Following the assassination of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk one month ago today, Wikipedia editors responded by smearing Kirk across multiple articles even as tens of millions viewed the pages and high-level site leaders monitored them. Such smears included editors labeling Kirk far-right both openly and surreptitiously, in one case prompting Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) to call Wikipedia “wicked” on social media. Editors also advocated labeling Trumpism as fascism in response.
Just one month ago, Kirk was assassinated at the start of his latest college campus tour by a suspected left-wing shooter. On Wikipedia, the immediate response of numerous editors was to start smearing Kirk and denigrating him as initially reported by Ashley Rindsberg at Fox News. This has included editors spreading lies and mocking his apparent last words. Such efforts happened even as site co-founder Jimmy Wales himself commented on Kirk’s page with members of the site’s Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court, editing the page. Editors also sought to smear Kirk’s memorial service held on September 21 or to delete its page entirely
Views on Kirk’s page alone ventured into the tens of millions after his assassination, which disseminated smears far more widely than normal. This allowed the site’s cadre of left-wing activist editors to define Kirk’s memory and legacy at a critical moment in the nation’s modern political history. As commentator Tucker Carlson noted in his recent interview of site co-founder Larry Sanger about his proposed reform of the site, Wikipedia shapes America and people’s collective memory, which includes shaping Kirk’s legacy in the minds of millions.
Labeling Kirk “Far-Right”
How to describe Kirk politically has been of particular focus with left-wing editors pushing more negative and inflammatory descriptions. Editor “Tataral” edited Kirk’s page two days after the assassination to label him a “conspiracy theorist” and “far-right” in the first line. Tataral describes herself as critical of President Donald Trump and progressive by American standards, boasting about creating the page on Trump’s mug shot. She was also involved in smearing Acting U.S. Attorney Ed Martin in retaliation for his letter requesting information from Wikipedia’s owners regarding bias at the site, particularly anti-Israeli bias.
Tataral’s additions were feuded over and kept out, though numerous editors endorsed the “far-right” label on the article’s discussion page. These pejorative labels stayed up long enough to appear in Google’s Knowledge Panel, prompting criticism on social media, including from Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who said editors went “out of their way to put the ‘wicked’ in Wikipedia:”
On the page for the assassination, one editor labeled Kirk a “fascist” and on the page for Utah Valley University, where Kirk was assassinated, another labeled him “far-right” in edits that were quickly undone.
Sneaking Under the “Hard-Right” Label
However, experienced editors have also found deceitful ways to sneak in the contentious “far-right” label on the page about the assassination. Admin “Guettarda” edited the background section after the intro to add a quote from the New York Times claiming Kirk was influential in shaping the “hard right movement” and placing that quote ahead of an existing quote calling Kirk “one of the most prominent voices on the right” in the Washington Post. Guettarda is a long-time Wikipedia editor and member of the site’s “Black Lives Matter” group, which has promoted the movement’s agenda on Wikipedia, including by flooding its front page “Did you know” section in 2020.
Molly White, a self-described leftist with socialist leanings who edits as “GorillaWarfare” on Wikipedia and served for years on the site’s Arbitration Committee, made a sly edit adding an internal link to “hard-right” in the quote. The link is actually a redirect to Wikipedia’s page on far-right politics, which has an image of Unite the Right protestors in 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, prominently displaying Nazi and Confederate flags. Under Wikipedia guidelines, such “piped links” are supposed to be “as intuitive as possible” and minimize potential confusion for readers. Links significantly concealing the true nature of target articles are referred to as “Easter egg” links under Wikipedia guidelines.
Links in quotes are particularly discouraged with site guidelines saying it should only be done when reflecting “the meaning clearly intended by the quote’s author.” The New York Times obituary cited for the “hard-right” label, meanwhile, clearly distinguishes Kirk’s politics from those of the far-right, describing the hard-right movement as being the one “that coalesced around” President Trump and stated Kirk was able to appeal broadly on issues to various factions of the right without going too far to the right. Kirk was most consistently described by the New York Times as conservative or right-wing instead.
Banning Opponent of “Hard-Right” Label
After an editor sought to directly label Kirk “far-right” in the article citing a single left-wing Guardian piece, the Easter egg link was removed, but eventually restored once directly labeling Kirk “far-right” was rejected. Discussing the surreptitious link, editor “Quadrow” argued it was propaganda not backed by consensus. Simon McNeil, who edits as “Simonm223” on Wikipedia, claimed it was fine and consistent with the New York Times description. McNeil identifies as a Marxist socialist. Previously, he mockingly denigrated journalist Andy Ngo after he was attacked by Antifa and also praised Antifa terrorist Willem Van Spronsen’s attempted bombing of an ICE facility.
Quadrow was subsequently reported to a noticeboard for administrators citing the discussion he initiated and other comments he made objecting to indirectly labeling Kirk “far-right” at the assassination article. His comments mainly warned that labeling people far-right and associating them with Nazis is the very kind of rhetoric that contributed to Kirk’s assassination. One comment suggesting this meant editors supported political assassinations became the main focus of discussion. McNeil cited several past comments, including comments objecting to Wikipedia’s far-right labeling of Breitbart News, to push for banning Quadrow from American politics articles.
Despite offering to retract the words about Wikipedia editors endorsing political assassination with their conduct, an admin banned Quadrow from the assassination article and a group consisting mainly of left-wing editors voted to ban him from politics generally. Responding to the assassination page ban, Quadrow lamented that he was defending Kirk from being branded far-right, which he reiterated contributed to Kirk’s assassination. Quadrow later accepted being banned from politics articles over his “irreconcilable difference of opinion with the community on the broad use of far-right to describe pretty much all of mainstream right-wing politicians, organisations and pundits.” He was threatened with a total Wikipedia ban for the remark.
“Far-Right” Image Debate
Following the surreptitious “far-right” link’s insertion, editors went to the discussion page of the “far-right” article to argue for removal of the Unite the Right image used at the top. An editor had requested removal of the image several months earlier, noting a previous formalized discussion at the beginning of the year had concluded without consensus on the image’s inclusion. Before Kirk’s assassination, only minimal comment had occurred with Michael Knowles, who edits as “Binksternet” on Wikipedia, opposing the image’s removal. Knowles was previously involved in pushing false claims that the Conservative Political Action Conference used Nazi symbols and also smeared China critics the Epoch Times.
Once the page was linked from the Kirk assassination article discussion greatly increased with editor “Springee” stating the image created a false association of many groups labeled “far-right” with Nazis. Some suggested multiple images could defray these concerns. Paul Lee, who edits as “Valjean” on Wikipedia, rejected any change by claiming it showed these groups as closely associated with each other. He then repeated the “fine people” hoax claim targeting Trump and referred to the President as a “poorly-closeted” Nazi. Lee is the primary author of Wikipedia’s Steele dossier article, which he has obsessively edited for years to defend the dossier despite it being thoroughly discredited.
Springee noted Kirk in his comments, stating he would not want to associate with Nazis despite editors attempting to label him far-right and that Kirk did not support violence. Another editor responded by falsely claiming Kirk did support violence. McNeil responded to the push for a discussion on removing the image by citing Wikipedia policy stating the site is not censored. Previously, McNeil nominated the United Kingdom grooming gang scandal page for deletion, prompting social media outcry. Many noted his blog where he supported exposing children to sexual kinks and fetishes at Pride Marches, which McNeil claimed only “Nazis” or those “carrying water for Nazis” would oppose.
In comments to Lee on the latter’s personal discussion page, McNeil claimed “there is currently a frenzy of hagiography going on surrounding Kirk which has tried to normalize his frequent utterance of misogynistic, racist and homophobic statements and present him like a mainstream political figure” with the “hard-right” Easter egg link being opposed for associating Kirk with Nazis. Lee agreed and McNeil further insisted it was not neutral to let conservative criticism affect Wikipedia’s coverage of Kirk and supported labeling Kirk “far-right” on Wikipedia. An editor eventually replaced the “hard-right” claim about Kirk on the assassination page with one identifying him with the MAGA movement.
Redefining MAGA
Given Kirk’s support for President Trump, editors made several edits linking Kirk to Trump’s ideology. While seemingly innocuous, editors doing this often exhibited bias. Editor David Roberts, who edits as “CrowbarCatalyst” on Wikipedia, created a sidebar about Kirk and added it to Kirk’s page identifying Kirk’s ideology as “Trumpism” with a link to Wikipedia’s article on Trumpism. The sidebar was deleted arguing not enough pages existed to warrant it. Roberts, who identified as a Democrat on his profile page, previously created a redirect of Kirk’s apparent last words after failing in repeated attempts to have video of Kirk’s assassination added to the assassination article.
Several responded to Kirk’s assassination to push harsher definitions of Trumpism, allowing those characterizations to be attached to Kirk as an adherent with one editor including “authoritarianism” in Trumpism’s ideology in one edit claiming consensus for the label. As reported by Ashley Rindsberg in Fox News, the use of “authoritarian” to describe Trump’s ideology has proliferated throughout Wikipedia in increasing prominence in major Trump-related articles, though these characterizations had generally remained attributed prior to Kirk’s assassination.
One account called “Rangooner” was created a week after Kirk’s assassination and immediately began adding the MAGA movement to the “List of fascist movements” article with barely any sources cited even mentioning fascism. Rangooner’s profile page initially claimed the editor was “anti-misinformation, anti-propaganda, anti-fascist, and therefore, anti-Trump.” After repeated removals and restorations over nearly a week, the page was locked and the editor given a week-long ban with the listing kept out. Similar edits were made at another list.
However, Rangooner’s activity was not limited to list pages as the editor repeatedly tried to list the MAGA movement as “neo-fascist” on the related article. While those edits were undone, Rangooner also pushed content labeling Trumpism as fascism at the article on Republican Party factions citing mainly left-wing journals and outlets, including the far-left Democracy Now. Further edits attacking Trump and labeling him fascist were made at the article on alleged democratic backsliding in the United States. Those edits stood even as Rangooner’s relentless campaign to label Trumpism as fascism prompted several editors to suggest the editor was a single-purpose account for the purpose of pushing the label.
Rangooner’s efforts at labeling Trumpism fascism saw mixed success with direct editing and discussions initiated on the matter had similarly seen minimal success. A notable exception is the article on fascism itself, where Rangooner’s determined efforts to label Trumpism as fascism saw support from McNeil prompting various other left-wing editors to support mention of Trumpism in the fascism article. Rangooner consequently opened a formal “request for comment” to achieve “consensus” on the matter. The discussion has overwhelmingly favored mentioning Trumpism, though debate divided on exactly how to include it with some suggesting merely noting allegations and debate rather than firmly labeling it fascism.
Left-Wing Media Whitewashing
Media on the left have effusively praised Wikipedia as some great bastion of truth and maligned its critics in right-wing media. As Stephen Harrison in Slate put it, right-wing media criticism “isn’t actually interested in explaining how the site works” and was about trying to “undermine Wikipedia’s function as a volunteer-driven project that can produce an independent repository of facts that has (at least historically) been insulated from political interference.” Harisson even favorably cites White, the same admin who sneakily smeared Kirk as “far-right” immediately after his death. Yet, the relentless smear campaigns against numerous conservative figures, including Trump, and the tarnishing of Kirk’s legacy after his assassination suggest the site is hardly “insulated from political interference.”
(Disclosure: The author has been involved in disputes with several of the parties mentioned in the article)
T. D. Adler edited Wikipedia as The Devil’s Advocate. He was banned after privately reporting conflict of interest editing by one of the site’s administrators. Due to previous witch-hunts led by mainstream Wikipedians against their critics, Adler writes under an alias.
Read the full article here
