Think Wikipedia tells it straight? Think again, especially when it comes to conservatives climbing the political ladder. A new watchdog report reveals how Vice President JD Vance’s Wikipedia page got a nasty makeover right around the time he joined the Trump ticket.
The Media Research Center (MRC) dropped a bombshell report detailing how anonymous editors swarmed Vance’s page, twisting his record just as he was rising to national prominence.
🚨 NEW REPORT: How Wikipedia attacked JD Vance's reputation after he became a potential VP pick. https://t.co/V1WMKdeu54
— Media Research Center (@theMRC) April 17, 2025
Before Vance was tapped for VP, his page saw about 500 edits over five years. But as VP buzz grew, the digital knives came out. The MRC found a huge spike in editing activity, suggesting a coordinated hit job to tarnish his image.
So, what changed? According to the MRC, editors went to town framing Vance’s stances in the worst possible light. His sensible positions on immigration were suddenly linked to bogus claims of “far-right, white nationalist” views and the absurd “Great Replacement Theory.”
After the *Dobbs* decision rightfully returned abortion regulation to the states, Vance’s pro-life position was highlighted to paint him as an extremist. Even his past critiques of Donald Trump – which Vance himself moved past to loyally serve as VP – were dug up and emphasized to suggest he was flip-flopping, rather than evolving.
Even Vance’s non-profit work fighting the opioid crisis wasn’t safe. The MRC notes editors questioned funding sources, hinting at shady dealings without proof.
The timing, the MRC argues, is no coincidence. The onslaught of negative edits conveniently ramped up as Vance became a major player alongside President Trump. It raises serious questions about whether user-edited sites like Wikipedia can ever be trusted for fair information on political figures, especially conservatives.
Bottom line? Take that Wikipedia page with a huge grain of salt. The MRC’s findings show just how easily online information can be weaponized, especially when the political stakes get high.
Leave a Reply