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

101–110 of 180 posts

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#101

Post by Y-bar »

lukev wrote: post #59
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!

I can think of a few instances where a government should investigate private entities for unlawful bias, such as biased non-merit based hiring, or biased interest rates based on the ethical background (e.g. via zip code) of the lender, or refusal to render service to people of colour.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#102

Post by arresin »

> They referenced a report from the Anti-Defamation League about anti-Israel bias on Wikipedia that detailed a coordinated campaign to manipulate content related to the Israel-Palestine conflict

And there it is. The reason.

Do they have some kind of blackmail on people? It’s almost as if they had an operative throwing parties and video taping the depraved acts of people in power.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#103

Post by nemomarx »

bawolff wrote: post #90
xpe wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At face value, the letter (from the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform) offers a sensible-sounding top-line explanation: > The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the efforts of foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion. Based on the track record of the Trump administration, it is unwise…

>Caveat: I do not support this letter nor the current administration. At face value, the letter (from the House Committee on Oversight and Governmental Reform) offers a sensible-sounding top-line explanation: >> The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating the efforts of foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinio…

"subsidized" modifies institutions there, so what they mean is academics and students edit Wikipedia some times, and they want to claim the right to control what those people say.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#105

Post by [deleted] »

zoddie wrote: post #17

They should also investigate Google, which often puts Wikipedia article extracts right at the top of the search results. There has been a great deal of misinformation spread this way. Wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg. How their biased viewpoints get amplified globally is a huge problem on top of that.

[deleted]

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#106

Post by lukev »

Y-bar wrote: post #101
lukev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

I can think of a few instances where a government should investigate private entities for unlawful bias, such as biased non-merit based hiring, or biased interest rates based on the ethical background (e.g. via zip code) of the lender, or refusal to render service to people of colour.

Yes. Because there are laws against those things.

There are no laws about bias in political content published by private entities. Because of the Constitution.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#107

Post by lukev »

rafaelmn wrote: post #98
lukev wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Is a non-profit a private entity ?

Yes. Although the privileged tax status of a 501(c)(3) does come with the restriction that they cannot engage in direct political campaigning or endorsement of candidates, they are still a private entity fully protected by the first amendment.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#108

Post by taylodl »

This is Orwellian doublespeak.

"Investigate" means "harass." There's no intent to do any fact-finding.

"Allegations" means "baseless accusations." Trump often employs the tactic of saying "people say" and then say something nobody has ever said before. It's a rhetorical device - appeal to anonymous authority - used to make people think this thought is widespread when it isn't.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#109

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P »

jmclnx wrote: post #80
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #58

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 refer…

Yes, I am sure what you say is true, but eventually the article(s) in question will be corrected, or tagged in some manner. But just look at what Trump is doing to the Smithsonian, one example is turning US Slavery History into something even all slaves loved. Or erasing Trump's 2 Impeachments. You and everyone with even a little bit of smarts knows the articles that will be first targeted is US Slavery History and T…

Even if whitehouse.gov rewrites history, or forces reputable outlets to make "corrections", Wikipedia articles can (and do) reference archives.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#110

Post by mdhb »

tptacek wrote: post #82
ASalazarMX wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How exactly is that supposed to work?

They are *already* retroactively rewriting reports and documents to align with the dear leaders brain farts.

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250807-us-to-rewrite...

Post reply on HN