Larry Sanger

[[File:L Sanger.jpg|right|165px|thumb|Sanger in 2006]]
{{internet}}
{{bronze}}
{{cquote|There is a massive irony in the fact that Wikipedia is so extremely biased: it was started by someone who cares unusually deeply about neutrality (me), who developed and defended its neutrality policy at great length. Man makes plans, and [[God]] laughs.|||Sanger in 2020<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200903203329/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1301619256778526721 There is a massive irony in the fact that Wikipedia is so extremely biased: it was started by someone who cares unusually deeply about neutrality (me), who developed and defended its neutrality policy at great length. Man makes plans, and God laughs.] by Larry Sanger (1:33 PM - 3 Sep 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 3, 2020).</ref>}}
'''Lawrence "Larry" Mark Sanger''' {{lived|1968}} is an [[American]] philosopher and the cofounder of [[Wikipedia]]; he left the project in 2002. Since then, he has mostly received attention for two reasons: criticizing Wikipedia and creating multiple failed WikiProjects attempting to fix his criticisms. His [[concern trolling]] and arguments on why Wikipedia is biased have been covered by [[far-right]] media outlets,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210705220137/https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wikipedia-more-one-sided-ever-writes-disaffected-co-founder-larry-sanger "'Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever' Writes Disaffected Co-Founder Larry Sanger"] by "Tyler Durden", ZeroHedge, 2021 July 5 (archived from July 5, 2021)</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210221075218/https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9283061/Wikipedia-founder-Larry-Sanger-slams-sites-leftist-bias-claims-neutrality-gone.html "Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger slams the site's left wing 'woke' bias and claims its days of 'neutrality are long gone'"] by Adam Schrader, Daily Mail, 2021 February 21, archived on February 21, 2021)</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210716154720/https://www.opindia.com/2021/07/nobody-should-trust-wikipedia-warns-its-co-founder-larry-sanger/ ‘Nobody should trust Wikipedia’, warns its co-founder Larry Sanger, says the site is taken over by leftists who reject content that doesn’t fit their agenda] (16 July, 2021) ''OpIndia'' (archived from July 16, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200305162418/https://twitter.com/sudeepj21/status/1235587993588518912 Please help voiceless Hindus Larry! We will be forever grateful! The smears, the outright lies, the anti Hindu propaganda is rife through all wiki pages on India! Our histories and our present is being erased before our eyes! Help us! We will be forever grateful!] by sudeepj2 (7:28 AM - 5 Mar 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from March 5, 2020).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210719045740/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1416985547554410496 Sharing because I promised I would. What do you Westerners reckon? Or should we stay out of such things?] by Larry Sanger (9:57 PM - 18 Jul 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 19, 2021).</ref> and have provided cover for [[cranks]] and advocates of [[pseudoscience]], ranging from [[intelligent design]]<ref>[https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-wikipedia-entry-on-intelligent-design-appallingly-biased/ ''Wikipedia'' Co-Founder Blasts “Appallingly Biased” ''Wikipedia'' Entry on Intelligent Design] by David Klinghoffer (December 12, 2017, 1:00 PM) ''Evolution News''.</ref> to [[climate denial|climate change denial]].<ref name=awg>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200307222451/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1236375369537794049 1/ Some 15 years ago, Wikipedia's global warming/climate change articles were neutral on the issue of AWG, as their policy requires. Today they are extremely biased. Now they go further even to delete lists of climate apostates.] by Larry Sanger (11:37 AM - 7 Mar 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from March 7, 2020).</ref> Sanger is a [[Balance fallacy|balance extremist]], though he does draw the line against giving equal time to some "whacked-out [[conspiracy theory|conspiracies]]" like [[flat Earth]].<ref name=conspiracies>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200417054652/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1250806794143883266 I'll pass. I have zero interest in investigating flat Earth stuff. There are plausible conspiracies, and then there are whacked-out conspiracies that are pure crazy speculation with no good evidence behind them, that it requires suspending all rationality to take seriously.] by Larry Sanger (8:22 AM - 16 Apr 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from April 17, 2020).</ref> As to which conspiracy theories Sanger regards as "whacked-out", he relies on either "no good evidence"<ref name=conspiracies/> (''not'' for example refuted evidence), "morally or epistemologically bankrupt" ideas,<ref name=ballotpedia/> or ''[[argumentum ad populum]]''.{{efn|"But if what you write is going to be neutral with respect to current American society, you will have to withhold any such forthright claim. Rather, you’ll report that while a very large majority of doctors and scientists strongly advise vaccination, something like 9% of the population thinks that the measles vaccine is unsafe. You will not take or project any stand one way or another, although, to be fair to the vast majority of the public in favor of measles vaccination, in some kinds of articles you might spend only about 9% of the article on the anti-vaccination position."<ref name=ballotpedia/>}} Problematically, these three criteria are arbitrary and can conflict with each other.

Sanger was also a consultant for [[Ballotpedia]],<ref name=ballotpedia/> where he allowed for Ballotpedia to call him a neutrality expert,<ref>[https://ballotpedia.org/The_Ballotpedia_Podcast The Ballotpedia Podcast: Episode 5]</ref> though he has not written any [[Peer review|peer-reviewed]] publications on the subject.<ref>{{wpa|Larry Sanger#Selected writings}}</ref>

==Neutrality==
{{main|Neutral point of view}}
Sanger was an early consultant for Ballotpedia<ref name=neutrality>[https://ballotpedia.org/Why_Neutrality Why Neutrality?] by Larry Sanger (December 30, 2015) ''Ballotpedia''.</ref> since leaving the leadership of Wikipedia in 2002, and he has become critical of Wikipedia not hewing to a strictly neutral point of view (NPOV).<ref>[https://150sec.com/wikipedia-is-a-broken-system-says-co-founder-larry-sanger/11453/ “Wikipedia is a broken system,” says co-founder Larry Sanger] by Sophie Foggin (May 23, 2019) ''150 Sec''.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210218192249/https://www.foxnews.com/politics/wikipedia-bias-socialism-pages-whitewashed Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried: "The days of Wikipedia's robust commitment to neutrality are long gone," co-founder Larry Sanger said.] by Maxim Lott (February 18, 2021) ''Fox News'' (archived from February 18, 2021).</ref> Sanger wrote a 2015 essay on NPOV for Ballotpedia, which presumably also explains Ballotpedia's position on NPOV.<ref name=neutrality/> Although Sanger acknowledges the existence of "false balance" ([[balance fallacy]]), his example of NPOV for global warming is rather skewed away from adequately acknowledging the balance fallacy:
{{quotebox|A majority of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW); exactly which scientists to include as “experts,” and thus which surveys to consider and what percentage endorse it, is a matter of debate. In any case, while there are some distinguished climate [[science]] experts who are skeptics [of AGW], a decided majority are not.<ref name=neutrality/>}}
Sanger wrote this in 2015, but by 2004 it was already the case that there was scientific [[Scientific consensus|consensus]]<ref>[https://www.science.org/doi/epdf/10.1126/science.1103618 The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change] by Naomi Oreskes (2004) ''Science'' 306:1686. doi:10.1126/science.1103618.</ref> and by 2010, it had reached 97-98% agreement among climate scientists that climate change was real and anthropogenic.<ref>[https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 Expert credibility in climate change] by William R. L. Anderegg et al. (2010) ''Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences''  107(27):12107–12109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1003187107.</ref> and has since risen to >99%.<ref>[https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966 Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature] by Mark Lynas et al. (2021) ''Environmental Research Letters 16(11):1-7. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.</ref>  Sanger was arguing that there was still a debate on the reality of climate change in 2015, when there wasn't one at all, i.e., the balance fallacy. Arguably, Sanger and subsequently Ballotpedia are NPOV [[extremist]]s.

Later in the essay, Sanger argued along the lines of supporting the ''[[argumentum ad populum]]'' fallacy [[MMR vaccine|measles vaccination]], thereby giving his support to the [[antivax]] [[bullshit]] of the (discredited) [[Andrew Wakefield]]:
{{quotebox|For example, suppose in a piece of writing, you discuss the [[MMR vaccine controversy|measles vaccination controversy]]. If you’re going to write in accordance with the canons of science (and also [[rationality]] and objectivity, no doubt), then in my opinion, you will support the view that children should be vaccinated, period. But if what you write is going to be neutral with respect to current American society, you will have to withhold any such forthright claim. Rather, you’ll report that while a very large majority of doctors and scientists strongly advise vaccination, something like 9% of the population thinks that the measles vaccine is unsafe.<ref name=neutrality/>}}
Sanger does not even acknowledge that the [[Centers for Disease Control]] says that the MMR vaccine is extremely safe and effective,<ref>[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/mmr-vaccine.html Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) Vaccine] (Page last reviewed: September 9, 2020, 12:00 AM) ''Centers for Disease Control''.</ref> or that deaths in the US from measles dropped from 503,282 pre-vaccine availability to 89 post-vaccine availability.<ref>[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/epidemics-infectious-disease-polio-flu-vaccine-aftermath-race Epidemics have happened before and they’ll happen again. What will we remember? A look back at past epidemics reveals progress in research and medicine as well as reminders of what still needs changing] by Aimee Cunningham (October 27, 2021 at 12:00 pm) ''Science News''.</ref>

Neutrality is all well and good when dealing with easily verified facts, such as who and what is on an election ballot, what responses a candidate for office has given on issues, etc. However, once one starts getting into more complex issues such as science, [[medicine]] or general [[politics]], neutrality becomes fraught with the [[balance fallacy]] (giving equal weight to [[Point refuted a thousand times|refuted]] or [[crank]] ideas), and ''[[argumentum ad populum]]''.

==Nuttery==
{{cquote|[[Liberal bias|Reality has a well-known liberal bias.]]|||[[Stephen Colbert]]<ref>[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/04/30/206303/-Re-Improved-Colbert-transcript-now-with-complete-text-of-Colbert-Thomas-video Re-Improved Colbert transcript (now with complete text of Colbert-Thomas video!)], ''Daily Kos'', 30 April 2006</ref>}}
[[Ironically]] for someone having criticising Wikipedia for its lack of credibility and expertise in the past, Sanger serves as a very good case study of [[conservative]] [[crank magnetism]].

{{rquote|right|A disputed topic is treated neutrally if each viewpoint about it is not asserted but rather presented (1) [[Balance fallacy|as sympathetically as possible, bearing in mind that other, competing views must be represented as well, and (2) with an equitable amount of space being allotted to each, whatever that might be.]]|Larry Sanger<ref name=ballotpedia>[https://ballotpedia.org/Why_Neutrality Why Neutrality?] by Larry Sanger (December 30, 2015) ''Ballotpedia''.</ref>}}
What Sanger consistently fails to understand in each of his "criticisms"<ref name=wikibiased>[https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/ Wikipedia Is Badly Biased] by Larry Sanger (May 14, 2020).</ref><ref name=wikionesided>[https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever]</ref> (which would never have been taken seriously even if it weren't his status as cofounder) is that neutrality is not about giving equal weight to every fringe opinion and viewpoint. It means to state the complete relevant information without [[bias]]. What even is the opposite viewpoint to the facts? Lies? It is literally impossible to entertain all possible viewpoints on an issue all at once, since not everything can be neatly categorised as a "left" vs "right" debate.

Note the fact that {{wpl|neutrality}} is only one part of {{wpl|Wikipedia:Core content policies|Wikipedia’s core policies}}; the others being "{{wpl|WP:V|verifiability}}" and "{{wpl|WP:OR|no new research}}"; meaning you can not present unverifiable information for which reliable sources do not exist. This makes it almost impossible to sneak topics like [[global warming]] [[denialism]], [[anti-vaccination]], [[Flat Earth|flat-eartherism]], [[Holocaust denial]] etc. onto Wikipedia pages.

===Conservatism===
{{main|Liberal media}}
{{cquote|The Left: We hate the 1%!<br/>Also the Left: We love [[Soros]], and [[Bill Gates]], and the lovely [[globalist]] organizations various 1%ers fund, and we want to do everything they say, because they represent [[social justice]] and science.|||Just another normal Larry Sanger tweet.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200902021523/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1300980371312578561 The Left: We hate the 1%! Also the Left: We love Soros, and Bill Gates, and the lovely globalist organizations various 1%ers fund, and we want to do everything they say, because they represent social justice and science.] by Larry Sanger (7:14 PM - 1 Sep 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 2, 2020).</ref>}}

He believes that the [[Democrats]] are actually [[left-wing]] parties and openly support [[socialism]],<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200909150928/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1303711995082891272 ? It’s perfectly obvious that the Democrats have moved far left, particularly in the last few years, embracing leftist things like socialism, openly, and political violence. No, it’s the same goddamned people. They hate the 1% in the abstract...and love everything they stand for] by Larry Sanger (8:08 AM - 9 Sep 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 9, 2020).</ref> basically straight-up admitting he has no idea what socialism actually is, just like your average conservative.

He thinks that the global cooperation in making the [[COVID-19]] vaccine is evidence of a [[deep state]] that secretly controls the world.<ref name=sangerconspiracy>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200816202751/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1295094890062323715 1/ If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might think the ongoing lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, despite almost-zero deaths, is due to a desire to demonstrate to the world how international elites can fraudulently call the shots in defiance of facts and science.] by Larry Sanger (1:27 PM - 16 Aug 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 16, 2020).</ref>

[[File:Comics About Reliable Sources English 1.png|right|300px|thumb|While the claim about apples causing [[cancer]] may be true, since the source is hardly reliable, this can't be said for certain unless a more reliable source can be found.]]
He finds the absence of conservative news outlets on Wikipedia very concerning, stating:<ref name=wikionesided/>
{{quotebox|A lot of mainstream news stories are broken only in [[Fox News]], the ''[[Daily Mail]]'', and the ''[[New York Post]]''—all of which are banned from use as sources by Wikipedia. Beyond that, many mainstream sources of [[conservative]], [[libertarian]], or [[Crank|contrarian]] opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including [redacted], ''The Federalist'', and the ''[[Daily Caller]]''. Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly “radical”; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no “reliable sources” available to report about them.|||Sanger<ref>[https://larrysanger.org/2021/06/wikipedia-is-more-one-sided-than-ever/ Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever] by Larry Sanger (June 30, 2021).</ref>}}
Yes, Wikipedia does ban certain websites from being used as a source. However, this is not because of their biases. Wikipedia also bans certain leftist news sources, such as Occupy Democrats. (Also, out of the six sources Sanger mentions, only the ''Daily Mail'' and ''The Daily Caller'' are actually "banned" on Wikipedia.) Wikipedia does this because all of those "news" sites simply ''kept [[PIDOOMA|making shit up]], over and over again'', and it was made abundantly clear that they were not driven by the need to inform but to mislead. While they may be right in certain aspects is not the point because they simply can’t be trusted to be reliable at all.

===Obamagate===
{{main|Barack Obama}}
Sanger describes Barack Obama as "Wikipedia’s favorite president," indicating the fact that his article fails to mention some of his "well-known scandals."<ref name=wikibiased/> Of course, if this were the case with every article, most articles about companies would host a lengthy section detailing each of their unethical practices on their same page. Leaving aside the veracity of the allegations, Wikipedia does host detailed articles on each of the "scams" mentioned by Sanger, Specifically…
*{{wpl|Obamagate}}
*The [[2012 Benghazi attack]]<ref>{{wpa|2012 Benghazi attack}}</ref>
*IRS targeting controversy<ref>{{wpa|IRS targeting controversy}}</ref>
*Solyndra<ref>{{wpa|Solyndra}}</ref>
*[[Hillary Clinton]] email controversy<ref>{{wpa|Hillary Clinton email controversy}}</ref>
*and categorises a variety more controversies.<ref>{{wpa|Category:Obama administration controversies}}</ref>

The 2012 Benghazi attack is actually mentioned in the main Obama article, specifically in the infoboxes and the section on the [[Libya]] intervention. 

The fact that Sanger thinks that Obamagate, a [[conspiracy theory]], should be mentioned in his article shows how deep he has fallen.

===Trump===
{{main|Donald Trump}}
Sanger believes the Wikipedia page on Donald Trump is heavily biased against him; pointing out the frequent use of the words "false" and "falsely" in the article, stating: "Wikipedia frequently asserts… that many of [[Rhetoric of Donald Trump|Trump’s statements are “false.”]] Well, perhaps they are. But even if they are, it is not exactly neutral for an encyclopedia article to say so…"<ref name=wikibiased/> Once again, he fails to understand Wikipedia's {{wpl|WP:NPOV|NPOV policy|;}} stating objective truth about a persona is not an indication of bias. In fact, rejection of basic facts and instead replacing it with a more "neutral"-sounding "some people believe…" would be a better indication of bias. Sanger voted for Trump in 2020<ref>[https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1323414686214332427 "Looking forward to voting for Donald Trump tomorrow."], Twitter, 3 November 2020</ref> and again in 2024.<ref>[https://x.com/lsanger/status/1852571243276644643 "I (a) am voting for Trump..."], X (Twitter), 2 November 2024</ref> Nonetheless, Sanger was displeased with Trump for his supposed vaccine pushing.<ref name=trumpvaccine>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211023140416/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1451888562367045637 Not gonna lie—Trump, still the self-described “Father of the Vaccine,” pisses me off in his intransigent vaxx-pushing.] by Larry Sanger (5:29 AM - 23 Oct 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from October 23, 2021).</ref>

===QAnon===
{{main|QAnon}}
Sanger has had frequent flirtations with the alt-right conspiracy theory QAnon; having retweeted tweets from QAnon accounts,<ref>[https://archive.md/EFcgH @lsanger] by Larry Sanger, ''Twitter'' (archived from 28 Jun 2020 15:46:31 UTC).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200908151155/https://twitter.com/99freemind/status/1303348804385726464 Former Wikipedia Insider (co-creator) has written a book on its downfall in context of the wider decline of access to factual information. Looks interesting! More details below. #GreatAwakeningWorldwide] by @99freemind (8:05 AM - 8 Sep 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from Septmeber 8, 2020).</ref> defending QAnon a few times,<ref name=christianityqanon>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200827191225/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1299062135100706817 I saw a Christianity Today column attacking Qanon: https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/august-web-only/qanon-is-wolf-in-wolfs-clothing.html … I’m open to the idea (given evidence) that Qanon is itself seriously wrong, but this article gives no such evidence. This guy’s video takedown also exhibits no comprehension of Q: https://youtu.be/Esx2CH5tkxE] by Larry Sanger (12:12 PM - 27 Aug 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 27, 2020).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200611183241/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1158947207174873094 In other Internet censorship news, let’s talk #Qanon: Did you know that when Cloudflare deplatformed 8chan (you should know about it because it’s important news https://heavy.com/news/2019/08/cloudflare-shutdown-8chan-new-host-bitmitigate/ …) they also deplatformed the only medium by which #Qanon communicates with the general public?] by Larry Sanger, ''Twitter'' (archived from 6 Aug 2019 8:45 PM UTC).</ref> and repeating false QAnon statements.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200803232008/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1290425996525658115 You know, the evidence that #BillClintonIsAPedo is outrageously strong at this point. Yes, I’m jumping on the bandwagon. You should too. And that’s one of the main reasons to think we don’t have an honest media class anymore. If we had one, this would be all over the news.] by Larry Sanger (4:15 PM - 3 Aug 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 3, 2020).</ref> More than 50% of his followers believe QAnon is true, according to a twitter poll done by Sanger.<ref>[https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1158947259737878528 So...what do you think?] by Larry Sanger (9:15 am - 7 Aug 2019) ''Twitter''</ref>

He criticised a ''Christianity Today'' article that attacked QAnon by saying that the article gives "no such evidence" as to why QAnon is wrong.<ref name=christianityqanon/> As the article he criticised itself states: "…here’s the genius of QAnon: For those already convinced, it’s [[unfalsifiable]]."<ref>[https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2020/august-web-only/qanon-is-wolf-in-wolfs-clothing.html QAnon Is a Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing: There’s nothing sheepish about this insidious internet demon.] by Bonnie Kristian (August 26, 2020) ''Christianity Today''.</ref>

Although he says that he is “not… a big Qanon supporter”<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200723050602/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1285907887768965120 All, if I happen to be caught up in this purge—not that I’m a big Qanon supporter, but I’m interested and I’m friends with many who are—then go to http://LarrySanger.org  for future updates from me.] by Larry Sanger (5:01 AM - 22 Jul 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 23, 2020).</ref> and that he is “open to the idea (given evidence) that Qanon is itself seriously wrong”.<ref name=christianityqanon/>

===Pro-life===
{{main|Pro-life}}
Sanger thinks that the Wikipedia article on [[abortion]] is written with a "left-liberal point of view," stating:<ref name=wikibiased/>
{{quotebox|No conservative would write, in an abortion article, “When properly done, abortion is one of the safest procedures in medicine,” a claim that is questionable on its face, considering what an invasive, psychologically distressing, and sometimes lengthy procedure it can be even when done according to modern medical practices.}}
[[Stopped clock|In this case]], Sanger is absolutely correct; conservatives would obviously never inform about the medical consensus on the safety of abortion. Sanger then performs a ''[[non sequitur]]'' while ignoring how not getting an abortion would be even more psychologically taxing and lengthy.

===Queerphobia===
{{main|1=Homophobia|3=Transphobia}}
Sanger is upset that the Wikipedia article on [[LGBTQ]] adoption doesn't list all the reasons why homophobes think it is a bad idea.<ref name=wikibiased/> This is not surprising for a person with a history of transphobic and homophobic tweets.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1390036551158190082 I'll bet they won't have any problem with this wedding dance.] by Larry Sanger (1:11 PM - 5 May 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from May 5, 2021).</ref>

Sanger believes that trans people have a "mental problem" and repeats the famous and beaten-to-death "[[Ben Shapiro#Transphobia|Facts don't care about your feelings]]" argument saying people changing their pronouns "willy-nilly based on "how they feel inside" is "one of the cringiest pop culture fads ever" and says that it is "just an attempt to control others and force them to play a frankly pathological game with you".<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211203214422/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1466884724761276425 I would never, ever, ever subject a child to this sort of insanity, which is frankly exactly what this is. People changing their pronouns willy-nilly based on "how they feel inside" is a fad. It will be looked back on as one of the cringiest pop culture fads ever.] by Larry Sanger (1:39 PM - 3 Dec 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from December 3, 2021).</ref>

He has spread false statements about [[trans]] activists being [[closet]] [[pedophile]]s and being after your children while sourcing a Reddit post as evidence.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211116173655/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1460659373043294213 So is this the poison pushed on trans kids—stories that encourage six-year-olds to think oral sex is normal? 🤢🤢🤮 Do you have no filters, @susankuklin? Is that what you want kids to believe and act on?] by Larry Sanger (9:21 AM - 16 Nov 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 16, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211117000858/https://www.reddit.com/r/quityourbullshit/comments/qvm0f7/op_calls_an_author_a_pedo_hundreds_blindly/ OP calls an author a pedo. Hundreds blindly believe it and spout transphobia.] (November 17, 2021) ''Reddit'' (archived from November 17, 2021).</ref> He [[Argumentum ad nauseam|frequently]] and [[False equivalence|fallaciously equates]] [[children]] having [[Gender dysphoria|self-determination]] to them being [[rape]]d,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210320165636/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1373317495617171458 If you allow a child to determine whether he or she "transitions" without parental consent, it is a very, very small step to allowing the child to determine whether he or she will have sexual relations with adults. What's the moral difference?] by Larry Sanger (9:56 AM - 20 Mar 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from March 20, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210226164158/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1365341271389327363 No. If you say children have the right (independent of their parents) to decide to do something as devastating as a procedure and treatment that might sterilize them and commit them to a lifelong condition, then why don't they have the right to "consent" to sex with adults?] by Larry Sanger (8.41 - 26. helmik. 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from February 26, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210702152609/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1410983084732866561 If they can do that, why can't they declare that they love adults? "Consent?" Sure they can consent. Who are you to say they don't love who they love? Love is love! (That's a "MAP" catchphrase too.) (I hope it's clear that this is all tongue in cheek.)] by Larry Sanger (8:25 AM - 2 Jul 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from July 2, 2021).</ref> implying that [[Slippery slope|any amount of freedom given to children will eventually lead to pedophilia and bestiality]].

===Christian fundamentalism===
{{main|Christian fundamentalism}}
In his essay, Sanger produces a laughably poor argument as to why Wikipedia is biased:<ref name=wikibiased/>
{{quotebox|What about articles on religious topics? The first article I thought to look at had some pretty egregious instances of bias: the [[Jesus]] article. It simply asserts, again in its own voice, that “the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded major uncertainty on the historical reliability of the [[Gospels]] and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the [[Bible]] reflects the historical Jesus.” In another place, the article simply asserts, “the gospels are not independent nor consistent records of Jesus’ life.” A great many [[Christians]] would take issue with such statements, which means they are not neutral for that reason alone.}}
Suddenly, the [[Ben Shapiro#Transphobia|facts don’t care about your feelings]] crowd is very concerned about the feelings of Christians who may feel disheartened after knowing that [[Santa]] wasn’t real 😢.

Of course, some Christians believe that the [[Biblical literalism|Gospels are reliable]]. However, people who aren’t Christian (which happens to be around 70% of the entire global population)<ref>{{wpa||List of religious populations}}</ref> do not believe so. Hence describing their reliability as uncertain is correct.

In February 2025, Sanger posted a hefty essay on his site explaining how he became a Christian.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-02-05 |title=How a Skeptical Philosopher Becomes a Christian – LarrySanger.org |url=https://larrysanger.org/2025/02/how-a-skeptical-philosopher-becomes-a-christian/ |access-date=2025-03-05 |language=en-US}}</ref>

===White genocide/Christophobia===
{{main|1=White genocide|3=Christophobia}}
{{cquote|What if we discover people we assumed were [[tolerant]] liberals are in fact repressive [[authoritarian]]s who harbor murderous hatred for Bible-believing Christians, who sincerely believe that such people are the source of all the ills of society—and are ready to take drastic action?|||Sanger.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20201125030109/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1331430100110290949 What if we discover people we assumed were tolerant liberals are in fact repressive authoritarians who harbor murderous hatred for Bible-believing Christians, who sincerely believe that such people are the source of all the ills of society—and are ready to take drastic action?] by Larry Sanger (18:50 - 24. Nov. 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 25, 2020).</ref>}}

===Global warming denialism===
{{main|Global warming}}
[[File:FalseBalance.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The [[balance fallacy]] in a nutshell.]]
In his essay, Larry grossly misinterprets what [[Scientific consensus#Misunderstanding|scientific consensus]] is about:<ref name=wikibiased/>
{{quotebox|It may seem more problematic to speak of the bias of scientific articles, because many people do not want to see “unscientific” views covered in encyclopedia articles. If such articles are “biased in favor of science,” some people naturally find that to be a feature, not a bug. The problem, though, is that scientists sometimes do not agree on which theories are and are not scientific. This point is perfectly obvious to anyone who actually follows any lively scientific debate at all closely. On such issues, the “scientific point of view” and the “objective point of view” according to the Establishment might be very much opposed to neutrality. So when certain people seem unified on a certain view of a scientific controversy, then that is the view that is taken for granted as the Establishment one, and often aggressively asserted, by Wikipedia.

The global warming and [[MMR vaccine]] articles are examples; I hardly need to dive into these pages, since it is quite enough to say that they endorse definite positions that scientific minorities reject.|||Sanger<ref name=wikibiased/>}}
This is false because citing scientific consensus is not the same as using [[argument from authority]]. If more than a hundred people say it is raining outside, but one says it’s not, an editor shouldn’t state both so that the reader can make up their mind , or pretend that there is some debate going on between the two when there isn’t.

Similarly, there is no debate between scientists as to whether global warming is real or not, or whether vaccines work or not. [[Pseudoscientist]]s aren’t "scientific minorities"; a [[Woo|snake oil]] peddler shouldn’t be receiving the same amount of credibility as actual scientists. Entertaining [[fringe]] views of a sensitive issue like vaccination would not only be most likely factually incorrect, but also risk endangering lives. All this in the name of "neutrality" and representing "scientific minority viewpoints"…

When Wikipedia deleted its page on {{wpl|Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming|"List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming"|,}} Sanger unsurprisingly jumped to call the action "indefensible" and "extremely biased".<ref name=awg/> He once again fails to understand Wikipedia policies, and he also makes clear he didn't actually read the discussion about the deletion of the article. An article is never deleted because it violates the {{wpl|WP:NPOV|NPOV}} policy, as Larry assumes. Articles that violate NPOV are not deleted but rewritten from scratch. The only articles that are deleted are which do not meet {{wpl|WP:N|notability}} guidelines. Specifically, the article was deleted for failing the {{wpl|WP:LISTN|Wikipedia LISTN}} criteria. Another problem with the article was that the list didn't include ''just'' climate scientists, but a mish-mash of random people who had no credentials on climate science. Of course, there is no article titled "List of scientists who agree with the consensus on global warming" because that would just be extremely long.

Sanger also denies global warming's effect on the planet<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210927141625/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1442493059812446208 Interesting how the left pulls out all the stops to fight a disease with a 99.5+% survivability rate, and a global warming disaster which has yet to appear, but not sky-high murder and addiction rates among their core constituencies.] by Larry Sanger (7:15 AM - 27 Sep 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 27, 2021).</ref> and calls global warming a "manufactured crisis" and a leftist "boogeyman" manufactured by "globalists".<ref name=manufacturedcrisis>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200830235503/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1300220375222157315 I think the globalists expect us to come together against the manufactured crises of the virus, the boogeyman of racism, and global warming. Little did they know that, yes, the "crises" will bring us together...against them.] by Larry Sanger (4:54 PM - 30 Aug 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 30, 2020).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211207111127/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1386056966892568578 From the News-of-the-Insane Dept.: Biden’s climate plan would allegedly limit American per capital{{sic}} consumption of beef to 4 pounds per year, I.e., a bit over 5 oz. per month. This is what fascism looks like] by Larry Sanger (8:38 PM · Apr 24, 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from December 7, 2021).</ref>

===Anti-vaccine===
{{main|Anti-vaccination movement}}
As seen above, Sanger also happens to be a bit of an anti-vaxxer,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200519165505/https://twitter.com/wikigamaliel/status/1262785109666729987 Hi @WHO and others: If any future Covid-19 vaccine is made mandatory in the U.S., I will not take it for that reason alone, as a n act of civil disobedience. Just don't try it. I will also go out of my way to protest in meatspace, which is something I almost never do.] by Larry Sanger (10:08 PM • May 18, 2020) ''Twitter'', reposted by @wikigamaliel at 9:40 AM - 19 May 2020 (archived from May 19, 2020).</ref> even criticising [[Donald Trump]] for promoting the vaccine.<ref name=trumpvaccine/>

Sanger's views on vaccines are peculiarly ''im''balanced, alternately [[fearmongering]] about vaccines,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211202034021/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1466195975576424451 Just because the current totalitarianism doesn’t precisely resemble a previous variety, it hardly follows that it isn’t every bit as much totalitarianism. Depending on how damaging the vaccines and lockdowns and social turmoil turns out, this could be far more fatal than WWII.] by Larry Sanger (4:02 PM - 1 Dec 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from December 2, 2021).</ref> and threatening to block anyone who tweets him promoting vaccine mandates.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211020202738/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1450917904271220745 I enthusiastically instablock the following categories of Twitter accounts: - defenders of vaccine mandates - leftist ideologues and drones - Satanists and some other occultists - particularly annoying crypto shills - racists - leftists LARPing as conservative racists] by Larry Sanger (1:12 PM - 20 Oct 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from October 2020, 2021).</ref>

===Alternative medicine promotion===
{{main|Alternative medicine}}
In his essay, Sanger complains:<ref name=wikibiased/>
{{quotebox|Wikipedia treats various topics in alternative medicine—often dismissively, and frequently labeled as “pseudoscience” in Wikipedia’s own voice. Indeed, Wikipedia defines the very term as follows: “Alternative medicine describes any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective.”}}
Sanger fails to explain how this definition is wrong or biased in any way. In fact, it describes alternative medicine quite aptly; for if it were tested and proven effective, it wouldn’t be alternative, just medicine.

===Anti-mask===
{{main|Face mask}}
Sanger is an anti-masker,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200814140247/https://twitter.com/wikigamaliel/status/1294272968789561345 I agree with this much: wearing a mask these days is a not just a badge of conformity, it is damaging our chances of getting through this year with our freedom in tact. In other words, the masked are acting like collaborators of our future overlords. If you can, don't do it.] by Larry Sanger (August 2020) ''Twitter'', reposted by @wikigamaliel at 7:01 AM - 14 Aug 2020 (archived from August 14, 2020).</ref> saying that it has more “potential harm” than their value<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20200705035530/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1279621105813200896</ref> and was incredibly distressed and felt “miserable”<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20200705035304/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1279621104924012544</ref> when was asked to wear a mask at a bookstore, calling it a “totalitarian dystopia”.<ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20200705035127/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1279623262495014912</ref> Sanger's anti-mask [[rhetoric]] has even verged into [[paranoid]] fantasies, "What happens when crazy people start hunting down the unmasked unvaxxed?"<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210514134451/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1393200441203339267 What happens when crazy people start hunting down the unmasked unvaxxed? “Better start wearing a mask...or else!”] by Larry Sanger (6:44 AM - 14 May 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from May 14, 2021).</ref>

===Coronavirus downplay===
{{main|COVID-19 denialism}}
Sanger has downplayed coronavirus in the past.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200519182114/https://twitter.com/thewikipedian/status/1262810236055945216 - virus deaths greatly inflated - lockdown length associated with deat - any higher rates due to old folks alone - lockdowns caused excess deaths due to other causes - no scientific basis for "social distancing" We've been had, folks. Now ask why.] by Larry Sanger (May 19, 2020) copied from ''Gab'' by @thewikipedian (11:19 AM - 19 May 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from May 19, 2020).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210927141625/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1442493059812446208 Interesting how the left pulls out all the stops to fight a disease with a 99.5+% survivability rate, and a global warming disaster which has yet to appear, but not sky-high murder and addiction rates among their core constituencies.] by Larry Sanger (7:15 AM - 27 Sep 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from September 27, 2021).</ref>

He calls the COVID-19 pandemic a leftist "boogeyman" by "globalists".<ref name=manufacturedcrisis/> He says that “the ongoing lockdowns, masking, and social distancing, despite almost-zero deaths, is due to a desire to demonstrate to the world how international elites can fraudulently call the shots in defiance of facts and science,”<ref name=sangerconspiracy/> despite there having been a hundred thousands of deaths due to COVID-19 and several studies showing that lockdowns and masking works. Whether he thinks there is a 
nationwide
 global conspiracy to fake millions of deaths from a completely nonexistent virus or just being oblivious to the truth, we will let you decide.

===Antifa did the coup===
{{main|1=2021 U.S. Capitol riot#But, but, antifadidit!}}
{{cquote|What’s more likely: that [[MAGA]]s suddenly cracked and, for the first time, started rioting [[Antifa]]-style? Or that Antifa were LARPing, which they love to do, in order to discredit MAGAs?|||Larry Sanger<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210107005025/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1346982363239051264 Not *convinced*. But what’s more likely: that MAGAs suddenly cracked and, for the first time, started rioting Antifa-style? Or that Antifa were LARPing, which they love to do, in order to discredit MAGAs? If you’re honest and rational, you’ll admit it’s a reasonable question.] by Larry Sanger (16:49 - 6. Jan. 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from January 7, 2021).</ref>}}

===George Floyd conspiracy theory===
{{main|George Floyd}}
Sanger's [[Twitter]] thread on the death of George Floyd are mainly a piling up of tangential [[coincidence]]s and [[just asking questions]], while cautioning not to spread rumors,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200603053547/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1267851288273977346 1/ Must read. Let's demand an explanation for this from police/reporters: *Why* was it that George Floyd worked with his killer, Derek Chauvin, on the security team for the El Nuevo Rodeo club on Tuesday nights "for much of the year before" the killing?] by Larry Sanger (June 2, 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from June 3, 2020).</ref> ignoring the fact that asking inane questions about coincidences is a good way to start rumors.

He also asks his followers “what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by [[George Soros]]?”<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20200530164031/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1266724155652743168 Help me out with links: what reason is there to believe these riots, and recent U.S. riots generally, are bought and paid for by George Soros?] by Larry Sanger (6:32 AM - 30 May 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from May 30, 2020).</ref>

===Election fraud===
{{main|2020 U.S. presidential election#Fraud claims}}
Sanger spreads false claims about the 2020 US presidential election.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20210813231811/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1325124412182392834 The claims that Biden has won, when poll watchers were prevented from closely observing the mail-in ballot counting (as is normal) and when there is an *amazing* amount of excelent evidence of fraud, is a shocking, devastating indictment of Democrat-run elections.] by Larry Sanger (9:14 AM · Nov 7, 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from August 13, 2021).</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20201107182652/https://twitter.com/wikigamaliel/status/1325142591592161283 The co-creator of the Internet's encyclopedia has been factchecked by Twitter.   2020 everybody!] by @wikigamaliel (10:26 - 7. Nov. 2020) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 7, 2020).</ref>

===Views on RationalWiki===
No points for guessing what Larry thinks of us.
{{cquote|[[RationalWiki]] is an [[IrrationalWiki|irrational]], [[Essay:I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki#It's far-left|far left]] [[troll]] site. Trust me, [[appeal to bias|you don't want to be citing them]].|||Larry Sanger<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211117130159/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1154405997101932550 RationalWiki is an irrational, far left troll site. Trust me, you don't want to be citing them. You need a better source. Snopes is also long discredited as a left-wing source when writing about political issues. We need a fair judge. Those two sources won't do.] by Larry Sanger (8:00 AM - 25 Jul 2019) ''Twitter'' (archived from November 17, 2021).</ref>}}
{{cquote|Of course the creepoids that crawled out of the slime of RationalWiki are going to defend lolicon. LOL|||Sanger, accusing us of being pedophile apologists<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211210142400/https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1469307454068568074 Ahhhhh I see… Of course the creepoids that crawled out of the slime of RationalWiki are going to defend lolicon. LOL] by Larry Sanger (6:06 AM - 10 Dec 2021) ''Twitter'' (archived from December 10, 2021).</ref>}}
{{cquote|Leading the charge against crypto in general on Wikipedia is one [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]], who is, let’s just say, one of the people responsible for the mess that Wikipedia has become—and a leader of the libelous, silly RationalWiki. Has been a friend of Jimmy Wales.|||Larry Sanger<ref>https://twitter.com/lsanger/status/1319786759773999104</ref>}}
{{cquote|I'll leave you with another piece of advice: do not make this a [[partisan]] encyclopedia, biased in the opposite direction. Then it is likely to end up like [[Conservapedia]] or RationalWiki, which nobody (outside of some true believers) takes seriously.|||Sanger, while addressing his rather large [[Hindutva|Hindutvavadi]] (right-wing Hindu) audience who also share a similar persecution complex with regards to Wikipedia's handling of topics that the [[BJP]] find inconvenient.}}

==Projects==
List of (mostly failed) projects by Larry Sanger.


===Citizendium===
{{main|Citizendium}}
Sanger's contempt for Wikipedia's supposed lack of expertise inspired him to found Citizendium. The main idea of CZ was that anyone who made edits had to prove they were accredited in a given area (proof of medical licence, Ph.D., Bachelor's degree, etc); of course, this severely limited the amount of people who could actually edit the wiki, or, given how personal the account request form was, how many people ''wanted'' to edit the wiki. The main problem became which areas of study Sanger recognized as valid; pseudoscientific and fringe studies like [[homeopathy]] was, but women's studies wasn't. Sanger's slight [[persecution complex]] made it so that submitted articles were locked from editing, thus creating [[echo chamber]]s that no one could change. As a result, pseudoscience and [[woo]] spread across the site, and relatively little was done about it.

===Everipedia===
{{main|Everipedia}}
Another of Sanger's attempts (and failures) to make a Wikipedia offshoot.<ref>[https://theoutline.com/post/2369/everipedia-is-the-wikipedia-for-being-wrong Everipedia is the Wikipedia for being wrong], the Outline.</ref> This time, the gimmick was that anytime you made an edit, you'd get a 
Bitcoin
 
Dogecoin
 IQ token, Users with higher token counts were more or less admins with full power over the other helpless plebians. Sanger stated he was abandoning the project in 2019.{{efn|Sanger might as well be a [[Deism|deist]], considering his history of creating worlds and then abandoning them…}}

===Encyclosphere===
The current project.<ref>[https://larrysanger.org/2019/10/introducing-the-encyclosphere/ Introducing the Encyclosphere], Larry Sanger.</ref> Sanger describes his goal as a "totally decentralized network, like the Blogosphere—or like email, IRC, blockchains, and the World Wide Web itself." In essence, he wants to create a massive, [[Irony|centralized hub]] where people can link or upload encyclopedic articles, and search for any encyclopedia article on the Internet. So Wikipedia, with a dozen extra steps. Some proposed features include:
*article publishing without the need for review by anyone
*some kind of rating system
*a search engine
*data aggregation
It all feels a little eerily similar to both Citizendium and Everipedia. Unlike CZ, though, which created echo chambers because of excessive emphasis on accreditation, Encyclosphere is probably going to create echo chambers due to its disregard for pre-release review. One can only imagine what shit will get dumped there before anyone has the chance to proofread it.

To support Encyclosphere, Sanger has created the "Knowledge Standards Foundation", which will act as the tech support and developers for the site. Again, this Management Council, so to speak, is reminiscent of Everipedia's IQ token system and the social classes it created as a result. History repeating itself? So far, we have yet to see. It is unknown how far along the project even is; the website mainly promotes Sanger's upcoming Encyclosphere conference, and his blog has little, if any, mention of the project (as far as his posts go). The project was announced in late 2019, and for all we know it hasn't progressed. 

Time will tell the success of Encyclosphere. All we can do right now is wait.

===Minifeed===
Minifeed is Sanger’s knockoff of Wordpress<ref>[https://minifeed.org/about Minifeed -- About]</ref> that may or may not be totally abandoned in favor of a revamped version of the site. It claims it has "enhanced privacy," but this is not explained anywhere on the site. The rest of the "About" page is terribly vague, and the most recent post (from December 2021) is a post noting the progress of the ''new'' version of the site. The future of the site is unknown.

===Sanger Academy===
Sanger Academy is basically knock-off {{wpl|Khan Academy||.}} Sanger also has [[homeschool]]ed his kids, which might be the inspiration for the project.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20141216052600/https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2peu84/im_cofounder_of_wikipedia_and_with_my_new_startup/ "I'm co-founder of Wikipedia and with my new startup, Infobitt, I want to make a Wikipedia for the news. Ask me anything!"] by u/LarrySanger, Reddit, /r/IAmA subreddit, 2014 December 16 (archived on December 16, 2014).</ref> It has videos on several topics, all taught by Sanger himself using PowerPoint presentations, including [[art]], [[music]], [[metaphysics]], a three part series on [[free speech]].<ref>[https://youtu.be/CZDDYFli108 What is free speech? - an intro for young people - Sanger Academy] by Larry Sanger (Mar 3, 2016) ''YouTube''.</ref>

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Sanger, Larry}}
[[Category:Agnostics]]
[[Category:2020 election denialists]]
[[Category:Alternative medicine promoters]]
[[Category:Anti-abortion activists]]
[[Category:Anti-vaccination movement]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Citizendium]]
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:COVID-19 denialists]]
[[Category:Crank magnetism]]
[[Category:Educators]]
[[Category:Global warming denialists]]
[[Category:Homophobes]]
[[Category:Internet kooks]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:Living people]]
[[Category:Philosophers]]
[[Category:Pissed at us]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience promoters]]
[[Category:QAnon]]
[[Category:Right-wing activists]]
[[Category:Transphobes]]
[[Category:Trolls]]
[[Category:Wikipedians]]

Categories: Agnostics, 2020 election denialists, Alternative medicine promoters, Anti-abortion activists, Anti-vaccination movement, Christians, Citizendium, Conspiracy theorists, COVID-19 denialists, Crank magnetism, Educators, Global warming denialists, Homophobes, Internet kooks, Libertarians, Living people, Philosophers, Pissed at us, Pseudoscience promoters, QAnon, Right-wing activists, Transphobes, Trolls, Wikipedians