Jimmy Kimmel has nothing on Wikipedia when it comes to misinforming people

Jimmy Kimmel has been accused of abusing the publicly subsidized airwaves with his lies and propaganda, but the two million viewers he reaches each night is a pittance compared to the hundreds of millions each month who think they’re getting unbiased information from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who no longer has ties to the site, recently shocked Tucker Carlson in an interview when he showed that the web-based encyclopedia doesn’t permit its editors to cite news sources it considers “unreliable.”

Indeed, the universally referenced site ruthlessly censors conservative voices — openly — while giving liberal and far left sources a seal of approval.

CNN and MSNBC, chief purveyors of the Russia hoax, are marked with the green checkmark that says they are “reliable.”

Mother Jones, which called the Jan. 6 Capitol riot a “heavily armed insurrection,” is graded incorruptible, as is New York Magazine, which ran a 2018 cover story claiming President Donald Trump has been a Russian secret agent, code named “Krasnov,” since 1987.

Even Qatari propaganda outlet Al Jazeera, banned in the Arab world because of its pro-Muslim Brotherhood outlook, is counted as an A-OK source for Wikipedia entries.

Meanwhile, The New York Post is smeared as “generally unreliable.” Fox News is also off limits, along with The Federalist, The Epoch Times, The Daily Caller and other outlets.

And here’s the scariest part: Not only do masses of people unwittingly turn to Wikipedia for unbiased information, AI is trained on it.

Powerful bots like Grok, Chat GPT and Gemini siphon up huge swaths of text from Wikipedia and then spit it out as though it’s neutral and authoritative.

It’s not. It is trimmed and hewed to fit a particular leftist narrative that has excised a huge territory of conservative thought and reportage from its source-stream.

All of which distorts and corrupts fair public discourse.

Yes, every reputable information source has to impose some minimum guidelines and guardrails, but not rules based on political leaning.

If Wikipedia continues to adhere by such blatantly biased standards, it will invite guardrails — for itself.