zlacker

Unsurprisingly, this doesn't seem to be a left vs. right issue but a far left vs. centre issue.

None of the edit suggestions or controversies were racist or biased. It is clear that ardent supporters of the BLM movement simply want to shape the historical record in the way they want to. And Wikipedia will probably side with them.

How is mentioning Floyd's past criminal record on his biographical page (not even on the "Killing of..." page) a detraction from his death? Are we just going to edit Wikipedia to remove anything that detracts from people we idolise? Wikipedia should present the facts (all of them) and that is it. If the facts detract, then maybe there's a reason for that. That doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

>>Thoren+(OP)
This has been happening for a while. There were posts on HN about the revision wars around the Orlando shooting, and then again on almost every major world event.

When it comes to political events, you cannot take Wikipedia as a reliable source anymore.

The sad fact is that the people who have the most time to give to wikipedia, are typically the most biased.

>>Thoren+(OP)
If you look at the linked talk page almost all votes are yes, include. It is currently included. You appear to be railing not against what is, but against an unrealized possibility which was in fact stopped by the very hive-mind you falsely assume would push, or at least accept it.

Call me slanted all you want, but this, the current state of comments here, that's what an agenda looks like.

>>htfu+Ho
I was basing my comments on the linked Slate article.

>>Thoren+1M1
And the link I referred to is in that article.