I just wrapped up a deep dive into Taylor Lorenz’s Wikipedia page, and what I found feels like a live case study in the kind of media bias and institutional trust issues we often unpack here. Taylor Lorenz is once again making waves for her controversial praise for Luigi Mangione. She first expressed “joy” over the murder in a December 2024 Piers Morgan interview, saying it tied to her belief in the “sanctity of life” amid healthcare frustrations, though she later backtracked to “not empathy.” Then, she doubled down on CNN, calling Mangione “handsome,” “smart,” and—most shockingly—“morally good,” framing him as a revolutionary figure that women admire. This sparked immediate backlash, with figures like Stephen Miller, Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee slamming her on X, and outlets like Fox News and The Independent covering the uproar extensively. Yet, when I checked her Wikipedia page today, April 16, 2025, there’s not a single mention of this controversy (or any others!). I found this isn’t the first time her page has skipped major controversies. There are other omissions we’ve discussed here before, like her 2020 amplification of Claudia Conway’s anti-Trump TikToks—criticized for exploiting a minor, as reported by Daily Mail—and her 2021 false claim that Marc Andreessen used a slur on Clubhouse, later corrected but not without backlash, as noted by Fox News. Both incidents were widely covered but are absent from her page, suggesting a pattern of selective editing. The Mangione comments feel especially egregious given their recency and impact. Fox News ran pieces on both her Piers Morgan and CNN remarks, with headlines like “Taylor Lorenz’s ‘heinous’ defense of Luigi Mangione as a ‘morally good man’ disgusts X users,” while The Independent highlighted her CNN interview, noting she’s a “regular target of attacks from the right online” but also pointing to the “disingenuous outrage culture” her comments feed. National Review and OutKick also weighed in, with the latter accusing her of backtracking after initially denying the “morally good” claim—despite video evidence. This level of coverage screams notability, so why the silence on Wikipedia? The Wikipedia Talk page for Lorenz’s article offers some clues. Just yesterday a user named The lorax argued that the Mangione comments have gained “lasting impact” due to ongoing media attention, citing The Independent’s recent article as a reliable source. Marquardtika agreed, pushing for inclusion, but others pushed back, claiming the coverage might be biased or not “DUE” enough, referencing Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources Policy. Notwally, in a detailed post, dissected The Independent’s reporting, noting it mischaracterized Lorenz’s CNN remarks—her actual quote framed Mangione’s appeal as a public sentiment rather than her personal view—but still argued the controversy might not be significant enough, especially since the latest article didn’t reference her earlier “joy” comment.
This debate mirrors earlier ones on the Talk page about Lorenz’s harassment experiences, where editors have been battling since March 2025 over whether to call attacks against her “coordinated.” Some pointed to sources showing coordination (e.g., Lorenz’s claim that Tucker Carlson mobilized followers against her), while others argued there’s no proof, leading to the section being renamed simply “Harassment.”
What strikes me most about the Talk page is the tension between editors trying to maintain neutrality and those who seem overly cautious about including anything too controversial.
In the harassment debate, Delectopierre accused another editor of downplaying Lorenz’s experiences, warning that such edits “mimic some of the disgusting tactics used in Gamergate” by denying her reality. The editor countered that they were trying to expand the section neutrally, focusing on secondary sources over Lorenz’s tweets to avoid bias, but the back-and-forth shows how contentious this page is. The Mangione discussion feels like a continuation of this struggle: even with reliable sources, some editors are hesitant to touch polarizing content. But Wikipedia’s NPOV policy demands that all significant views be represented, and Lorenz’s comments—praising an accused killer and drawing condemnation from high-profile figures—clearly meet that bar. Excluding them isn’t neutrality; it’s selective storytelling.
This isn’t just about Lorenz; it’s about Wikipedia’s credibility. If her page can skip over statements this explosive, especially when they’re so fresh and widely covered, what does that say about Wikipedia’s ability to handle divisive figures? The pattern of omission suggests a bias toward downplaying Lorenz’s most polarizing moments, which risks presenting a sanitized version of her public image.
I was considering jumping into the Talk page debate myself, arguing that the Mangione comments deserve inclusion under NPOV given the breadth of coverage and their impact. But as it turns out my IP is banned from editing even though I’ve never tried.
I’m curious if any of you have noticed similar patterns on other Wikipedia pages for controversial figures. Is this a systemic issue? Do we need a new Wikipedia built by uncompassionate LLMs?
Ademonera
3mo ago
Russia's historical claims on Ukraine don't justify invasion. Territorial sovereignty isn't negated by shared cultural history. This principle has been foundational to post-WW2 order.
The Cuban Missile Crisis comparison falls apart because Ukraine wasn't pursuing offensive capabilities against Russia. NATO membership is defensive.
While Western interventions have questionable legality, Russia's annexation of territory represents a different category of violation. Iraq wasn't annexed, whatever other flaws that campaign had.
You might be surprised how well formed an idea can be if you work on it together with an AI. Feeding it data, having it search, etc. Obviously you can’t just copy paste but it’s an art form. >How I learned to love slop.
More options
Context Copy link