Don't miss...
Ex-con charged in Christmas Day CVS robbery that left clerk fatally stabbed
CVS clerk Eddy Cine Jr. volunteered to work Christmas Day shift, only to be allegedly stabbed to death by armed robber minutes before closing time.
DAVID MARCUS: Impeding federal law enforcement is not protest, it’s just crime
The death of activist Renee Good highlights the dangerous confusion between civil disobedience and criminal activity in modern ICE protests.
Americans can’t close our eyes to the murder of Christians in Nigeria
Nigeria’s growing terrorist threat from Boko Haram and Fulani militias poses strategic challenge as Africa’s largest democracy heads toward 400 million people.
Kristi Noem fires back at Dems amid impeachment threat over fatal Minneapolis ICE shooting
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem fired back at Democratic critics amid an impeachment push following the deadly ICE shooting in Minneapolis.
Ilhan Omar kicked out of ICE facility after DHS requires week’s advance notice
Reps. Ilhan Omar and Angie Craig were removed from Minneapolis ICE facility Saturday after the Trump administration imposed a new rule requiring a week notice.
Packers’ head-coaching situation thrust into spotlight after playoff loss
Green Bay Packers head coach Matt LaFleur may be on the hot seat after the team fell to the Chicago Bears in their wild-card playoff game.
Country star Russell Dickerson says small-town upbringing meant ‘rodeos and tractor pulls,’ not the movies
Country star Russell Dickerson lands dream RodeoHouston gig, calling it his “biggest show ever” as he prepares to share the special moment with his family.
Best and worst states to retire in 2026 based on affordability and quality of life
New study reveals Wyoming tops best retirement states while New Jersey ranks worst. Analysis examines costs, healthcare access, and quality of life.
How do you solve a problem like Wikipedia?
Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.
In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.
As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.
As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.
The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:
- Allow multiple, competing articles per topic.
- Stop ideological blacklisting of sources.
- Restore the original neutrality policy.
- Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers.
- End unfair, indefinite blocking.
- Adopt a formal legislative process.
Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.
Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.
This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.
Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.
Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.
In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.
RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug
Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images
If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”
Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.
So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
‘A giant step back’: Liberals rage against red meat after new food pyramid guidelines release
Eating real food is not quite that simple, and might even constitute “bowing to Big Meat,” depending on who you ask.
After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his department dropped the new federal dietary guidelines — which have been historically referred to as the food pyramid — the recommendation of eating “real food,” including red meat and full-fat dairy, was seen as an attack by many in the dietary sphere.
‘Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans.’
The new guidelines emphasized protein (from meat and vegetables), dairy, fruit, and some grains as part of a healthy diet. While some cleverly accused HHS of copying a popular “South Park” scene where scientists simply “flip the pyramid” to solve America’s health crisis, others decided to criticize the guidelines for promoting animal meat intake.
Meat puppets
MS Now, formerly MSNBC, argued that Americans already eat too much meat and claimed that most meat consumed in the country “is already fake.” This was argued by citing an article that claimed selective breeding of cows and chickens constitutes altering “genetic makeup.”
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine spoke out against the new federal guidelines too. The group reportedly criticized the promotion of meat and dairy products, labeling the foods as “principal drivers of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.”
Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images
I scream
Food Navigator USA took a slightly different approach and claimed the shift in dietary advice was the HHS “bowing to Big Meat” and the dairy industry.
The outlet cited the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Neal Barnard, who said the guidelines “unjustly condemned processed foods.”
An article from Truthout cited vegan dietitian Ashley Kitchens who unironically claimed the food pyramid was being flipped upside down, calling it “complete ignorance” to encourage more meat and dairy consumption.
“It’s a giant step back from decades of evidence-based nutrition research and science,” Kitchens said.
Butter face
The Center for Science in the Public Interest echoed similar sentiments and said the dietary advice from Kennedy’s HHS is “harmful” for emphasizing “animal protein, butter, and full-fat dairy.”
It is “guidance that undermines both the saturated fat limit” and previous dietary advice to emphasize “plant-based proteins.”
RELATED: RFK Jr. steals the show after hilarious quacking ringtone interrupts White House briefing
Photo by Martin Pope/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
Furthermore, Vox called the apparent attitude of the HHS toward vegan diets “hostile and stigmatizing,” while Stanford nutrition expert Christopher Gardner said the promotion of red meat goes against “decades and decades of evidence and research.”
Climate kooks
Lastly, a perhaps predictable approach was taken by Bloomberg, who criticized the guidelines for prioritizing animal products because of how their production affects climate.
“Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans, peas and lentils,” the outlet wrote.
This consensus against animal protein from dietary conglomerates in coalition with left-wing news outlets is sure to fuel the widespread belief that the powers that be are pushing toward a world without the luxury of beef.
This is typically argued from an ideological and political standpoint by groups like the World Economic Forum, for example, in articles like “Why eating less meat is the best way to tackle climate change,” “Why you should be eating less meat,” and “You will be eating replacement meats within 20 years. Here’s why.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
