Wikipedia’s article about the tribute song “We Are Charlie Kirk” was included in the front page’s “Did you know” section in mid-May after receiving “Good article” status, one of the site’s highest quality rankings. Its front page entry noted an outlet calling it the “worst song” of 2025. The Wikipedia article about the song memorializing Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination last year denigrates conservatives who appreciated the song’s tribute to Kirk with particular focus on its suspected AI origins.
Earlier iterations of the article contained even more negative attacks, such as comments cited to radical left influencer Hasan Piker and content minimizing left-wing celebration of Kirk’s death. The derisive front page entry about the song follows Wikipedia smear campaigns and deletion attempts related to Kirk following his assassination.
Following Kirk’s assassination last September, large numbers of people mourned his death and created artistic works as a tribute to Kirk. Several songs were produced in response to Kirk’s assassination with “We Are Charlie Kirk” being one such example. The song saw some popularity online, but faced criticism due to allegations that it was created through the use of AI. Criticism and mockery of the song dove-tailed with a wider trend on the left of people celebrating Kirk’s death and attacking him, sometimes through jokes and memes.
The article on “We Are Charlie Kirk” was nominated in early April and approved to appear on the Wikipedia front page a few days before its appearance. Several lines were suggested for its entry in the “Did you know” front page section, including one associating it with the “rickrolling” meme where people secretly link to Rick Astley’s “Never Gonna Give You Up” music video, which was also approved to appear on the front page after its article received “Good article” status. However, the chosen line was one stating “that ‘We Are Charlie Kirk’ was ranked as the worst song of 2025 by magazine Paste” instead.
Articles in the “Did you know” section are typically new articles that are developed to a certain extent, but articles that receive the “Good article” ranking are also eligible. “Good article” ranking is the second-highest formal quality ranking in the general Wikipedia community with “Featured article” status being the highest. To be recognized as a “Good article” on Wikipedia, a page must be reviewed by an independent editor according to a set list of criteria. “WikiProjects” grouping editors around a particular topic also give quality rankings to articles in their purview, but have less rigid and formalized procedures.
During the “We Are Charlie Kirk” article’s review, the reviewing editor only raised concern regarding the section about the song’s reception not showing any evidence of positive reviews, though this was defended by the nominating editor as being due to none being found. Otherwise, no further issues were raised with the article’s neutrality or with its adherence to Wikipedia policy, only citing some grammatical and stylistic issues. Within a week of being nominated for “Good article” status, the page was passed, making it eligible for its front-page appearance, a particularly quick turnaround as many articles nominated go without review for months, including in the music category.
Even as the article was approved for “Good article” status, the article contained numerous issues with its content. Under Wikipedia’s policy against including original research, material must be supported by sources directly related to the topic of the article. However, the article’s background section contains only one citation that appears to be directly related to the song. While the section and cited sources mostly focused on the general details of Kirk’s assassination and concerns about AI-generated content, particularly music, mention was also made of Kirk’s political views with citations mostly to left-wing news outlets harshly attacking the late Kirk for his conservative views.
In spite of criticism towards the article’s reception section not mentioning positive reviews, a concern ultimately discarded, other problems were seemingly overlooked. One sentence attributes descriptions of negative audience reactions to writers at left-wing news site The Mary Sue and the Jordanian news site Al Bawaba. Another devotes attention to a single off-hand reference to the song during a debate in relation to AI tools allegedly used to create the song citing a local San Francisco news site. These lines are all presented as examples of “critical” reception, which is typically for formal reviews of a work.
When discussing viral spread of the song on social media, the article juxtaposes mention of people supposedly treating AI-generated videos of people singing “We Are Charlie Kirk” as authentic with a statement in the Mary Sue about studies showing conservatives were more exposed to AI-generated content and suggesting they may treat it as more normal. In fact, the article mentions another study showing 97 percent of people cannot differentiate human-made music from AI-generated music and also notes these studies preceded advances in the technology that may erase partisan differences. The “viral spread” section also contains lengthy negative and mocking quotations about the song, including from social media accounts.
Between the article’s approval as a “Good article” and its appearance on Wikipedia’s front page, the only substantive change was by admin “Amakuru” in the day prior to its front-page appearance. The edit added a negative quote from Paste magazine’s listing of the song as the “worst” of 2025. Although Paste included criticism of the song’s general quality, the selected quote was one specifically targeting the political right and derisively mentioning the conservative educational media organization PragerU. In adding the quote, Amakuru commented in an edit description that there was “interesting juicy review material” in the Paste piece, adding a smiley emoticon at the end.
Upon appearing on the Wikipedia front page, the article garnered nearly 30,000 views, around 20 times its usual daily views. Only substantive changes to slanted material during its front-page run were to rewrite a line that misattributed dislike of the song to some listeners, when it was actually the author being dismayed at some liking the song, and the removal of the line on conservatives being more accepting of AI-generated content. The latter line was removed about an hour before the article was off the front page and was restored nearly two hours later. The only subsequent change to the line was attributing the claim to the author.
Other than existing issues, earlier edits to the “We Are Charlie Kirk” article were more egregious. Early after its creation, the article consisted of two short paragraphs, similar to other underdeveloped articles about Kirk-inspired songs, but this changed after heavy expansion by editor “Grungeosmunge” over the course of a month. Grungeosmunge introduced nearly all the negative content present on the page, but even more was originally added. This included portraying hostile comments about Kirk in the wake of his assassination as merely jokes or criticism, despite citing sources noting some were supporting his assassination, and portraying them as victims due to disciplinary actions taken against them alongside dubious claims of violent retaliation.
In one edit, Grungeosmunge cited an X post by socialist influencer Hasan Piker and noted at length his comments defending memes mocking Kirk generally by tying it to disciplinary actions against those attacking Kirk in the wake of his death and school shootings. The post by Piker was included in a piece by left-wing gaming and geek culture news site Kotaku, but the piece merely included Piker’s comments in a list of social media reactions to “We Are Charlie Kirk” with no special attention paid to the remarks. Grungeosmunge further noted Kirk’s views on gun rights citing an article unrelated to the song.
Grungeosmunge’s profile page claims to only be interested in writing “neutral” content, including on political topics. Many articles Grungeosmunge claims to have created were created by another account called “Atubofsilverware” and an early version of the editor’s profile page acknowledged having previous accounts. The Atubofsilverware account created many articles related to politics, such as a largely negative article on conservative media commentator Tucker Carlson’s podcast, which included unrelated attacks on Carlson’s tenure at Fox News and focused primarily on a single interview with a controversial World War II researcher.
Atubofsilverware also created articles on past Republican Presidential campaigns by Pat Buchanan and Richard Nixon that included attacks on President Donald Trump. The page on Buchanan’s campaign puts a predominantly negative spin on his campaign positions and then noted him as a claimed influence on Trump. In the article on Nixon’s 1960 campaign, the Atubofsilverware account implicitly contrasted Nixon’s response to credible reports of electoral fraud with Trump challenging the 2020 election results. While the articles have been updated since, the attacks on Trump remain on both pages with minimal change.
Editors on Wikipedia have made numerous edits attacking Kirk following his assassination in violation of the site’s own policies. Shortly after his assassination, an editor altered the introduction to Kirk’s page to claim as fact Kirk “sought to fire or silence professors for sharing opinions” in reference to the Professor Watchlist Turning Point USA operated noting widely-covered controversial statements by left-wing educators. No source was provided as required by policy on claims about the recently-deceased with subsequent edits worsening the slant of the material and no subsequently cited sources supporting the claims.
Despite this, the smear remained for days even after an editor complained. Kirk’s page received 20 million views during this time and was monitored by former members of the site’s Arbitration Committee, often likened to a Supreme Court, and site co-founder Jimmy Wales. In a later New York Times interview, Wales stated Wikipedia had done its “job well” regarding Kirk. Editors also smeared Kirk as “far-right” both openly and subtly after his assassination and attempted to delete the page on his memorial service, while adding Nazi comparisons. Current and former admins also made callous comments about Kirk’s widow Erika during an attempt to delete her page.
(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