WHITE WASH: Wikipedia Editors Scrambled to Erase Jeffrey Epstein’s Connection to Bill Clinton
In the wake of billionaire and convicted sexual offender Jeffrey Epstein’s indictment on new charges of sexually trafficking minors, Wikipedia editors are scrambling to remove all connections between the Democrat ally and President Bill Clinton.
It appears Wikipedia editors were attempting to do the bidding of Democrats in the immediate wake of Epstein’s arrest, as his Wikipedia article was edited numerous times by users with the expressed goal of presenting a one-sided narrative against the Republican Party.
Clinton flew on Epstein’s private jet, dubbed by media the “Lolita Express” due to the crimes Epstein stood accused of in 2002, a whopping 26 times. This fact was repeatedly deleted and restored, while information about President Donald Trump speaking fondly of Epstein were purposely left in the article.
It should be noted that the Wikipedia article appears to cast doubt on the widely reported statement that President Trump had Epstein banned from his exclusive club, Mar-A-Lago, after Epstein reportedly sexually assaulted an underage girl on the club’s facilities. The article notes that neither Mar-A-Lago nor President Trump confirmed this, despite the fact that it has been extensively reported by most major news outlets.
Seems Wikipedia has altered Epstein’s bio already. First screenshot of Epstein’s bio was at 8:27 a.m. The 2nd was at 10:30 a.m. omitting Bill Clinton & Spacy yet leaving Trump! That is frightening. Same exact bio of Epstein, different times. https://t.co/T6lUHD8TrO pic.twitter.com/5QrjuovwHB
— BlondieDez (Desiree) (@Blondiedez) July 7, 2019
According to the Talk page for the Wikipedia article, where Wikipedia editors are able to discuss what they believe should be included and excluded in the article, a user with the name Cramyourspam directly called for using Wikipedia for political gain.
Justifying deleting all mention to Clinton and leaving the remarks made by President Trump, Cramyourspam wrote:
hmmmmm, no. we’re an academic/journalistic resource. with that role comes a social responsibility to soil one political side and shine another. any long-time WP editor or journalist knows what we mean. (that’s not “unfair” [“waaah waaah”]; that’s doing what’s right.) we can 3RR away anyone not doing the proper thing. especially in dangerous times like now, with constant broadcast dog-whistles activating the hateful alt-right underside of nationalist wingnut-merca, we can’t afford to be less than socially-responsible.
Cramyourspam would, at first glance, appear to be a troll abusing Wikipedia for political gain, but the user’s personal Talk page shows the account has been extremely active as an editor on Wikipedia for years.
Since 2012, Cramyourspam has been invited to several Wikipedia events in and around Washington, D.C., including D.C. Meetups featuring prominent Wikipedia editors.
In 2014, the user was warned against making “aspersions” against other Wikipedia editors, and was cited in February of 2019 for editing the page of Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, who endorsed infanticide and was photographed wearing either blackface or Ku Klux Klan robes, for possibly including “statements based on your thoughts or feelings”.
Cramyourspam was warned against trolling in the Epstein Talk page, and on his personal Talk page received a second warning by a user named Cullen:
I saw you trolling and posing on Talk:Jeffrey Epstein. I took a look at your edit history and saw very similar trolling on Talk:Central Park jogger case and Talk:Ralph Northam. On the other hand, your edit history shows that you are perfectly capable of editing productively. Let me be crystal clear with you. Trolling like you have been doing is simply not acceptable here. State your recommendations on article content frankly and forthrightly, relying on what reliable sources say. So, this is the takeaway for you: The next time I see you trolling, you will be blocked.
At press time, the Wikipedia article had been reverted to include the Epstein connection to Clinton, however, this may represent a major issue with the political biases of the website’s editors.