Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, who often describes himself as the “ex-founder of Wikipedia” and has been one of the platform’s most vocal critics since leaving more than two decades ago, has been barred from editing articles on the online encyclopedia.

Although Wikipedia allows almost anyone to edit its pages, contributions are subject to review by other editors, according to New York Times.

This week, the site’s editing community reached a consensus to restrict Sanger’s editing privileges.

The decision was not linked to Sanger’s longstanding criticism of what he views as a left-leaning bias on Wikipedia.

Instead, a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation said the restriction stemmed from a procedural issue: Sanger had sought support from external audiences to influence internal policy discussions and voting processes.

Before the vote that led to the restriction, Sanger submitted a proposal titled “WikiProject Intellectual Diversity,” which he said was aimed at encouraging a broader range of viewpoints on Wikipedia.

He promoted the initiative to his 93,000 followers on X, a move that editors determined violated Wikipedia’s rules against canvassing, or soliciting outside support to influence internal decisions.

Editors also concluded that Sanger was “not here to build an encyclopedia,” a finding regarded as a serious breach of community standards.

Following the decision, Sanger returned to X to criticize the process, arguing that it lacked fundamental safeguards.

“There was no due process, no prosecutor, no dispassionate judge, no jury, no interpretation of law,” he wrote.

The decision comes at a time when concerns over platform trust, artificial intelligence-generated misinformation, and the reliability of online information are increasingly intersecting.

Sanger’s ban also arrives amid growing scrutiny of Wikipedia’s role as a leading source of public knowledge.

As AI-generated content proliferates across the internet and debates over misinformation intensify, the governance systems of collaborative platforms are facing heightened pressure.

The controversy raises broader questions about whether a volunteer-driven encyclopedia can impartially enforce its rules when dealing with one of its most prominent critics.

How platforms such as Wikipedia navigate such challenges could have significant implications for public trust in collaborative knowledge projects.