←back to thread

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

(thehill.com)
152 points xqcgrek2 | 2 comments | 27 Aug 25 18:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 19:50 UTC] No.45044269[source]▶
No, it must be complicated. Wikipedia isn't grant-funded (they have money coming out of their ears) and it isn't a government agency subject to regulation. Most private publications are proudly biased.

In fact, the most likely outcome to the House trying to play hardball with Wikipedia is a double-digit percentage increase in their donations. Which I don't think House Republicans mind, because none of this is actually about Wikipedia.

So, again, how is this supposed to work?

replies(3): >>45044911 #>>45045072 #>>45045446 #
dashundchen ◴[27 Aug 25 20:39 UTC] No.45044911[source]▶
How has it worked already?

Dragging people for public spectacles in Congress, lawfare through frivolous lawsuits, frivolous investigation through a variety of agencies, wasting the orgs time in court, allies doxxing org members to intimidate them with stochastic terrorism.

If you haven't been paying attention to how Trump and Co have been weapoinzing government to silence critics or pressure private orgs, you haven't been paying attention.

What happened to Harvard?

What happened to CBS/Paramount?

What happened with 60 Minutes?

What about ActBlue?

replies(1): >>45045033 #
tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 20:48 UTC] No.45045033[source]▶
Harvard is extensively grant funded; that was the administration's leverage.

CBS's owners were existentially dependent on DOJ approval of an impending merger.

60 Minutes is a CBS property.

Nothing has happened to ActBlue.

So again I ask: how exactly is the House supposed to accomplish anything with Wikipedia?

replies(1): >>45045517 #
1. kiitos ◴[27 Aug 25 21:28 UTC] No.45045517[source]▶
maybe step back and think about what this targeted, repeated, deeply meticulous sequence of challenges to this very narrow topic of conversation is communicating about you, and is achieving in the net sense

is this the right application of your time and energy? perhaps that time and energy is more usefully spent fighting against the actively malicious current US political administration, than deconstructing arguments in that same vein?

replies(1): >>45045530 #
2. tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 21:30 UTC] No.45045530[source]▶
No, I think I'm just going to continue having the discussion we're having here.