←back to thread

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

(thehill.com)
152 points xqcgrek2 | 1 comments | 27 Aug 25 18:25 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 19:18 UTC] No.45043838[source]▶
This seems like just an attempt to change the news cycle, because there's no rule anywhere saying Wikipedia needs to be unbiased, any more than does Fox News or PragerU.
replies(4): >>45044012 #>>45044028 #>>45044034 #>>45045389 #
ASalazarMX ◴[27 Aug 25 19:34 UTC] No.45044034[source]▶
Probably an attempt at capturing Wikipedia, in preparation for censorship or historic revisionism. I feel like a cosnpiracy theorist, but such things seem less implausible these days.
replies(1): >>45044069 #
tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 19:36 UTC] No.45044069[source]▶
How exactly is that supposed to work?
replies(2): >>45044256 #>>45044554 #
pjc50 ◴[27 Aug 25 19:49 UTC] No.45044256[source]▶
It's not complicated, same process as has been applied to government agencies and private universities: remove "DEI", that is any mention of anti racism.

How it's enforced is a detail. They have the Supreme Court to issue whatever verdict is required.

replies(2): >>45044269 #>>45044768 #
quickthrowman ◴[27 Aug 25 20:29 UTC] No.45044768{3}[source]▶
Wikipedia doesn’t receive any federal funding, what leverage does the House of the current administration have without money to withhold?
replies(1): >>45045466 #
ranger_danger ◴[27 Aug 25 21:23 UTC] No.45045466{4}[source]▶
Not directly but I have seen some people (senators) claim that at least one of their funds is "democratic dark money."
replies(1): >>45045499 #
1. tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 21:27 UTC] No.45045499{5}[source]▶
"Dark money" is a term of art meaning partisan donation dollars that aren't itemized or tracked by the FEC. Dark money isn't illegal. It's "dark" because it's unregulated. When Republicans call money that doesn't end up in a campaign general fund "dark", they're literally saying they have no authority to regulate it.