NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
In recent months, Wikipedia has faced growing scrutiny for its apparent bias in political and geopolitical coverage.
For example, Wikipedia editors edited the entry on Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk in ways that portrayed him as an antisemitic conspiracy theorist, while in another case, editors built a web of articles and sections labeling President Donald Trump an “authoritarian.”
But the bias runs deeper than politics, even veering into faith and morality. Type “Jesus’ sexuality” into Wikipedia, and you’ll find citations on homoerotic interpretations of Christ, speculative theology, even debates about whether the disciple John was his true beloved — all instances where boundaries sacred to Christianity are crossed in ways that have no equivalent for other religious topics on the site.
One of the first results you’ll get is an article whose very title hints at content Christians could find deeply offensive. The article on “Sexuality and marital status of Jesus” includes extensive discussion of the notion that Jesus was gay, although it does note atop the article that churches and theologians traditionally hold Jesus was celibate and never married, and that article of faith has not “prevented alternative and fringe theories of his sexuality.”
WIKIPEDIA’S CO-FOUNDER ON ANONYMOUS EDITORS, WHY THE SITE IS BIASED AGAINST CONSERVATIVES AND HOW TO FIX IT
Under the heading of “Homosexuality” (which redirects from the “Gay Jesus” search term), Wikipedia explains that the reference to “the disciple whom Jesus loved” from the Gospel of John has been “used by those who implied a homosocial or homoerotic reading of the relationship.” The article then discusses the work of a theologian who wrote a book titled “Queering Christ”, which characterizes the relationship between Jesus and John as “a pederastic relationship between an older man and a younger man.”
A separate, standalone article, “List of works depicting Jesus as LGBT,” where Wikipedia catalogs works that show Christ as gay, states, “Jesus’ sexuality is a topic of significant academic discussion.” The article is written almost entirely by the editor who created it, a site admin who identifies as “nonbinary” and “trans” and rejects the notion of gender identity.
Other Wikipedia articles are focused entirely on specific works of art, film and literature that depict Jesus as gay. For example, one article is dedicated to a Danish screenplay, “The Many Faces of Jesus”, which portrays Christ engaging in various sexual acts or wrongdoing.
HOW WIKIPEDIA MADE TRUMP AN ‘AUTHORITARIAN’
In a section of the article on “Homoeroticism,” Wikipedia writes that while “Mainstream Christianity predominantly condemns homoeroticism, some theologians and historians have concluded that Jesus of Nazareth had a non-heteronormative behavioral pattern,” and that some “speculate that John the Baptist had homosocial or homoerotic behavior.” The section carries a note highlighting that it has been “flagged” for containing fringe theories — a note posted over three years ago.
Some may argue that these texts and theologians hold these opinions, and therefore warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. But that misses the point. Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger recently published a series of essays called the “Nine Theses,” in which he characterizes the site’s most dominant editors as Global Academic Secular and Progressive (GASP), the same worldview that mainstreams once-fringe academic notions, like the claim that Jesus was gay. Views that diverge from the GASP consensus are sidelined or minimized.
DAN GAINOR: FIVE RIDICULOUS MOMENTS TO REMEMBER MSNBC AS IT TRANSITIONS TO MS NOW
The reality is that Wikipedia has a serious bias problem, as at least one important study has shown. One solution may be expanding the number of viewpoints on the site, by onboarding editors with more conservative or traditionally religious views. But that might prove difficult. While Wikipedia focuses on initiatives like one called “Queering Wikipedia,” what we don’t see are similar projects dedicated to Christian, conservative or even politically centrist voices.
At a time when Wikipedia is starting to see a substantial decline in traffic, maybe the smartest move it could make is to broaden its tent and rediscover the principle that made it powerful in the first place: real neutrality. Until then, Wikipedia may see more users start to seek out alternative sources of information.
Fox News Digital reached out to The Wikimedia Foundation, the nonproft that hosts Wikipedia, for comment.
Read the full article here
