> The request [...] is part of an investigation into “foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion.”
On that basis - should there also be an investigation into https://www.mikejohnsonforlouisiana.com/ ? He is the Speaker of the House, and it would be incredibly easy for some of his taxpayer-paid staff to do stuff, with the objective of influencing U.S. public opinion...
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 structures and saying the right things to leverage the site’s governance model to their advantage. The couple times I’ve visited “talk” pages for topics that seemed a bit off lately I found a whirlwind of activity from a handful of accounts who seemed to find a Wikipedia rule or procedure to shut down talk they disagreed with.
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:
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 as it is not knowlege but an attack:
> Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge.
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+
- criticism of Israel
and try to punish Wikipedia for it, while allowing all other types of bias to flourish.
I expect financial sanctions to be threatened. Because Wikipedia is a US-based, it will likely end up in US court like so many of the other Trump policies.
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.)
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....
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.
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 discussion, which they are not.
And remember even if the investigation (which is a farce) goes nowhere, allowing it to exist unchallenged means that some people are going to be harassed and intimidated. But, that too is the point, fear is what they want.
I guess Wikipedia does not echo the blatant lies the Trump Admin. is pushing.
Maybe Wikipedia should start blocking states the congress people asking for this investigation are from with a big banner saying "Your congress person wants us to push Trump Lies, so this site is blocked from your state until this investigation ends".
Then maybe these people understand what real bias looks like.
That's going to be awkward, when they find that there's been, for many years, a studious effort to push forth pro-Israel talking points and agendas.
(To be clear, there is also pro-Palestine, too, though certainly less organized.)
Also, RIP Wikipedia Review which, though it went downhill later, was an amazing source of revealing corruption in the Wikipedia bureacracy, cabalizing and literal secret mailing lists to coordinate protection of viewpoints, including pro-Israel, from the admins.
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.
they can investigate all they want (which will be on the public record). The WP project, as hostile as it is to newbies and to those with an agenda, actually has a solid systemic policy foundation to address these concerns and the first amendment is basically a shield with a middle finger on it to petty legislative tyrants.
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.
Hmm. Anecdotal, however most folks I have spoken with, who don't agree on much at all, do agree that they no longer have a lot of faith in most of those so-called reliable/reputable sources. Hence also not in wikipedia.
Personally, I have seen many articles, esp. of individuals who just before had become publicly visible, re-written drastically enough to cast serious doubt on the objectivity of Wikipedia.
It would appear as a society you can have either foster trust (we may have forgotten how to do this?) or feed a bloated police/surveillance/intel state, but not both?
Am curious about others experiences with these matters!
Does Wikepedia/Wikimedia receive funding from the US government? If not, what's the basis for an investigation? Wouldn't any bias here fall under normal freedom-of-speech, same as any other media outlet?
So reading the actual letter what they are asking for:
> 1.Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination by nation state
actors in editing activities on Wikipedia.
> 2. Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination within
academic institutions or other organized efforts to edit or influence content identified as
possibly violating Wikipedia policies.
> 3. Records of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) including but not limited to all
editor conduct disputes and actions taken against them.
> 4. Records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP
addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors subject to actions by ArbCom.
> 5. Documentation of Wikipedia’s editorial policies and protocols including those aimed at
ensuring neutrality and addressing bias as well as policies regarding discipline for
violations.
> 6. Any analysis conducted or reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation (or by a third-party
acting on its behalf) of patterns of manipulation or bias related to antisemitism and
conflicts with the State of Israel.
---
IP adress of users who have gotten in trouble with arbcom is quite concerning. That could make people be afraid of contributing to controversial topics in case their IP ends up in US government hands. Definitely a chilling effect.
> 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.
"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.
32 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 83.0 ms ] threadOn that basis - should there also be an investigation into https://www.mikejohnsonforlouisiana.com/ ? He is the Speaker of the House, and it would be incredibly easy for some of his taxpayer-paid staff to do stuff, with the objective of influencing U.S. public opinion...
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 structures and saying the right things to leverage the site’s governance model to their advantage. The couple times I’ve visited “talk” pages for topics that seemed a bit off lately I found a whirlwind of activity from a handful of accounts who seemed to find a Wikipedia rule or procedure to shut down talk they disagreed with.
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 as it is not knowlege but an attack:
> Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by presenting information on all branches of knowledge.
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+
- criticism of Israel
and try to punish Wikipedia for it, while allowing all other types of bias to flourish.
This isn't that different than the TikTok ban being motivated in Congress by the prevalence of criticism of Israel on TikTok: https://forward.com/culture/688840/tiktok-ban-gaza-palestine...
I expect financial sanctions to be threatened. Because Wikipedia is a US-based, it will likely end up in US court like so many of the other Trump policies.
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.
/s
Meanwhile: Hey EU, regulating our friedly corporate donors, means you harm their freedom of speech !!!!!!!!
Wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg. How their biased viewpoints get amplified globally is a huge problem on top of that.
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 discussion, which they are not.
And remember even if the investigation (which is a farce) goes nowhere, allowing it to exist unchallenged means that some people are going to be harassed and intimidated. But, that too is the point, fear is what they want.
Maybe Wikipedia should start blocking states the congress people asking for this investigation are from with a big banner saying "Your congress person wants us to push Trump Lies, so this site is blocked from your state until this investigation ends".
Then maybe these people understand what real bias looks like.
(To be clear, there is also pro-Palestine, too, though certainly less organized.)
Also, RIP Wikipedia Review which, though it went downhill later, was an amazing source of revealing corruption in the Wikipedia bureacracy, cabalizing and literal secret mailing lists to coordinate protection of viewpoints, including pro-Israel, from the admins.
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
Personally, I have seen many articles, esp. of individuals who just before had become publicly visible, re-written drastically enough to cast serious doubt on the objectivity of Wikipedia.
It would appear as a society you can have either foster trust (we may have forgotten how to do this?) or feed a bloated police/surveillance/intel state, but not both?
Am curious about others experiences with these matters!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_genocide
Which calling it that, is of course a huge issue for all the zionist genocide deniers (both liberals and conservatives).
Biased towards sanity while the government and a significant part of this country is biased in the opposite direction.
No wonder they're afraid.
> 1.Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination by nation state actors in editing activities on Wikipedia.
> 2. Records, communications, or analysis pertaining to possible coordination within academic institutions or other organized efforts to edit or influence content identified as possibly violating Wikipedia policies.
> 3. Records of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) including but not limited to all editor conduct disputes and actions taken against them.
> 4. Records showing identifying and unique characteristics of accounts (such as names, IP addresses, registration dates, user activity logs) for editors subject to actions by ArbCom.
> 5. Documentation of Wikipedia’s editorial policies and protocols including those aimed at ensuring neutrality and addressing bias as well as policies regarding discipline for violations.
> 6. Any analysis conducted or reviewed by the Wikimedia Foundation (or by a third-party acting on its behalf) of patterns of manipulation or bias related to antisemitism and conflicts with the State of Israel.
---
IP adress of users who have gotten in trouble with arbcom is quite concerning. That could make people be afraid of contributing to controversial topics in case their IP ends up in US government hands. Definitely a chilling effect.
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.
"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.