There's a certain irony of accusing a crowdsourced repository of being junk because it's crowdsourced, with an anonymous account created seven minutes ago.

What, you think because it's crowdsourced it isn't liable to bias? You think they're going to accept a PR which attempts to remove multiple incidents, for any reason?

You could always test this hypothesis of yours. Go, dig through the hours of footage of cops purposefully shooting journalists in the eyes, of them running protestors over, and of them confining protestors in corners only to repeatedly tear gas them.

I bet you might even find one that isn't brutality. So report it and see what happens.

Because it is open, the crowd will be able to look over pull requests and judge the reasoning/evidence put forth by the pull request to remove an incident as well as the reasons provided by maintainer for the PR's approval/rejection.

We both know that's not going to happen. Just looks at the comments here; every comment that doesn't show unquestioning support is either flagged or grayed out. Police should be be held accountable, but this is just outrage bait.

I saw at least one listing that was a link to a deleted tweet.

Feel free to prove yourself wrong by creating a pull request removing or marking that entry.

Or go through any of the other entries to find one that clearly demonstrates no wrongdoing. Write up a clear, concise, impartial explanation. I'm sure it will be given appropriate consideration.

> Police should be be held accountable, but this is just outrage bait.

This is a good thing. You should be outraged. Emotions are okay to have and express.