Is Wikipedia becoming a battleground for ideological bias? On October 17, 2025, editors on the platform ignited a firestorm of discussion about potentially blacklisting CBS News as a reliable source, following the controversial appointment of Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief, as Breitbart reports.
This saga unfolded after reports on October 2, and an official announcement on October 6, confirmed Weiss, a former New York Times opinion editor and founder of the Free Press, as the new head of CBS News.
Weiss’s ascent came alongside Paramount Skydance, the newly merged parent company of CBS News, acquiring her Free Press outlet, a move that has stirred both intrigue and unease.
Having resigned from the Times over what she called relentless hostility from far-left colleagues, Weiss’s arrival at CBS News has reportedly sparked panic among some left-leaning journalists at the network.
Yet, not all reactions were negative—some staffers welcomed her leadership, particularly citing her pro-Israeli stance as a refreshing perspective amid CBS’s turbulent 2025.
The organization has faced numerous challenges this year, and Weiss’s appointment seems to have deepened existing tensions within the ranks.
Almost immediately after the announcement, Wikipedia editors began tweaking pages related to Weiss, CBS News, and the Free Press, often casting them in a negative light with labels like “right-wing” or “conservative,” despite Weiss identifying as centrist.
One editor, “Snokalok,” inserted claims from a left-leaning outlet labeling Weiss as “anti-trans,” though this was later removed, only to be reinserted by another editor citing advocacy media.
Snokalok also suggested Weiss’s role marked a rightward shift for CBS News, a claim partially undone, while their own profile page subtly jabbed at conservative figures—hardly a sign of impartial editing.
Edits to the Free Press page weren’t spared either, with one editor adding a critical paragraph emphasizing its pro-Israeli views and branding it conservative, while another, self-described progressive “Tataral,” tried to dismiss it as a “right-wing Internet blog” before being overruled.
Tataral’s history of pushing “far-right” labels on other conservative figures raises eyebrows about agenda-driven editing, especially in a platform that prides itself on neutrality.
Further attempts to discredit the Free Press included claims of misreporting crime stats in Austin, Texas, though the cited data showed a nuanced picture of rising major crimes alongside reduced prosecutions for lesser offenses.
The drama escalated as Wikipedia editors began debating CBS News’s status under the site’s “reliable sources” policy, with one citing the internal “panic” at CBS as a red flag, despite the outlet currently being listed as “generally reliable.”
While most editors advocated a “wait-and-see” approach, others, like “Monk of Monk Hall,” hinted at gathering evidence to downgrade CBS’s reliability, echoing past blacklisting campaigns against conservative media like Breitbart News—a pattern that’s hard to ignore.
With Weiss’s leadership tied to the Free Press, currently deemed only “marginally reliable” on Wikipedia, and broader concerns about the platform’s bias against conservative and pro-Israeli perspectives drawing scrutiny from Congress and Sen. Ted Cruz, this debate is far from academic—it’s a window into how information is shaped in our digital age.
