The definition of the term “official narrative” is a series of events. Here, though, the person making this claim is using “official narratives” to describe the series of events as described by powerful entities, or the response of authorities. In this specific case, they are using “official narratives” to describe the United States government’s response to the COVID-19 Pandemic, and I think they are also referring to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as these were the two big authorities making decisions about the general public during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The user continues to say that their evidence for their claim that Wikipedia only promotes official narratives is that “ever since” the COVID-19 Pandemic, the official narratives have reigned supreme over Wikipedia and “anyone who exposed the sham” was promoting “disinfo” or misinformation. The user goes further to describe the CDC and American government’s response as “bizarre.” From these deconstructed statements, we see that the person who wrote this claim has underlying assumptions and opinions about the “officials” that were in charge and making decisions during the pandemic. With these assumptions in mind, we can now fact check the statement the user makes. From the Wikimedia Foundation, they describe that “neutrality is one of Wikipedia’s most fundamental and bedrock policies.” The statement continues “Wikipedia articles should not try to convince readers of a certain viewpoint, use promotional language, or state opinions as facts.” This demonstrates that Wikipedia is not biased to one certain “official narrative” or another. The original user who posted that Wikipedia was silencing ideas that were different from the “official narrative” might be confusing Wikipedia for an online forum where people can spread their personal opinions or ideas. Wikipedia is a place for editors to share proven information, not just personal opinions. Also, the original user must recognize that just because someone believes something, does not make it true. Therefore, their statement that anyone “who exposed the sham” of the government’s response to the Pandemic was taken down is unfounded, because there was no “sham” being exposed. The reality that this user misses is that people were spreading misinformation or personal opinions on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia was taking it down, because this information is not following Wikipedia’s NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policy.
Primary Sources:
I used this source to define Wikipedia's position on neutrality when posting or editing on Wikipedia.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2025/10/10/wikimedia-foundation-responds-to-questions-about-how-wikipedia-works/#:~:text=Neutrality%20is%20one%20of%20Wikipedia's,or%20commentary%20is%20not%20allowed.
I used this source to understand the factual implications of the COVID-19 Pandemic, and to understand the proven methods of responding to the Pandemic, the supposed "official narratives" that were, in reality, proven methods of handling COVID-19.
https://www.cdc.gov/covid/prevention/index.html
Both of these sources might be biased in the sense that they might be made by people who wish to keep certain people in power or certain systems remaining in power.
I haven't found any evidence to support the claim that Wikipedia only supports "official narratives" and I am still unsure what the original user meant by that, as "official narratives" in this sense seems to be the proven facts of the Pandemic.
