Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 180 posts

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#51

Post by wrs »

hshdhdhj4444 wrote: post #31
gnerd00 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UC Berkeley students embarrassed themselves on the world stage by attacking the free speech rights of conservative speakers... petualant, threatening and very in the media. People in Berkeley familiar with the history bent their heads in grief to see it. Free speech means that yes, conservatives may also speak in public IMHO

So what is a greater threat to free speech. A group of students throwing a tantrum because someone they don’t like was invited to speak? The most powerful government in the world using every tool it has to make the university whose speech they don’t like suffer? Tools including threatening to remove accreditation, refusing to disburse hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, threatening to end the student visas of…

Also, note that only the second of those actors is prohibited by the Constitution from infringing free speech.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#52

Post by chneu »

Aurornis wrote: post #3

I don’t trust this administration to perform an unbiased investigation, but it’s not a secret that Wikipedia is a high profile target for anyone who wants to push an agenda. Even trivial topics can attract die-hards who refuse to let an article say something they don’t like. Wikipedia also seeks to have a similar problem to StackOverflow where some users have become very good at working their way into the site’s stru…

Trust? They've loudly and proudly bragged about their bias. Anyone thinking modern Republicans have any morals is a fool just waiting to be tricked.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#53

Post by lovich »

righthand wrote: post #42
epgui wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is not a source of original research or thinking. If prominent and reputable sources spoke about and coined these other terms there would be articles about them, or the article would be more generic. Wikipedia exists in the context of the real world. All it does is reflect it. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it. I am informing people about the crap quality of content on Wikipedia. All I’m doing is reflecting the hypocrisy. You don’t like the fact that I can post my dissent online? Deal with it.

You haven’t informed anyone of any such thing. Wikipedia does not generate original concepts on purpose and you are complaining that an equivalent term exists for other presidents. Right now if Wikipedia was to create pages for those terms, _that_ would actually be bias as those terms aren’t widely used/don’t exist and would only be added to meet some people’s concept of “fairness” where if something bad happens to my side something bad has to happen to yours too

Edit: Also as someone else pointed out the page describes the origin of the term as evolving out of Bush Derangement syndrome being coined in 2003 and even comments on a Thatcher Derangement Syndrome phrase used after her death. The Trump Derangement Syndrome appears to be the main article because of the actual usage by government and in legislation

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#54

Post by miltonlost »

righthand wrote: post #5

Organized bias like creating a specific page to for a fictional syndrome in order to wave away any criticisms of your opponents. So organized that Wikipedia won’t remove the obvious bs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome One of the many reasons I don’t donate to Wikipedia. To keep this page up is to continue fueling unnecessary culture wars. Which in my opinion doesn’t align with their mission…

Should the dictionary not list slurs in them because they preserve an unhealthy status quo as well?

That article makes sure to mention that Trump derangement syndrome is a logical fallacy in the first paragraph. They aren't fueling culture wars by being an information source. I'm not sure where the bias would be coming from here with this article, and on which side and to whom...

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#55

Post by bbor »

Fricken wrote: post #7
Aurornis wrote: post #3

I don’t trust this administration to perform an unbiased investigation, but it’s not a secret that Wikipedia is a high profile target for anyone who wants to push an agenda. Even trivial topics can attract die-hards who refuse to let an article say something they don’t like. Wikipedia also seeks to have a similar problem to StackOverflow where some users have become very good at working their way into the site’s stru…

It's time to move Wikipedia from the US to a safer haven

Real… luckily they can just hop the border into Vancouver - not as safe as Europe or east Asia, but certainly an easier ask.

I wonder if they have any dedicated compute stateside, tho…

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#56

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

NoahZuniga wrote: post #10
righthand wrote: post #5

Organized bias like creating a specific page to for a fictional syndrome in order to wave away any criticisms of your opponents. So organized that Wikipedia won’t remove the obvious bs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome One of the many reasons I don’t donate to Wikipedia. To keep this page up is to continue fueling unnecessary culture wars. Which in my opinion doesn’t align with their mission…

This page didn't create or popularize the term "Trump derangement syndrome".

But legitimizing stupid shit is a choice.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#57

Post by bbor »

riffic wrote: post #50
Fricken wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's time to move Wikipedia from the US to a safer haven

Sorry for the dismissive tone, but this is a silly reactionary take. It's noise and the hot air is meant to serve as a distraction. Your doomerism isn't helpful.

Blatant, open, unabashed authoritarianism is just “noise”…?

What red line are you waiting for before acknowledging that we’re in a dangerous situation (aka headed towards doom)?

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#58

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P »

I used to (and still am) one of the highest ranked editors you can be without becoming an administrator. Wikipedia has its problems, and I spent years fighting them- but I slowly realized there is no better way to do it.

Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of truth: everything needs a reliable, secondary source[0]. This means the content has to be notable enough that a reputable source wrote about it, and you cannot reference things like git commits or research papers (since they don't provide context and most people can't understand them).

If a Wikipedia article does use one of those sources, delete the paragraph. If you get into an Edit war, you'll win.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#59

Post by lukev »

Aurornis wrote: post #3

I don’t trust this administration to perform an unbiased investigation, but it’s not a secret that Wikipedia is a high profile target for anyone who wants to push an agenda. Even trivial topics can attract die-hards who refuse to let an article say something they don’t like. Wikipedia also seeks to have a similar problem to StackOverflow where some users have become very good at working their way into the site’s stru…

Should any administration be investigating a private entity for bias?

Whether there is bias or not is entirely immaterial! The government should not be the Ministry of Truth!

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#60

Post by tovej »

iandanforth wrote: post #24

This is McCarthyism. You take a polarizing word, then you attack your enemies by claiming they are that thing, and couch the whole thing in an "investigation" whose outcome is predetermined. There is no merit to discussing if the target is that thing, it doesn't matter. It's an ideological attack. If you take it on its face then the attackers win because you're treating them as if they were honest participants in a d…

Definitely McCarthyism, or possibly a slippery slide towards something worse. These attacks on free speech are much more brazen than I expected.
Post reply on HN