←back to thread

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

(thehill.com)
152 points xqcgrek2 | 3 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 #
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 #
grover_board ◴[27 Aug 25 21:21 UTC] No.45045446{4}[source]▶
The administration has just directed the head of the FHFA to create a pretext to illegally remove a governor of the Federal Reserve, what on earth do you think would stop House Republicans from ginning up some nonsense pretext for a politically motivated DoJ investigation? Why on earth do you think these people are bound by anything other than what they can get away with?
replies(1): >>45046246 #
1. tptacek ◴[27 Aug 25 22:44 UTC] No.45046246{5}[source]▶
See the difference? The administration can in fact disrupt the Federal Reserve, and appears intent on doing so. But they would much rather you were talking about Wikipedia, which is something they have basically no power over whatsoever.
replies(1): >>45047021 #
2. Tadpole9181 ◴[28 Aug 25 00:43 UTC] No.45047021[source]▶
Uh, no. The administration explicitly cannot disrupt the federal reserve by law. That's why they're cooking bogus justifications against the governor.

Likewise, they'll just make shit up or use some tiny administrative technicality against Wikipedia.

replies(1): >>45047125 #
3. tptacek ◴[28 Aug 25 01:02 UTC] No.45047125[source]▶
I do not disagree. The administration should not be allowed to terminate Fed governors. I'm optimistic that there is a SCOTUS majority that will prevent it (they explicitly drew a line around the Federal Reserve recently), but we'll see. But clearly: the administration can fire Executive Branch employees, and has a legal interpretation extending that the the Fed.

There is nothing at all connecting the administration to Wikipedia. People are falling for an op the GOP is running.