Sophia99

The 2024 United States Presidential Election on Wikipedia
I chose the Wikipedia page for the 2024 United States presidential election because it shows, almost perfectly, how discussion and debate evolve around something as huge as the American presidency. The page is like a living battlefield of perspectives, and it reveals how the Wikipedia community lives by its own core principles: neutrality, verifiability, consensus, and civility. It also shows how fragile all that is when people bring politics, bias, and emotion into the mix.
The 2024 election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was one of the most divisive events in modern U.S. politics, and you can feel that tension running through every edit, every comment, and every argument on the Talk page. I believe the page truly reflects the best and worst of Wikipedia’s process, where people try to be fair and factual but can’t help being human at the same time.
How the Entry Was Built
When I started exploring this entry, I did not just read the article. I went into the Talk page, the Revision History, and even the History tools, where you can see thousands of edits stretching back to 2015. It is incredible how much happens behind the scenes. The debates there are loud, emotional, and sometimes childlike, people accusing each other of being biased toward Harris or Trump, like: “Why do you have that about Harris but not about Trump?” or “Why don’t you show what Trump did right?” It feels like a classroom of kids yelling, but in a strange way, that noise is the sound of knowledge being made.
This page even has a protection barrier; you have to identify yourself or log in properly because of vandalism and trolling. Wikipedia moderators warn people not to post political jokes or false claims. That level of gatekeeping actually proves how serious this page is. Even though anyone can edit Wikipedia, not everyone can edit this page without scrutiny. The administrators, editors, and bots all work together to guard it from chaos.
Wikipedia’s Core Principles in Action
The core principles of Wikipedia, neutrality, verifiability, and consensus, are visible in every debate about the election article. Editors constantly quote rules like “NPOV” (Neutral Point of View) or “No Original Research” to remind others that personal opinions do not belong there. When someone adds language that sounds
too supportive or too critical of a candidate, another editor jumps in and either tags it or deletes it entirely.
But these arguments are not just about facts, they are about framing. Words like “claimed,” “stated,” or “insisted” can spark long conversations about bias. Some editors want to soften language; others want to make it sharper. It becomes an exercise in diplomacy, where the goal is not to win but to reach a sentence everyone can live with.
Patterns and What Drives the Revisions
Looking at the revision history, I noticed that edits come in waves. The busiest times happen during key events, campaign announcements, debates, scandals, and especially the election itself. In those moments, hundreds of small edits appear within hours. People rush to update statistics, correct quotes, and link new articles.
The changes are triggered by breaking news and by people trying to keep the narrative “balanced.” You can see that editors are constantly reacting to what’s happening outside of Wikipedia, which means the encyclopedia is almost breathing in rhythm with the real world.
The editing patterns also reveal how conflict becomes a quality-control mechanism. The louder the debate, the more likely someone will check sources, verify facts, or rewrite awkward phrasing. Conflict, in this sense, doesn’t destroy truth, it strengthens it.
What Gets Debated, What Gets Settled
Almost everything is debated at some point: turnout numbers, controversial remarks, allegations, and interpretations of events. Editors fight over what belongs in the article and what should be left out. The Talk page shows that while factual errors get fixed quickly, interpretive disagreements take forever.
For example, when one editor added a sentence about Harris’s campaign strategies, another demanded a citation; when someone mentioned Trump’s ongoing investigations, others debated whether that counted as “encyclopedic relevance.” This back-and-forth process can feel exhausting, but it is also what produces balance. The final article reads as calm and neutral only because so many people fought for every single word.
When Did It Become ‘Accurate’?
After reading all this, I think the page became relatively accurate in late 2024, right after the final results were confirmed and most speculative content was removed. But “accurate” does not mean “done.” When I checked the page today, it had already been edited again. That is outrageous and amazing at the same time. It shows that on Wikipedia, no page ever stops evolving.
A Wikipedia article is never “finished.” It’s more like a living organism, always growing, shedding, and reshaping itself in response to new information or new
perspectives. What’s true today might be challenged tomorrow, and that is not a flaw, it is the system working.
Conflict, Bias, and Reliability
One of the questions I had going in was whether conflict makes information less reliable. But now I think it is the opposite: conflict creates accountability. When editors disagree, they force each other to defend their claims and back them up with credible sources. That is how the page slowly filters out bias and falsehoods.
And because this article is heavily protected, trolling is minimal, and serious editors dominate the conversation. Their debates might sound harsh, but they lead to clarity. The final product becomes a kind of collective truth, not because everyone agrees, but because everyone keeps checking everyone else.
The Role of Editors and the Construction of Knowledge
Editors are the unsung heroes of Wikipedia. They decide what stays, what goes, and how information is phrased so readers can understand it clearly and fairly. Their choices literally shape public understanding. They balance tone, verify data, and translate complex political moments into sentences that sound neutral but still informative.
Through their constant negotiation, editors prove that knowledge online is not discovered, it is constructed. Each paragraph is a compromise, built from hundreds of tiny arguments about what’s real, what is relevant, and what is fair.
Conclusion: Wikipedia as a Living Record
In the end, this assignment made me realize that Wikipedia is more than just a website, it is a mirror of how society itself argues about truth. The 2024 United States presidential election article is a perfect example of that struggle. It is serious, constantly changing, and sometimes exhausting to follow. But it is also beautiful in a way, because it shows people from all over the world trying to tell one story together.
Therefore, can a Wikipedia page ever be “done”? Probably not. But that is the point. The constant updates, debates, and corrections are what make it alive, and alive is how truth survives.

#