by Scott Douglas Jacobsen
How does Anton Obozhyn assess Wikipedia’s political bias, paid promotional editing, and claims of neutrality in rival platforms like Grokopedia?
Anton Obozhyn is a Kyiv-based Ukrainian programmer, Wikipedian, and Wikimedian. A computer-science graduate working in game development, he has edited Wikimedia projects since 2014 and joined Wikimedia Ukraine in 2017. He chaired its Audit Committee from 2017 to 2020, became a board member in 2020, and has served as deputy chair since 2024. He helps organize wikimarathons, workshops, conferences, article contests, and community-support initiatives advancing free knowledge in Ukraine through volunteer-led public outreach and training.
Anton Obozhyn explains to Scott Douglas Jacobsen that Wikipedia reflects the societies and editors behind each language edition, making perfect neutrality impossible but still a core goal. He discusses claims of left-wing bias, clarifies that Wikipedias are language-based rather than country-based, and outlines how editors detect promotional or paid articles. Obozhyn also critiques “Grokopedia” as likely dependent on Wikipedia-derived content while questioning its claims of being unbiased.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Is there a left-wing bias? Is there any validity to that critique, particularly regarding the English-language Wikipedia?
Anton Obozhyn: Wikipedia reflects the societies in which its editors live. Editors are members of broader communities, and those communities contain a range of political perspectives. As a result, Wikipedia may be perceived as biased in different directions depending on the observer.
Some language editions are criticized as leaning left, others as leaning right. In some contexts, it is also described as anti-religious or anti-Christian. These criticisms reflect broader societal debates.
I would say that no Wikipedia achieves perfect neutrality. However, neutrality is a core goal, and the community continuously works toward maintaining balance through its policies and editorial processes.
Jacobsen: Which country has the most objective Wikipedia?
Obozhyn: As mentioned earlier, Wikipedia editions are organized by language, not by country. For example, Ukrainian Wikipedia is defined by the Ukrainian language, not by Ukraine as a state. So the question is not entirely applicable in that form.
Obozhyn: Every language edition of Wikipedia aims to be as objective as possible.
Jacobsen: Do you encounter cases where individuals create self-promotional articles, either directly or through public relations firms? How do you detect sponsored content? For example, someone might commission an article that presents only positive information, without necessarily including falsehoods, but still creates a biased portrayal.
Obozhyn: In many cases, experienced editors can recognize such articles almost immediately. There are common indicators, what we might call “red flags.” These include excessive use of positive or promotional language, such as “the best in the world,” “leading expert,” or claims of numerous awards without proper citations.
Articles like this are usually identified quickly and may be deleted if they do not meet Wikipedia’s standards.
There is strong demand from individuals who want to have articles about themselves, but many do not know how to write them according to Wikipedia’s rules. As a result, some companies offer paid services to create such articles. However, these companies often fail to follow Wikipedia’s guidelines.
Wikipedia has strict rules regarding paid contributions. Transparency is required. If someone is being paid to edit or create content, they must disclose that relationship, including who is paying them and who benefits from the content. Failure to disclose paid editing can result in an indefinite block from editing.
In practice, many public relations firms do not disclose this information. They attempt to conceal their involvement, which makes detection more difficult. As a result, the situation becomes a kind of ongoing contest between editors and those attempting to bypass the rules.
Jacobsen: Any thoughts on “Grokopedia”?
Obozhyn: This is a personal opinion, not an official position of the Wikimedia movement. From my perspective, it appears to rely heavily on content derived from Wikipedia. It has been presented as an unbiased alternative, but I would question that claim.
More broadly, there have been many attempts by individuals, groups, or governments to create alternative encyclopedic platforms when they are dissatisfied with Wikipedia. In most cases, these alternatives do not achieve the same level of adoption or trust, and users continue to rely on Wikipedia as the primary resource.
Jacobsen: Thank you very much for the opportunity and your time, Anton.