Wikipedia has recently come under the microscope. I take some credit for this, as a co-founder of Wikipedia and a longtime vocal critic of the knowledge platform.

In September, I nailed (virtually) “Nine Theses About Wikipedia” to the digital door of Wikipedia and started a round of interviews about it, beginning with Tucker Carlson. This prompted Elon Musk to announce Grokipedia’s impending launch the very next day. And a national conversation evolved from there, with left- and right-leaning voices complaining about the platform’s direction or my critique of it.

As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

As its 25th anniversary approaches, Wikipedia clearly needs reform. Not only does the platform have a long history of left-wing bias, but the purveyors of that bias — administrators, everyday editors, and others — stubbornly cling to their warped worldview and vilify those who dare to contest it.

The “Nine Theses” are the project’s first-ever thoroughgoing reform proposal. Among the ideas:

Allow multiple, competing articles per topic. Stop ideological blacklisting of sources. Restore the original neutrality policy. Reveal the identities of the most powerful managers. End unfair, indefinite blocking. Adopt a formal legislative process.

Such ideas were bound to be a hard sell on Wikipedia. It has become institutionally ossified.

Nevertheless, I was delighted that the discussion of the theses has been robust, without much further prodding from me. Following the launch, Jimmy Wales actually stepped into the fray on the so-called talk page of an article called “Gaza genocide,” chiding the participants for violating Wikipedia’s neutrality policy. I chimed in as well. But the criticism was thrown back in our faces.

This brings me to the deeper problem: Wikipedia is stuck in its ways. How can it possibly be reformed when so many of its contributors like the bias, the anonymous leadership, the ease of blocking ideological foes, and other aspects of dysfunction? Reform seems impossible.

Yet there is one realistic way that we can make progress toward reform.

Above all else, those who care should get involved in Wikipedia. The total number of people who are really active on Wikipedia is surprisingly small. The number editing 100 times in any given month is in the low thousands, and this does not amount to that much time — perhaps one or two hours per week. Those who treat it as a part-time or full-time job — and so have real day-to-day influence — number in the hundreds.

In interviews, I have been urging the outcasts to converge on Wikipedia. You might think this is code for saying that conservatives and libertarians should try to stage a coup, but that is not so. Hindus and Israelis, among others, have also complained of being left out in recent years. The problem is an entrenched ruling class. As long as Wikipedia remains open, it is entirely possible for those who think differently to get involved.

RELATED: Wikipedia editors are trying to scrub the record clean of Iryna Zarutska’s slaughter by violent thug

Photo by Peter Zay/Anadolu via Getty Images

If you are a conservative or libertarian who is concerned about the slanted framing of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, get involved. If you are a classical liberal who is alarmed by the anti-Semitism within Wikipedia — like Florida Democrat Debbie Wasserman Schultz — it is time to make your presence felt. Wherever you may fall on the ideological spectrum, I call on good-faith citizens to become engaged editors who take productive discourse seriously, rather than scapegoating “the other side.”

Even a dozen new editors could make a difference, let alone hundreds or thousands who might be reading this column. Given that Wikipedia attracts billions of readers, in addition to featuring prominently in Google Search, Google Gemini, and elsewhere, improving the platform will strengthen our collective access to high-quality information across the board. It will bring us closer to truth.

So how do we solve the Wikipedia problem? With you, me, and all of us — individual action at scale.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

​Opinion & analysis, Wikipedia bias, Leftism, Wokeness, Woke culture, Censorship of conservative voices, Censorship, Nine theses about wikipedia, Larry sanger, Big tech, Woke liberals, Conservatives, Classical liberalism, Freedom of speech, Free speech, Information, Charlie kirk, Assassination, Google, Google gemini, Debbie wasserman schultz, Ruling class, Competition, Tucker carlson, Gaza, Genocide, Neutrality, Jimmy wales, Blacklisting, Elon musk, Grokipedia 

Eating real food is not quite that simple, and might even constitute “bowing to Big Meat,” depending on who you ask.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his department dropped the new federal dietary guidelines — which have been historically referred to as the food pyramid — the recommendation of eating “real food,” including red meat and full-fat dairy, was seen as an attack by many in the dietary sphere.

‘Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans.’

The new guidelines emphasized protein (from meat and vegetables), dairy, fruit, and some grains as part of a healthy diet. While some cleverly accused HHS of copying a popular “South Park” scene where scientists simply “flip the pyramid” to solve America’s health crisis, others decided to criticize the guidelines for promoting animal meat intake.

Meat puppets

MS Now, formerly MSNBC, argued that Americans already eat too much meat and claimed that most meat consumed in the country “is already fake.” This was argued by citing an article that claimed selective breeding of cows and chickens constitutes altering “genetic makeup.”

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine spoke out against the new federal guidelines too. The group reportedly criticized the promotion of meat and dairy products, labeling the foods as “principal drivers of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.”

RELATED: ‘Eat real food’: Trump administration flips ‘corrupt food pyramid,’ encourages meat and veggies over bread and oatmeal

Photo by EMMANUEL DUNAND/AFP via Getty Images

I scream

Food Navigator USA took a slightly different approach and claimed the shift in dietary advice was the HHS “bowing to Big Meat” and the dairy industry.

The outlet cited the president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Neal Barnard, who said the guidelines “unjustly condemned processed foods.”

An article from Truthout cited vegan dietitian Ashley Kitchens who unironically claimed the food pyramid was being flipped upside down, calling it “complete ignorance” to encourage more meat and dairy consumption.

“It’s a giant step back from decades of evidence-based nutrition research and science,” Kitchens said.

Butter face

The Center for Science in the Public Interest echoed similar sentiments and said the dietary advice from Kennedy’s HHS is “harmful” for emphasizing “animal protein, butter, and full-fat dairy.”

It is “guidance that undermines both the saturated fat limit” and previous dietary advice to emphasize “plant-based proteins.”

RELATED: RFK Jr. steals the show after hilarious quacking ringtone interrupts White House briefing

Photo by Martin Pope/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

Furthermore, Vox called the apparent attitude of the HHS toward vegan diets “hostile and stigmatizing,” while Stanford nutrition expert Christopher Gardner said the promotion of red meat goes against “decades and decades of evidence and research.”

Climate kooks

Lastly, a perhaps predictable approach was taken by Bloomberg, who criticized the guidelines for prioritizing animal products because of how their production affects climate.

“Beef is responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than beans, peas and lentils,” the outlet wrote.

This consensus against animal protein from dietary conglomerates in coalition with left-wing news outlets is sure to fuel the widespread belief that the powers that be are pushing toward a world without the luxury of beef.

This is typically argued from an ideological and political standpoint by groups like the World Economic Forum, for example, in articles like “Why eating less meat is the best way to tackle climate change,” “Why you should be eating less meat,” and “You will be eating replacement meats within 20 years. Here’s why.”

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

​Diet, Hhs, Kennedy, Rfk jr, Food pyramid, Health guidelines, Liberals, Eat the bugs, Red meat, Vegan, Veganism, Lifestyle 

The holidays have a way of forcing conversations many families would rather postpone.

Every year, as adult children come home and aging parents gather around the table, familiar signs emerge. Someone struggles with stairs. Someone tires more easily. Someone forgets what was once routine. And with those observations come discussions caregivers know well.

The promise.

“I’ll never put Mom or Dad in a nursing home.”

It is often spoken years earlier, in healthier days, and always with sincerity. At the time, it feels like a declaration of love and loyalty. Assisted living seems distant, unnecessary, and meant for other families, not ours.

The problem is not the promise. The problem is that life keeps changing.

Circumstances change. Strength ebbs. What once worked may no longer work safely or wisely.

Over time, what began as devotion can quietly become more than one person can manage alone. Needs grow. Safety becomes a concern. Medical issues multiply. Caregivers often find themselves trying to do, by themselves, what normally requires trained professionals, proper equipment, and constant oversight.

At that point, the issue is no longer love or loyalty. It’s capacity.

That reality came into focus during a recent conversation with a friend. He had offered a small cottage on his property to help a friend relocate aging parents closer to family. The mother now uses a walker. The father has been her caregiver for years, but serious heart problems have begun to limit what he can safely do.

Still the conversation kept circling back to the same refrain: Neither would ever go into assisted living or a nursing home.

Their adult son is caught in the middle, trying desperately to make everyone happy. That is a fool’s task. In my work with fellow caregivers, I call this the caregiver FOG — fear, obligation, and guilt — because it blurs perspective, narrows options, and makes even familiar paths hard to see. No one wins.

It is like driving into actual fog. Visibility drops. Muscles tense. Judgment narrows. We try to peer miles ahead when we can barely see the hood of the car.

Every highway safety officer gives the same advice: Slow down, turn on the low beams, and stop trying to see five miles down the road.

Caregiving requires the same discipline.

My friend asked what I thought.

I suggested we lower the emotional temperature and start with one concrete issue.

Not the promise. Not the arguments. Not the guilt.

Start with the toilet.

Laugh if you like. It sounds abrupt. But it has a way of clarifying reality quickly.

RELATED: When the soul flatlines, call a ‘Code Grace’

PeopleImages via iStock/Getty Images

The bathroom is often ground zero for caregiving challenges. If the toilet is not safe and accessible, the demands on the caregiver escalate immediately. Transfers become harder. Fatigue compounds. Falls become more likely.

Once the toilet is addressed, you move outward.

The shower. The bedroom. Doorways, lighting, entrances.

Sometimes modest changes are enough — grab bars, a raised toilet seat, a walk-in shower. None of these are exotic ideas. But determining needs honestly requires facing the limits of strength, balance, and endurance as they exist today, not as we wish they were.

While politicians and toilets often deal with similar subject matter, toilets remain refreshingly honest. They simply reveal what actually works.

When families do this, reality follows. Cost. Time. Budgets weighed against needs. Timelines measured against declining strength. What once felt like a moral standoff becomes a practical evaluation.

Fear, obligation, and guilt begin to loosen their grip. In their place come planning, stewardship, and direction.

This matters because emotional decisions often rush families into choices that create larger — and sometimes far more expensive — problems later. We see this dynamic everywhere, including politics. While politicians and toilets often deal with similar subject matter, toilets remain refreshingly honest. They do not respond to intentions, promises, or speeches. They simply reveal what actually works.

Families do not choose assisted living or nursing homes in the abstract. Toilets always have a seat at the decision table.

RELATED: Christian, what do you believe when faith stops being theoretical?

fotojog via iStock/Getty Images

Surveys consistently show that most older Americans want to remain in their own homes as they age. That desire is sincere and understandable. But staying home without meaningful accommodations transfers an enormous burden onto the caregiver. The home may remain familiar, but the cost — physical, emotional, and relational — often rises exponentially.

Most promises are made sincerely. They are also made without a full understanding of how disease progresses, how bodies change, or how deeply caregiving reshapes everyone involved. Honoring a promise does not mean freezing it in time. It means continually asking how we can care well, given today’s realities.

Assisted living is not a surrender of care. In many cases, it is an extension of it. It allows families to return to being sons, daughters, and spouses, rather than exhausted amateur medical staff running on guilt and fumes.

We are not obligated to preserve every arrangement exactly as it once was. We are called to steward what has been entrusted to us — finances, time, energy, relationships, and the caregiver as well.

Circumstances change. Strength ebbs. What once worked may no longer work safely or wisely.

Important decisions are best made with clear heads, honest assessments, and wise counsel — not under the duress and resentment that so often accompany them. The days after the holidays are not a verdict. They are an invitation to slow down, think clearly, seek experienced guidance, and choose what is best not just for one individual but for the whole family.

The path forward is rarely determined by emotion, decades-old promises, or guilt.

More often, it is clarified by something far more unassuming — and far more truthful.

The appliance in the nearest bathroom.

​Opinion & analysis, Caregiving, Caregivers, Elderly, Safety, Bathroom, Toilets, Aging, Promises, Home, Assisted living, Disease, Decline, Guilt, Change, Judgment, Honesty, Love 

Conservatives across the nation are already fretting over 2026’s midterm elections, convinced that a Democrat wave would tie the Trump administration’s hands for the president’s final two years.

But BlazeTV hosts Steve Deace and Daniel Horowitz argue that’s the wrong mindset entirely. Rather than obsessing over winning elections they argue Democrats will almost certainly take, Republicans instead must be laser-focused on enacting permanent, fortress-like reforms right now — while they still hold power — before the window slams shut.

“Will we jam through what it is we came to achieve — enduring victories — and meet the moment before that door slams?” asks Horowitz.

On this episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” Deace and Horowitz lay out a stark warning: Republicans have a narrow window to enact bold, lasting reforms before the inevitable Democratic wave hits in 2026.

A Democrat wave, argues Horowitz, is almost inevitable given that the economy “is really bad” and “going to get worse.”

“I don’t want to hear about the 2026 midterms. I don’t want to hear about the presidential,” he says.

“It’s not a question of how many seats will the Democrats win in a Congress that doesn’t do anything anyway. The question is: Will you use the power you currently have at the federal and state level to cement enduring change, open an economic path, alleviate the demographic time bomb, and build fortresses around policies?”

If the Trump administration fails to make deep, structural reforms that are difficult to reverse before the inevitable swing back at midterms, Horowitz warns that come 2029, we’ll be right back in the same boat we were in in 2021, when the Biden regime ushered in the unholy trinity: “January 6 persecution,” the reign of BLM, and “COVID fascism.”

“In 2021, we had no benefits of the Trump presidency left. We cannot be in that position in January 2029,” he stresses. “So now is the time to sow in tears so we reap in joy.”

Deace agrees and imagines a “doomsday scenario” where the Trump administration fails to make permanent changes and the Democrats win big in the midterms, taking control of both the House and the Senate.

“Not only is President Trump under a constant threat of impeachment, so is Pete Hegseth. So is RFK Jr. So is Marco Rubio. … I have no idea if you can impeach a senior adviser to the president like Stephen Miller. I’m sure they will figure out a way,” he says.

“But on top of that, we then watch them repeal the filibuster in the Senate at the exact same time … so then they can do whatever they want. That outcome cannot be permitted to happen,” he adds.

Horowitz says there are two things that must happen before midterm elections.

“Number one, at the federal level, you have to think of systemic reforms that Trump will go to the mat with Congress” over — full immigration/foreign worker moratorium, repealing Obamacare outright, and capping/devolving welfare programs to the states — so Democrats can’t just flip them back easily when they return to power.

Number two: “Jazz up your base and entice them to actually vote for something in a general [election],” while also focusing on primaries to elect strong, fighter-type leaders who will actually stand firm and build “fortresses” when Democrats come back swinging.

If these two things don’t happen, he warns “we’re going to face the Fourth Reich with nothing but a feather in our hands as a weapon.”

To hear more of the conversation, watch the full interview above.

Want more from Steve Deace?

To enjoy more of Steve’s take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

​Steve deace, Steve deace show, Daniel horowitz, Conservative review, Blazetv, Blaze media, 2026 midterms, Trump administration, Democrat wave, Blue wave