Wikipedia is under fire for how it has handled pages about Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk following his assassination. Despite policies meant to protect recently deceased individuals, editors added mocking references to Kirk’s last words and smeared his work with unverified claims, drawing criticism that the platform is violating its own neutrality standards.
In the days after Kirk’s death, his Wikipedia page and the page on his assassination received nearly 50 million combined views. Editors locked both articles to prevent tampering by inexperienced users, yet derogatory edits still appeared. Some mocked Kirk’s last words—spoken in a discussion about gang-related shootings—by placing them in sections on “ironic” final words, despite no reliable source characterizing them that way. Others created redirect pages using his last words to link to the assassination article.
Additional controversy arose when editors altered descriptions of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist, a project that documents far-left professors. One edit falsely claimed the Watchlist sought to “silence” professors through “targeted harassment campaigns,” despite no supporting evidence in cited sources. The edits stayed live for more than a day at the top of Kirk’s article, which was viewed nearly 20 million times during that window.
Meanwhile, vandals posted celebratory comments on Wikipedia calling Kirk’s assassination “justice” and branding him a “fascist.” Some edits even suggested harm to his family. While many of these were quickly removed or hidden, logs show others remain visible.
Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales and several former Arbitration Committee members monitored Kirk’s page during this period, but critics say their interventions failed to prevent policy violations. Administrators like Molly White and Steve Pereira defended keeping certain slanted edits, further fueling accusations of bias.
Left-wing media outlets including Slate defended Wikipedia’s handling of the controversy, portraying criticism as a coordinated right-wing effort to undermine the platform. However, bipartisan members of Congress have already raised questions about Wikipedia’s editorial practices, citing concerns over anti-Israel bias, misinformation, and the treatment of politically sensitive topics.
The fallout highlights how a platform that claims neutrality often becomes a battleground, with narratives shaped by the political leanings of its most active editors. In the case of Charlie Kirk, Wikipedia’s actions have amplified attacks on his legacy, despite clear guidelines intended to prevent exactly that.
