western practices, they are not merely appendages. The same may be said for Japan, Iran, and Arabic-speaking centers of culture. For the rest, there are universities and journalism all around the world. I would say there is a vast untapped demand of interest in knowing what the world looks like from their point of view—unfiltered, unpatronized, and unbowed by the opinions of snooty do-gooding Westerners. I dare say that, if given an opportunity to speak for themselves in English, we would find many capable scholars (professors and students) as well as journalists in those countries interested in developing neutral encyclopedic content that present the world anew from within their unique frameworks. If, somehow, they did not have to worry about their habits, scholarship, and reporting passing muster with the GASP crowd, they would be far more motivated to get on board. What they produce would doubtless be deeply fascinating.

In short, then, Wikipedia is written by a particular kind of person. Only by pretending that his perspective (i.e., GASP) is normative—vanilla, factual, or neutral—can such a person claim to be the "voice of the consensus" (see Thesis 1), the best judge of "reliable sources" (see Thesis 3), and the arbiter of which views are really "neutral" (see Thesis 4).

To put it more briefly: At present, Wikipedians to present their own well-managed, curated perspective on global opinion. But any opinion outside of that perspective is an unwelcome "minority or fringe view"—as global opinion usually is. They will be silenced, should they have the audacity to speak for themselves. Wikipedians will speak for them, or not, thank you very much.

Wikipedians should face up to these hard facts. It is time to record the glorious chorus of worldwide voices. I call on Wikipedia to become the global project it was meant to be, supporting the views of all of humanity—not just those of a narrow, snobbish Western "elite."

The Reasonable Solution

But if we wish to record the chorus of worldwide voices, then—how?

In the spirit of one of my old rules ("Be bold"), I submit that Wikipedia should become more open:

• Permit multiple, competing articles per topic.*

As the need arises, people who find the current article to be biased, factually incorrect, badly organized, etc., would be able to start competing articles if they wish, on an ad hoc basis. At the same time, those who wish to write articles specifically for school children, or specifically for experts, etc., would be able to do so. Such articles would be added to the main namespace as alternatives when they were rated highly enough. To develop this solution, let me share some history and then talk about implementation.

This proposal of multiple, competing articles per topic was discussed when we were planning the project that became Wikipedia. One of Jimmy Wales' partners at Bomis, the parent company of Wikipedia, was Tim Shell. Early on, Tim championed the idea of multiple articles for Nupedia, the predecessor to Wikipedia. I disagreed (I was editor-in-chief), and Jimmy backed me up; thus Nupedia and, later, Wikipedia became one-article-per-topic. Our reason was that there were not enough people involved to write many competing articles; if volunteers were competing to write articles on popular topics, they might not spend enough time on articles about the long tail of less important topics.

Now, did you catch that? Wikipedia allows only one article per topic mainly because, 25 years ago, there weren't enough writers. Obviously, that problem is long gone. Wikipedia is now the biggest reference site in the history of the world. There is no shortage of people willing to write for a sane and truly open Wikipedia. The project would be absolutely flooded with new writers if the dominant, established editors were not so difficult and did not constantly chase away and block the untrained and undesirable newbies (see Thesis 8).

Wikipedia could recruit tens or hundreds of times as many writers as it has now. All the project would have to do is to allow a diverse humanity to write diverse articles within diverse frameworks.

But, you ask, how could that possibly work? I think there are many possibilities, but, having given this some thought, I propose seven organizing principles.

(1) New articles begin life in the Draft: namespace, or, possibly, a new namespace. So, effectively, they are hidden from the public, to start, and no one need be alarmed about the inclusion of total nonsense on the website.

(2) Articles automatically move to the main namespace when they meet certain objective criteria. Wikipedians would have to hash out exactly how this would work. Here are a few ideas that might be part of the mix. Each is worth debating. (a) The article is different from existing articles by at least 25%. (b) The article should be at least one-third the length of the main namespace article (if there is any), or 2,000 words, whichever is shorter. (c) The article must receive a minimum rating score across a diverse body of human raters (see Thesis 6); or, alternatively, the article must be rated "Approved" by an agreed-upon (i.e., suitably neutral) AI rating system. (d) The article should have at least two sources. (e) There should be at least three contributors (who have made reasonably substantive edits on the articles). I personally am not wedded to any of (a)-(e). These are just ideas.

(3) The article creator determines who works on the article. Without providing any explanation, the article's first author would decide whether the article's roster of authors is (a) "by approval only," i.e., only explicitly included accounts can contribute; (b) "filtered," i.e., anyone may contribute, except those explicitly excluded from authorship; or (c) "open." The article creator would also be ultimately responsible for maintaining the lists mentioned in (a) and (b). If an article is marked as open, then it cannot later be changed to by approval only or filtered; but a more restricted article could be made open.

(4) Competing articles about the same topic are distinguished by differing frameworks. The article originator must explicitly declare a framework, a summary form of which will be placed at the top of each article that follows it. This is a particular combination of (a) audience, together with broad national and/or other intellectual tradition(s); (b) acceptable and unacceptable sources; and (c) "Overton window," i.e., which opinions, broadly speaking, are viewed as being "within the range of respectability." While all articles will be expected to be neutral within their framework, they will inevitably differ in what range of views are treated (see Thesis 3). Anyone may invent a new framework, and there is no need to have just one article per framework or to create a bunch of editorial committees.

Example frameworks are given in the following table:

Audience and Tradition	Sources	Overton window
Status quo framework General educated audience; Anglo-American academic tradition and mainstream media.	See "Perennial Sources" (on which, see Thesis 3). Primary sources are frowned upon, secondary sources preferred.	Determined by reporting and research that is globalist, academic, secular, and progressive. All else is omitted or else explicitly labeled "fringe," "minority," or "false."
Strict neutrality framework General educated audience; an ideally global tradition, or with no particular tradition; designed to minimize bias across all cultural, ideological, and academic divides.	All high-quality sources, primary and secondary, are encouraged, regardless of ideological orientation, national origin, language, etc.	Views are included if they are significant in any major tradition or population; minority views are represented proportionally and not judgmentally labeled. "Report the controversy." No special deference is paid to Establishment views.
Continental philosophy framework Aimed at a generally educated readership, particularly suitable for scholars of philosophy and critical theory; grounded in the traditions of German and French (Continental) critical thought.	Only academic sources are used, with preference given to primary texts.	The focus is on positions and themes currently under active discussion within the Continental tradition, the history of philosophy, and critical theory, while also taking analytic perspectives into account where relevant.
K-12 American school framework Middle school level; typical U.S. school texts and standards.	Primary sources, but only if accessible, and secondary sources acceptable; footnotes encouraged if useful for student research.	Mainstream history, geography, current events, etc., as reflected in textbooks and age-appropriate library books.
Unbiased American politics General audience. Old-fashioned middle-of-the-road mainstream reportage.	Both left (e.g., New York Times), right (e.g., Fox News), and the more serious alternative sources (e.g., The Federalist, Jacobin) all acceptable. Primary sources preferred but news articles are fine.	While true extremes are eschewed, if large segments of the Democratic or Republican party are discussing a view, it is fair game. Libertarian, Green, American, and other third-party views are also fair game.
Catholicism General educated audience, especially for use of catechumens. Roman Catholic tradition.	Primary Catholic sources preferred, but on general topics, a wide variety of generally academic sources are quite acceptable.	Both conservative and liberal wings of Catholicism are respected and must be fairly represented.
Reformed and evangelical General educated audience, for pastors and laity alike. Focus on, but not exclusively, the Reformed tradition.	On theological topics, Reformed and other classic Protestant authors are best, but on other topics, a wide variety of (primary and secondary) sources are encouraged.	On theological topics, the broad range of Christian discourse is fair game, but Protestant and especially evangelical Reformed views are central. All must be treated fairly.
French For a generally educated audience, written in English but following modern French intellectual traditions.	See Sources fiables. These articles do not rely on a "Perennial sources"-style blacklist; instead, they make a point of carefully attributing controversial views to their proponents.	Though written in English and intended to maintain strict neutrality, these articles reflect a distinctly French style of approach. Translations from French Wikipedia may serve as a natural starting point.
Sunni Educated Muslim audience, especially those familiar with classical Sunni thought; reflects the Ashʿarī theological and Shāfiʿī legal traditions; suitable for students of traditional Islamic theology and law.	Relies on the Qur'an, canonical Hadith, and classical works by Ashʿarī and Shāfiʿī scholars (e.g., al-Ghazālī, al-Nawawī); preference for primary texts and commentaries within orthodox bounds; other sources as appropriate.	Covers mainstream Ashʿarī and Shāfiʿī positions; critiques literalism and Salafī views as external; modernist or rationalist views included neutrally (as required by general Wikipedia policy), but only for contrast or clarification.
Modern Chinese framework General audience within the context of contemporary Chinese public discourse; shaped by official state ideology and cultural continuity.	Official state publications, academically approved materials, and classical Chinese texts interpreted through a modern lens; other sources as appropriate.	Traditional Chinese values and Marxist-nationalist synthesis emphasized; liberal democratic and Western critiques treated as foreign or peripheral.