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

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#171

Post by int_19h »

tyre wrote: post #70
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

> the free speech rights of conservative speakers Free speech is the right to speak without retribution of the law. It is not the right to be heard or platformed.

1A can be that if it's a publicly owned institution being selective about who gets platformed without having clear objective criteria that are not infringing.

For example, if a city council invites a Christian preacher to deliver a sermon, then they also have to allow access to other faiths.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#172

Post by boombapoom »

xpe wrote: post #33
boombapoom wrote: post #13

good thing wikipedia allows its entire database to be downloaded..... go ahead and change it to your will, we will have the data for a few years later....

That would be an unfortunate backup plan to rely on. We want to keep the full value of Wikipedia alive. Wikipedia is (1) an ideal; (2) a community of volunteers; (3) a brand; (4) a habit for many people seeking information; (5) a center (if not the center) of many online textual / knowledge ecosystems. Peaceful, sustained, popular, legal, loud resistance is necessary to push back against an administration that is try…

agreed- I'd rather those ideals remain true

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#173

Post by kiitos »

tptacek wrote: post #133
kiitos wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, I think I'm just going to continue having the discussion we're having here.

fair enough! your call. just know that this is, well, it's not a good look. if you don't care then more power to you.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#174

Post by bigbadfeline »

onetimeusename wrote: post #168
cherry_tree wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think McCarthyism is?

McCarthyism is generally when someone in power abuses their authority to accuse others without evidence, often for a personal vendetta. A wide-ranging investigation that goes beyond it's scope is carried out. An atmosphere of fear is created. People's reputations get damaged. People's Constitutional rights are violated. Although it can also just mean whenever someone accuses people of a conspiracy without evidence I…

> McCarthyism is generally when someone in power abuses their authority to accuse others without evidence, often for a personal vendetta.

Your personal, ad hoc definition of McCarthyism is no better than any other. Generally, McCarthyism is persecution of people because of their ideas, because of wrongthink, which is the case here.

> Oh and people routinely get dragged in front of Congress by both parties for grandstanding purposes and nothing comes of it.

That's not an argument. Yes, many appear before Congress as was the case during McCarty too, but only some of those appearances, then and now, can be qualified as McCarthyism.

Let me underline that "nothing comes of it" is wrong on several levels - first, wrongthink persecution always has consequences - at the very least, the target organization or individual are put on the defensive, stressed and strained for resources while the persecutors have no such constraints.

Second, sometimes more serious consequences do "come out of it" which is not reflected at all in your argument. The most salient lesson in McCarthyism is that it caught roots in the US (something thought to be impossible) and for how long it dragged along. Therefore anything that even slightly looks like McCarthyism must be called out lest we slide down the slippery slope again. Trying to hide risks that are clearly manifested in history isn't fair play.

> Perhaps something to keep in mind when using scary words.

Perhaps it's better to keep in mind that one shouldn't be scared of words and should try to understand them instead.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#175

Post by nessbot »

liveoneggs wrote: post #93
nessbot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that'd be a very easy 1A case.

The government gives a lot of exceptions to 1A when claiming they are fighting "bias" against certain groups, countries, or items.

Pleas name a website the government has shut down over bias.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#176

Post by liveoneggs »

nessbot wrote: post #175
liveoneggs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government gives a lot of exceptions to 1A when claiming they are fighting "bias" against certain groups, countries, or items.

Pleas name a website the government has shut down over bias.

They're not trying to shut wikipedia down - they are trying to control it.

Do you actually need to be spoon-fed examples?

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#177

Post by nessbot »

liveoneggs wrote: post #176
nessbot wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pleas name a website the government has shut down over bias.

They're not trying to shut wikipedia down - they are trying to control it. Do you actually need to be spoon-fed examples?

You're the one who made the claim. Do you have examples?

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#178

Post by xpe »

tptacek wrote: post #142
grover_board wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, it's probably just a distraction, like sending the army into D.C. and Chicago is a distraction, like trying to illegally fire Fed governors is a distraction, like ordering the prosecution and persecution of political enemies is a distraction, like every blatant power-grab, attempt at intimidating the opposition, and obvious effort to establish a de facto hybrid authoritarian regime is just a distraction…

Sending the National Guard into DC is in fact a distraction. Trying to fire the Fed governors is not a distraction. Prosecuting political enemies is not a distraction. See? Both kinds of things happen. It's important to distinguish.

> Sending the National Guard into DC is in fact a distraction.

Depends what you mean. It also plays in to Trump's "tough on crime" message, which appeals to a fairly broad group of voters. It also appeals to MAGA fanatics who seem to delight in most things that anger "libs".

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#179

Post by xpe »

bhouston wrote: post #6

There is a ton of bias on Wikipedia. But this is the nature of anything trying to create a collective understanding of the world that involves multiple authors with diverse viewpoints. But given the way this administration works (looking at their treatment of Universities/Colleges), they will only identify specific types of bias: - criticism of Republicans - criticism of Christian conservatism - pro-LGBTQ+ - criticis…

> There is a ton of bias on Wikipedia.

I would rephrase the question as "what kinds of bias systemically point in a particular direction?"

- If by "bias" one means "following the principles set out in Wikipedia's mission" then one probably should ask "Isn't this what non-profits do... and even if that mission is unpopular, a proper government supporting various civil liberties would need a _very_ strong reason to meddle."

- If by "bias" one means that there is a significant percentage of individuals that bring their own personal bias, then one should probably ask:

-- what's the problem with individuals bringing personal bias? -- this is what people do, after all;

-- to what degree does the claimed bias reflect a natural effect of any aggregation of people;

- if the bias is coming from editors, does this matter?

- is Wikipedia breaking some law?... perhaps (seems like a stretch and quite difficult to prove) Wikipedia is doing something illegal when it comes to aggregation that is making the disparate biases "add up" (like vectors) to point in some direction?

Finally, for all of the above, on what basis might the government have a legally-supported basis for acting (whether it be hearings, demands for data, or otherwise)?

A claim that foreign interests are interfering with US elections (by way of platform X) is easy to make, but any official actions from the government must flow from some legal authority. (Practically speaking, ultimately a citation from the U.S. legal code, Constitution, or Supreme Court.)

Expansions, criticisms, etc always welcome.

Re: House to investigate Wikipedia over allegations of organized bias

#180

Post by tptacek »

xpe wrote: post #178
tptacek wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sending the National Guard into DC is in fact a distraction. Trying to fire the Fed governors is not a distraction. Prosecuting political enemies is not a distraction. See? Both kinds of things happen. It's important to distinguish.

> Sending the National Guard into DC is in fact a distraction. Depends what you mean. It also plays in to Trump's "tough on crime" message, which appeals to a fairly broad group of voters. It also appeals to MAGA fanatics who seem to delight in most things that anger "libs".

I can't wind myself up solely on the prospect that a political action Trump takes might benefit him; that's just how politics work. But to your latter point: catastrophizing the National Guard deployments is precisely what MAGA people want you to do.
Post reply on HN