The open source encyclopedia that informs your world, your children, the uneducated press, and even Amazon’s Alexa is full of liberal social justice warriors meticulously and relentlessly editing the past out of existence, when that past can hurt liberals or the social justice agenda. In the latest example, the site’s Thought Police were simply no allowing anyone to put the Sarah Jeong controversy on the Sarah Jeong Wikipedia page.
From Daily Caller reported on it, quoting one editor from the Talk page saying that information about the controversy came from an “explicitly right-wing news site” and was “therefore not a reliable source.” The DC’s story is worth reading even though there are new developments.
And the new development is that they’ve allowed a mention on the page. And here is a screenshot of how it appears at 9:30 p.m. Sunday night.
“The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media, which highlighted derogatory tweets about white people that Jeong had posted mostly in 2013 and 2014.”
In one sense, that is sadly true. It provoked no negative reaction in the mainstream media. But in another and more accurate sense, this is an obvious and ham-handed attempt to minimize the tweets and add the liberal “context” to it. Because of course, the “negative” reaction may have come from conservatives and social media, but the FACT of the tweets was covered by the major news networks and mainstream publications.
To put it another way, if some person not on the list of protected liberals – let’s say Roseanne for example – had said something racially “derogatory”, it might be described in different terms. Maybe the text of the tweet would actually be in the Wikipedia post. Beats me, you should probably go look and see.
Also the line “The hiring sparked a strongly negative reaction in conservative media and social media” is not sourced. There is no footnote, and no examples of ‘conservative media” having a “strongly negative” reaction.
Also, unlike, for example, the other person hired by the New York Times this year for the same position, Quinn Norton, there is no assessment of the tweets themselves.
(For a real journey, take a tour of conservative media figures in Wikipedia and compare to the articles on liberal media figures.)
The debate is continuing on the Talk page. But at least this actual thing that really happened in public and was covered by the mainstream press is now in the theoretical information source for things that happened.
For now…