A new analysis of Wikipedia’s citation patterns conducted by Jewish Onliner reveals a troubling disparity: foreign state-controlled media outlets with documented propaganda agendas hostile to Israel and the West, some of which have documented terror ties, collectively receive over 30,000 Wikipedia citations in the English version of Wikipedia alone.
Additionally, these outlets are deemed as reliable sources of info on the platform’s user-driven ranking system.
The analysis also found that there is an overwhelming disparity between how much alternative media is sourced. While alternative media on the political left fares relatively well with hundreds or even thousands of citations per outlet, right-wing alternative media are cited only in the double — even sometimes single — digits.
Wikipedia Reference Comparisons (September 2025)
The breakdown below is only for the English version of Wikipedia. Other languages (Arabic, Spanish, etc.) will have different metrics.
Foreign Outlets:
1. Al Jazeera (Qatar): With 20,217 citations and a “Generally Reliable” ranking on Wikipedia’s reliability list, Al Jazeera’s massive citation count becomes problematic when examining its documented biases. The Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 report found clear evidence of coordinated campaigns on Wikipedia that frequently cite Al Jazeera to introduce anti-Israel narratives. Even Wikipedia’s own guidelines acknowledge that “most editors seem to agree that Al Jazeera English and especially Al Jazeera Arabic are biased sources on the Arab–Israeli conflict.”
The network, funded and run by the Qatari government, has been banned by multiple Arab nations and Israel for what officials describe as serving as the “mouthpiece of Hamas.” Yet its content shapes Wikipedia articles on Middle Eastern affairs with extraordinary frequency.
Moreover, Al Jazeera is notorious for having employed various individuals in the Gaza Strip affiliated to Hamas and other U.S.-designated terrorist organizations.
2. Anadolu Agency (Turkey): With 5,018 citations and a Generally Unreliable / No Consensus ranking on Wikipedia’s reliability list, Turkey’s state-run Anadolu Agency represents a problematic case of propaganda masquerading as journalism on Wikipedia. A Jewish Onliner investigation revealed that Turkey’s official state news outlet has evolved into a sophisticated propaganda apparatus. AA was found to employ personnel who maintain ties with designated terrorist organizations while systematically targeting American audiences with anti-Western narratives through social media platforms that reach over 1.3 million users.
Originally established in 1920, Anadolu Agency has been transformed under President Erdoğan into what Turkish Minute described as “the main instrument of propaganda in the hands of” his government.
3. Tehran Times (Iran): Although it has 2,326 citations, the Tehran Times does not appear on Wikipedia’s reliability ranking list. Founded in 1979, Tehran Times holds the moniker of the “voice of the Islamic Revolution.” Iran International reported that Wikipedia entries related to Iranian human rights abuses have been “systematically altered in line” with Iranian propaganda, with The Times of London documenting how these entries are being “changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities.”
4. Xinhua News Agency (China): With 2,291 citations, Wikipedia ranks it as generally reliable for factual reporting, except on matters where China may use propaganda. However, Xinhua News Agency has been described as “the world’s biggest propaganda agency.” Reporters Without Borders noted that it “tailors its pro-Chinese government message to the nuances of each international audience.”
The U.S. Justice Department has determined that Xinhua “is subsidized and controlled by the Chinese government and Xinhua’s content reflects government policy and avoids issues that would embarrass the government.”
5. TRT World (Turkey): With 953 citations, Turkey’s state broadcaster TRT World reaches an audience of hundreds of millions, positioning itself as a credible news source in Western markets. Wikipedia’s consensus considers TRT World “reliable for statements regarding the official views of the Turkish government but not reliable for subjects with which the Turkish government could be construed to have a conflict of interest.”
However, a Jewish Onliner investigation revealed that the network has become a nexus for individuals with alleged ties to Hamas, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and Turkish intelligence services. This includes News Director Fatih Er, who was named as a suspect in a probe investigating IRGC ties, and multiple correspondents with familial connections to Hamas leadership who celebrate terrorist attacks on social media.
TRT systematically platforms Hamas officials while framing the terrorist organization as a “resistance” group and produces anti-American content designed to stoke social divisions. Despite its mass household reach and nearly 10 million YouTube subscribers, most of TRT’s social media platforms fail to apply required “state-controlled media” labeling.
6. Mehr News (Iran): While it has 939 citations, Mehr News does not appear on Wikipedia’s reliability list. Mehr News Agency is a semi-official Iranian news agency sponsored by the government of Iran and owned by the Iranian government’s Islamic Development Organization (IIDO). Despite not appearing on Wikipedia’s reliability list, the outlet serves as what Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation describes as “a state resource, reflecting the government’s stance on international issues” and a key component of Iran’s propaganda apparatus.
7. Kuwait News Agency (Kuwait): While it has 832 citations, Kuwait News Agency does not appear on Wikipedia’s reliability list. KUNA faces significant credibility and independence issues as Kuwait’s state-run news agency. Operating under government control, the agency engages in systematic self-censorship to avoid criticism of the amir, religion, or government policies, according to the U.S. State Department’s 2024 Human Rights Report. As part of Kuwait’s broader media landscape— ranked 154th out of 180 countries by Reporters Without Borders — KUNA functions more as a government mouthpiece than an independent news source. The agency operates within a restrictive legal framework where journalists face prosecution for “spreading false news,” and even KUNA’s own workers union has faced investigation for defending employees against harassment, highlighting internal governance problems alongside its lack of editorial independence.
8. Islamic Republic News Agency (Iran): While it has 404 citations, IRNA does not appear on Wikipedia’s reliability list. Ukraine’s Center for Countering Disinformation identifies IRNA as a key promoter of Iranian propaganda. According to their analysis, IRNA frequently publishes content defending Russia in the context of the war with Ukraine while dismissing accusations of Iranian weapons supplies as “baseless.”
9. WAFA (Palestinian Authority): While it has 271 citations, WAFA does not appear on Wikipedia’s reliability list. Even with a relatively small citation count among foreign outlets, WAFA represents another concerning case. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs documented how “WAFA has persistently fostered a media system that encourages and legitimizes violence and incitement against Israel.” JNS reported that the agency “sets the stage for terror” through its messaging.
Alternative Left-Wing Outlets:
The disparity becomes even more pronounced when examining how left-wing alternative outlets fare compared to their conservative counterparts. The Nation (4,462 citations), Mother Jones (3,339 citations), and The Intercept (2,165 citations) both maintain “Generally Reliable” designations despite being acknowledged as biased sources.
Even outlets without consensus reliability fare better. Democracy Now! (2,287 citations) and Jacobin (792 citations), the latter explicitly described as a socialist publication, both receive more citations than most conservative outlets despite their openly ideological missions. This preferential treatment demonstrates a systematic double standard where progressive bias is tolerated or even encouraged, while conservative perspectives are marginalized regardless of their journalistic standards or factual accuracy.
Alternative Right-Wing Outlets:
In stark contrast with their left-wing counterparts, right-wing alterative outlets have been overwhelmingly marginalized on Wikipedia, including the largest outlets in the conservative ecosystem. For example, the Washington Free Beacon (32 citations), which the platform deems Generally Reliable; Daily Wire (24 citations), Generally Unreliable; Daily Signal (21 citations), not on the reliability List; Breitbart (11 citations), Deprecated and Blacklisted; Daily Caller (7 citations), Deprecated; and Newsmax (7 citations), Deprecated.
The Broader Wikipedia Problem
A 2024 investigation by The Free Press revealed how Wikipedia has been transformed into a vehicle for propaganda, with a small group of editors systematically rewriting historical narratives. The consequences of this bias extend beyond Wikipedia’s pages themselves.
As large language models increasingly use Wikipedia as training data, these biased citation patterns become embedded in AI systems that will shape future public discourse, making this not just an editorial concern but a fundamental threat to information integrity in democratic societies.
Larry Sanger (co-founder of Wikipedia) has talked about this issue, and how it's biased toward left-wing aligned outlets. It's known AJ is used all over there. The thing is, according to their own standard it's unreliable at least when it comes to Israel, yet you see it being massively used in articles about the war. I can't understand how these people can even think a propaganda mouthpiece of an Islamic dictatorship could be reliable about anything. Or any outlet that is based in a place where there's no freedom of speech, thought and press.
Gratitude Mensch ✌🏻🤙🏻👍🏻