Wikipedia editors have censored the page about the police-involved shooting of Rayshard Brooks by removing any mention of Brooks’ violent criminal history, despite him violently resisting arrest which precipitated police use of force. Criticism of District Attorney Paul Howard’s decision to charge officer Garrett Rolfe with felony murder has also been removed.
Editors involved in censoring the Wikipedia page openly expressed hostility towards officer Rolfe and support for Brooks. One editor’s profile page contained numerous derogatory and inflammatory images and comments about President Donald Trump and Administration officials.
Since the police-involved death of George Floyd and widespread Black Lives Matter protests and riots in response, Wikipedia editors have been taking steps to slant articles in favor of the movement and its cause. Editors have spun or downplayed the violence and rioting, censored evidence of Antifa involvement, and pushed content favoring a Black Lives Matters agenda onto the front page throughout June and even on July 4. The Wikimedia Foundation, which owns Wikipedia, has leaned into this bias by declaring there is “no neutral stance” on racial justice and endorsing Black Lives Matter.
Within the article on the Atlanta shooting, editors removed details about Brooks having a prior violent history. One editor mentioned a prior conviction Brooks received for domestic violence, reportedly including Brooks twisting his wife’s arm during an argument.
Despite citing CNN, deemed reliable on Wikipedia, an editor removed the material insisting it was “irrelevant” and “cherrypicked” information. This left vague mention of Brooks spending two years in prison and having “been married eight years” with three daughters, protecting the favorable protest narrative of Brooks as a family man. By contrast, editors detail a prior reprimand Rolfe received for pointing his gun at a fleeing stolen vehicle.
EDITOR’S NOTE – Wikipedia may be the single greatest source of dangerous misinformation on the internet. Why? Because people mistakenly believe it to be objective & reliable, the modern version of The World Book or Encyclopedia Britannica. It is neither.