
Is Wikipedia âÂÂdeeply biasedâÂÂ? Sandi Toksvig says it is â so sheâÂÂs backing a rival
Just 19% of the online encyclopediaâÂÂs biographies are of women. Is this because itâÂÂs edited by âÂÂmostly white, middle-aged, European menâÂÂ, as the comedian claims?
Name: Wikipedia.
Age: 25.
Appearance: Patronising and deeplyÃÂ biased.
Is this because you havenâÂÂt got your own page? Well, yes. But these arenâÂÂtàmy words. TheyâÂÂre the words ofàSandi Toksvig.
But it has 65m articles across more than 300 languages! ItâÂÂs the largest knowledge resource ever assembled! That may be, but it isnâÂÂt very good at women.
According to Toksvig? Yes â and sheâÂÂs very serious about it. As we speak, she is travelling the world trying to raise money to build something better.
She is? Yes. Along with the University of Cambridge, she hopes that her Mappa Mundi project will be an âÂÂinteractive digital atlas where we can find a home for the vast amount of knowledge that is currently sidelined or deletedâÂÂ.
And a lot of the sidelined or deleted knowledge is about women? It is. She cites the case of Donna Strickland, a Canadian physicist who repeatedly had her draft biographies rejected by Wikipedia, until she won a Nobel prize for her work.
Awkward. But it goes broader. By the Wikimedia FoundationâÂÂs own estimate, only 19% of Wikipedia biographies concern women. Toksvig puts this down to the site being edited by âÂÂmostly white, middle-aged, European men who have both the time and the technologyâÂÂ, she told Cheltenham literature festival this weekend.
I didnâÂÂt know that. Its content is weighted heavily towards wealthy countries. In 2013, for instance, the Oxford Internet Institute discovered that Wikipedia contained more coverage of Germany than of Africa and South America combined.
IsnâÂÂt Wikipedia too leftwing anyway? Oh God, are you Elon Musk? This is a claim he has repeated for the last couple of years, to the extent of calling it âÂÂWokepediaâÂÂ.
And what did he do about it? He started his own version â an AI-powered alternative called Grokipedia.
And is it better? A paper published in November 2025 discovered that Grokipedia articles are 13 times more likely to contain a source blacklisted by the English Wikipedia community.
WhatâÂÂs a blacklisted source? The paper pointed out that, at the time of its publication, Grokipedia included 42 citations for the banned neo-Nazi website Stormfront.
Yeesh. Bring on Mappa Mundi! Indeed, ToksvigâÂÂs version has better intentions. If nothing else, hopefully it will update WikipediaâÂÂs list of people who died on the toilet to include more women.
Do say: âÂÂWikipedia is systemically biased.âÂÂ
DonâÂÂt say: âÂÂAt last, something ElonàMusk and Sandi Toksvig can agree on.âÂÂ
