U.S. Attorney Accuses Wikimedia Foundation of Violating Law
Formal letter slams Wikimedia Foundation for allegedly permitting foreign interference, editorial misconduct, and mass distribution of biased information.
On April 24, 2025, Ed Martin, the interim United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a formal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation, raising serious concerns about the organization's compliance with its obligations as a tax-exempt nonprofit under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Martin's letter, obtained by The Free Press and reviewed in full, accuses the Foundation—which operates Wikipedia—of allowing foreign actors to manipulate content on the platform. He claims that this manipulation includes the rewriting of key historical events, biographical information about American officials, and other sensitive matters implicating U.S. national security. According to Martin, such actions undermine Wikipedia’s stated educational mission and violate the neutrality and public trust expected of 501(c)(3) organizations.
Beyond concerns about content manipulation, Martin highlights that Wikimedia's board of directors is composed primarily of foreign nationals. He asserts that this arrangement could subvert the interests of American taxpayers, particularly given Wikipedia’s widespread use and its prioritization by search engines like Google. He further warns that Wikipedia’s influence over generative AI platforms, which rely on Wikipedia data to train large language models, could result in “laundering” manipulated information into educational and informational products used daily by the American public.
The Wikimedia Foundation has been given a deadline of May 15, 2025, to respond to the inquiry.
The concerns outlined in Martin's letter echo criticisms previously raised by investigative journalist and author Ashley Rindsberg, who has written extensively about the Wikimedia Foundation’s "hands-off" approach to editorial oversight, the risks posed by coordinated editing groups, and the potential for Wikipedia's biased content to be amplified through its influence on artificial intelligence platforms.
Separately, a post by The Wikipedia Flood offered a mock "response" to Martin’s letter, humorously portraying the Foundation as indifferent to concerns over content manipulation, editor misconduct, and transparency. Although framed in a satirical tone, the piece reflects broader public frustrations about perceived shortcomings in the Foundation’s governance model.
In a statement to the Jewish Onliner, The Wikipedia Flood explained that:
”The [Wikimedia] Foundation cannot respond to the letter with even a speck of honesty without looking terrible. Wikipedia is structurally designed to be unaccountable as an organization, as is the Foundation. They both are free riders off Section 230, which was created before Wikipedia existed as a way of sparing online carriers (like the old AOL and Prodigy) from liability for what was written on their message boards by users. Wikipedia is finally being held to account for cynically exploiting Section 230.”
In response to Martin's letter, Wikimedia Foundation associate general counsel Jacob Rogers, told The Verge that "Wikipedia's content is governed by three core content policies: neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research, which exist to ensure information is presented as accurately, fairly, and neutrally as possible." He further noted that "The entire process of content moderation is overseen by nearly 260,000 volunteers and is open and transparent for all to see." While the Foundation's response underscores its reliance on volunteer editors and established content policies, it appears to sidestep the specific legal and structural concerns raised in Martin's letter.
Adding to the scrutiny, a March 2025 report by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found "clear evidence of a coordinated campaign to manipulate Wikipedia’s content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in likely violation of Wikipedia’s policies." The ADL identified a group of 30 editors systematically evading Wikipedia’s rules to shift balanced narratives toward skewed ones, spotlighting criticism of Israel and downplaying Palestinian terrorist violence and antisemitism.
The report also highlighted that pro-Hamas perspectives inform Arabic-language Wikipedia content on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt stated, "Most readers assume Wikipedia is a reliable online encyclopedia, but in reality, it has become a biased platform manipulated by agenda-driven editors on many topics."
The situation marks a significant escalation in government scrutiny over online information platforms, particularly those operating under nonprofit status. It underscores rising concerns about the reliability of information ecosystems and the potential vulnerabilities created by foreign influence operations.
The left is REALLY going to scream indignation about this.