Editors across Wikipedia are going all out to salvage the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) reputation.
The biased, so-called online encyclopedia's editors downplayed, hid and even deleted content about the recent grand jury indictment of the SPLC across Wikipedia. The SPLC – accused of “manufacturing racism to justify its existence” – was indicted on “11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering.”
While Wikipedia routinely elevates indictments against Republicans and right-of-center organizations, the website’s editors pushed news of the indictment further and further down the SPLC’s own Wikipedia page. Wikipedia editors ultimately buried the news in the 65th paragraph of the entry, making “Federal indictment” a small subheading of “Lawsuits against and criticism of the SPLC.”
By contrast, Wikipedia consistently includes indictments, charges or investigations against Republicans and organizations on the right in the introductory section of their Wikipedia articles, many times as high as the third paragraph. Wikipedia boosted legal attacks on the pages of The Trump Organization, Fox News, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, White House trade advisor Peter Navarro, former Trump advisor Roger Stone and former White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
Wikipedia’s flagrant bias has a massive impact, as the Pew Research Center has found that the so-called online encyclopedia is among the most cited sources in Google AI summaries and is also one of the most frequently appearing sources in Google search results.
By examining the discussions of Wikipedia editors on the site’s discussion board, MRC researchers found the following Wikipedia editor actions after the DOJ’s announcement of an 11-count indictment against the SPLC:
- Wikipedia editors buried the 11-count grand jury indictment against the SPLC 65 paragraphs deep on the leftist organization’s page. Wikipedia also downplayed and removed damning accusations against the left-wing attack dog, including its alleged funding of an organizer from the “Unite the Right” rally.
- Wikipedia editors silenced complaints about Wikipedia’s treatment of SPLC as a “Generally reliable” source for information to be used across the website. Meanwhile, sources like Breitbart, Fox News, the New York Post and The Daily Wire are still heavily restricted or even blacklisted.
- In addition to censoring criticism, at least one Wikipedia editor who went against the party line was banned from offering additional comments about the SPLC.
- Wikipedia’s “Generally reliable” label for the SPLC effectively cements its influence, entrenching a controversial source already cited over 7,000 times across the so-called online encyclopedia.
- Wikipedia editors also censored attempts to include the information about the indictment on pages that reference the SPLC or have connections to the leftist organization, like the “Unite the Right rally” Wikipedia page.
Wikipedia Editors Buried, Downplayed and Removed Key Details on SPLC Wikipedia Page
News of the grand jury indictment broke on the morning of April 21. However, editors didn’t add news about the indictment to Wikipedia’s SPLC page until 6:32 PM EST that evening (listed at 22:32 since Wikipedia timestamps are in Coordinated Universal Time). This was the first edit since April 17. MRC analysis of the Wikipedia editor discussion board, called a Wikipedia “talk” page, showed why: debate raged among editors about whether to even include the breaking scandal at all. In fact, one editor with the username “Darknipples” wrote, "I would oppose adding anything at the moment, unless the investigation actually finds anything. Cheers.” That same editor went on to suggest that “there’s nothing really of substance here” and attacked the Trump administration as “ideologically opposed to SPLC and forms of racial justice.”
After the indictment was finally included on the SPLC Wikipedia page, the website’s editors fought to keep news of the scandal out of sight.
For example, when an editor using the name “Orvis2003” added the indictment to the lead section of the SPLC page on April 22, another editor, “Jérôme,” removed it a little over an hour later that same day, explicitly claiming the indictment was “already mentioned further down” and had “no place so far up” on the page. Another attempt to include the indictment in the lead section was made on April 23, but it was also shut down roughly five minutes after the edit was made.
But Wikipedia editors weren’t content with just pushing the indictment out of the lead section. They also banished a prominently placed description of the indictment from a second, lower section titled “Federal Indictment” as well. An editor with the username “AndreJustAndre” claimed to be merging duplicate sections before ensuring that the sole reference to the indictment was buried beneath a mountain of text.
Wikipedia editors didn’t just consign the indictment to a hidden, insignificant part of the article; they also left the description of the indictment short and without important information. Notably, an editor with the username “Isaidnoway” stripped out key details from the indictment that corroborated claims about the SPLC allegedly paying a “Unite the Right” rally organizer that had been added by an editor with the username “Orvis2003.” Isaidnoway argued that “it's UNDUE to single out one informant they paid as if they are the most significant, especially when you are using a primary source.” Ultimately, Wikipedia editors left the page without a single mention of the SPLC allegedly paying “Unite the Right rally organizers,” [emphasis added].
Wikipedia Editors Shut Down Debate Over SPLC Reliability for Website Usage
The Wikipedia editors also fought to stop the SPLC scandal from implicating the SPLC’s privileged treatment as a source on the website.
Wikipedia maintains a “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” list that the Media Research Center exposed as an effective blacklist of right-leaning outlets back in February 2025. Wikipedia outrageously categorized the SPLC as “Generally reliable” at the time, and it still does as of the writing of this piece. The “Generally reliable” designation is the highest level of reliability recognized by Wikipedia.
Some Wikipedia editors naturally questioned the credibility of the SPLC as a source after the grand jury indictment accused the SPLC of defrauding donors, deceiving banks and funding leaders and organizers in some of the very groups the SPLC claimed it was attempting to expose. In addition to allegedly funding a “Unite the Right” rally organizer, the SPLC is accused of funding an Imperial Wizard of the United Klans of America, a group the indictment notes the SPLC has gone after on its website. The indictment also accuses the SPLC of maintaining an “extremist file” on the head of the National Socialist Party of America and fundraising off of him while paying him $70,000.
Shockingly, rather than taking steps to address the SPLC’s reliability, editors who dissented from the party line were the only ones actually punished. On the “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” Wikipedia talk page, an editor with the username “Awwright” blasted the SPLC for having “lied over and over again.” Awwright continued to argue the point in a second discussion, leading to an editor with the username “ScottishFinnishRadish” seemingly punishing Awwright and banning him from the SPLC site. Awwright did not provide additional comments after ScottishFinnishRadish bragged, “I have topic banned Awwright from the SPLC.” In fact, Wikipedia editors defended the SPLC’s reliability to the point of shutting down both discussions where Awwright and another editor, “Magnolia677,” had argued that the SPLC’s “Generally reliable” rating on Wikipedia should be downgraded.
Ultimately, Wikipedia editors did not add a note about accusations of dishonesty and paying leaders or organizers to the “Reliable sources/Perennial sources” entry for SPLC. In fact, only one edit has been made to the page, but no substantive changes of any kind have been made to the SPLC rating since the indictment.
The SPLC’s continued privileged status at Wikipedia provides editors with what amounts to a digital weapon to use against faith-based organizations, free speech advocates and Republicans and right-leaning organizations and individuals. The SPLC is approved for use while sources like Breitbart, Fox News, the New York Post and The Daily Wire are heavily restricted or even blacklisted. Such policies limit favorable coverage of those the SPLC has unfairly targeted and lumped in with hate groups. At the same time, editors are free to use the SPLC’s “extremist files” to undermine credibility or perhaps even damage reputations.
Wikipedia editors have cited the SPLC more than 7,000 times across Wikipedia. SPLC is cited far more than organizations that are fighting for religious liberty or working to end discriminatory Diversity, Equity and Inclusion “DEI” programs or similar advocacy. For example, as of May 1, Wikipedia only cited Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) 48 times; The Federalist Society 313 times; Capital Research Center 87 times and the New Civil Liberties Alliance 20 times. Despite each having its own page on the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia doesn’t cite to either America First Legal or the Thomas More Society law firm.
To make matters worse, Wikipedia has effectively functioned as a megaphone for the SPLC, citing it as the source to smear countless right-leaning organizations and pundits. For example, Wikipedia included four such citations for late Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk. Wikipedia also used the disgraced organization for the pages of podcast host and retired Navy intelligence officer Jack Posobiec (9 times), David Horowitz (7 times), Matt Walsh (4 times), Stephen Miller (3 times), Chaya Raichik’s Libs of TikTok account (2 times) and Ben Shapiro (1 time). Additionally, Wikipedia used SPLC citations on organization pages like the ADF (5 times), Moms for Liberty (3 times), Family Research Council (2 times) and PragerU (1 time). Editors even used the SPLC three times for a Wikipedia page named “Racial views of Donald Trump.”
Wikipedia Editors Censored Indictment News on Related Pages
Wikipedia’s efforts to protect the SPLC’s reputation went beyond preserving the SPLC page and the SPLC’s “Generally reliable” status at Wikipedia. Wikipedia editors also made sure that the indictment’s embarrassing accusations did not appear on related Wikipedia pages.
For example, editors quickly censored a mention of the SPLC indictment in the Wikipedia entry for the 2017 “Unite the Right rally” in Charlottesville. Notably, the recent indictment accused the SPLC of paying over $270,000 to one of the organizers of that rally. As of April 27, the entry cited the SPLC no less than seven times, but none of them contained a mention of the indictment.
A section of the “Unite the Right rally” Wikipedia page titled “Alleged connection with the Southern Poverty Law Center” was included at one point in the final two paragraphs of the bloated page with over 150 paragraphs on the local protest in Charlottesville. But even burying the news of the indictment at the very end of the article wasn’t good enough for Wikipedia editors, who removed it on April 24. An editor with the username “Sławomir Biały” wrote, “There is simply no way this belongs as a top-level section of the article.”
On the “Unite the Right rally” talk page, Wikipedia editors shut down one discussion on the indictment, while also declining a separate request to mention SPLC fundraising on the same rally. A Wikipedia editor with the username “Objective3000” referenced the so-called online encyclopedia’s effective blacklist, denying the request because it cited one of the largest media outlets on the right: “Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. Fox News is not a reliable source for politics.”
Wikipedia editors also defended the SPLC on other pages, like when they removed an April 24 edit describing the indictment scarcely a minute after it was added to the “List of organizations designated by the SPLC as hate groups” page. While the original revision did not link to a source, Wikipedia editors made no apparent effort to include properly sourced indictment coverage on the page.
Wikipedia editors’ decisions on who to smear and who to protect go far beyond the confines of its website pages.
Google often uses Wikipedia as a source for a “knowledge graph,” which it frequently promotes at the top of many basic online searches. Google has generously funded Wikipedia’s parent company, the Wikimedia Foundation and its fund, Wikimedia Endowment, donating approximately $7.5 million.
Google’s promotion of Wikipedia also extends to its AI chatbot Gemini, as Google not only frequently cites Wikipedia in AI search summaries but also partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation’s Wikimedia Enterprise project. Wikimedia Enterprise sells “curated” access to Wikipedia data. In a Jan. 15 announcement, the Wikimedia Foundation referred to Google as an “existing partner,” and noted that AI companies could “access content from Wikimedia projects at a volume and speed designed specifically for their needs, while directly supporting our nonprofit mission.” But Google is not alone. Other AI companies have similarly partnered with Wikimedia. In the same announcement, Wikimedia Foundation noted that other tech giants, including Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Mistral AI and Perplexity, entered similar partnerships.
Methodology: Wikipedia editors first edited the “Southern Poverty Law Center” page to add the indictment at 22:32 UTC on April 21. MRC researchers first examined and analyzed the “Southern Poverty Law Center” and “United the Right rally” Wikipedia pages, their edit history and “Talk” pages on April 27, 2026. MRC researchers then examined and analyzed Wikipedia pages for Republicans and right-wing organizations with indictments, investigations or charges from April 28-April 29. MRC researchers archived Wikipedia pages and website “Talk” pages between April 27 and May 4, 2026.
Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.
