Wikipedia Editors Are Trying To Downplay Details Of Iryna Zarutska's Murder

Wikipedia is the 11th most visited website in the United States and consistently ranks among the top Google search results. But beyond its lack of accuracy, the site has increasingly revealed a clear liberal bias in its citations and editorial decisions.

Last September, Ashley Rindsberg of The Free Press documented how a handful of powerful editors weaponized Wikipedia into a tool of Democratic agitprop. The piece highlighted how editors erased mention of Kamala Harris’ role as "border czar" after she became the nominee. Initially, Wikipedia referenced the title on Harris’ page, but it was quickly removed in deference to mainstream media outlets that insisted she had never been appointed as such. She was. Rindsberg found similar examples of politically motivated manipulation across entries on Donald Trump, COVID-19, and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

A year later, nothing has changed.

This week—just days after House Republicans launched an investigation into bad-faith edits to pages on Israel and Ukraine—Blaze Media uncovered that Wikipedia editors were trying to scrub the record clean of the violent thug who slaughtered Iryna Zarutska on a train in Charlotte, North Carolina.

On Saturday morning, editors deleted any reference to the alleged killer’s name, preventing readers from easily learning about his criminal record. One editor defended the move as "standard not to name suspected perpetrators," yet others quickly pointed out the inconsistency: Wikipedia had no issue naming Kyle Rittenhouse in 2020.

At the time of publication, Wikipedia’s entry omitted the killer’s name entirely, except where it appeared in cited articles. Some editors tried to dismiss the case as insignificant, chalking it up to "recent news." One editor argued that the attack wasn’t racially motivated, suggesting the killer was simply a "schizophrenic in crisis."

Of course, audio released Tuesday captured the killer shouting, "I got that white girl" immediately after the murder—a clear indication of racist intent.

The editors' reasoning raises obvious questions: Why didn’t editors hesitate to spotlight Derek Chauvin’s name and background? And why hasn’t Wikipedia updated its entry to reflect the killer’s racist statement?

The pattern is unmistakable. Wikipedia emphasizes names and motives when the narrative aligns with the media’s preferred storyline. When it doesn’t, facts are buried, minimized, or erased. 

One editor even accused "white supremacists" of trying to twist the incident, despite the reality being painfully clear: a racist black man killed a woman for her white skin color. The media’s relative silence only underscores the uncomfortable fact that black-on-white violence is more common than the reverse—something that cuts against the narrative many outlets promote.

A separate editor has since nominated the article for deletion altogether.

Wikipedia’s bias is not an accident. It is deliberate, systemic, and reinforced by policies that give a small group of editors immense power over which "facts" the public sees. While anyone can technically edit a page, the most politically sensitive entries are often locked down and controlled by administrators who overwhelmingly lean left.

At this point, Wikipedia should no longer be regarded as a neutral resource. It has become a propaganda tool—one that manipulates narratives rather than presenting facts. Until it commits to accuracy and neutrality, Wikipedia is best ignored.