Republicans Investigate Wikipedia Over Allegations of Organized Bias (thehill.com)
- Reference: 0178897672
- News link: https://politics.slashdot.org/story/25/08/27/1923235/republicans-investigate-wikipedia-over-allegations-of-organized-bias
- Source link: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5473331-wikipedia-bias-probe-republicans/
> Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee opened a probe into [1]alleged organized efforts to inject bias into Wikipedia entries and the organization's responses . Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) and Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), chair of the panel's subcommittee on cybersecurity, information technology, and government innovation, on Wednesday sent an information request on the matter to Maryana Iskander, chief executive officer of the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that hosts Wikipedia. The request, the lawmakers said in [2]the letter (PDF), 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."
>
> The panel is seeking documents and communications about Wikipedia volunteer editors who violated the platform's policies, as well as the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to "thwart intentional, organized efforts to inject bias into important and sensitive topics." "Multiple studies and reports have highlighted efforts to manipulate information on the Wikipedia platform for propaganda aimed at Western audiences," Comer and Mace wrote in the letter. 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 similar issues, as well as an Atlantic Council report on pro-Russia actors using Wikipedia to push pro-Kremlin and anti-Ukrainian messaging, which can influence how artificial intelligence chatbots are trained.
>
> "[The Wikimedia] foundation, which hosts the Wikipedia platform, has acknowledged taking actions responding to misconduct by volunteer editors who effectively create Wikipedia's encyclopedic articles. The Committee recognizes that virtually all web-based information platforms must contend with bad actors and their efforts to manipulate. Our inquiry seeks information to help our examination of how Wikipedia responds to such threats and how frequently it creates accountability when intentional, egregious, or highly suspicious patterns of conduct on topics of sensitive public interest are brought to attention," Comer and Mace wrote. The lawmakers requested information about "the tools and methods Wikipedia utilizes to identify and stop malicious conduct online that injects bias and undermines neutral points of view on its platform," including documents and records about possible coordination of state actors in editing, the kind of accounts that have been subject to review, and and of the panel's analysis of data manipulation or bias.
"We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Committee's questions and to discuss the importance of safeguarding the integrity of information on our platform," a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson said.
[1] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5473331-wikipedia-bias-probe-republicans/
[2] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/082725-letter-to-Wikimedia.pdf
On behalf of South Carolina... (Score:3)
I deeply apologize that Nancy Mace has anything to do with us. We're working on fixing that at mid-terms...
Re: (Score:2)
I expect nothing less from the party of small government.
Re: (Score:2)
> I deeply apologize that Nancy Mace has anything to do with us. We're working on fixing that at mid-terms...
Good luck, but as members of the House are elected in local elections, what usually happens is the bigger an idiot they are, as long as they don't commit any crimes, the more likely they are to be re-elected. She'll be defeated only if a better Republican runs against her. And I'm not sure that we'll even have mid-term elections in 2026. If we do, I expect Republican controlled states (cough cough, South Carolina is one) to do off the charts cheating so that Republicans win every election. South Caro
Re: (Score:2)
Sure they would. Cost is no object when it comes to spending taxpayer money to support Donald Trump. Add another layer of gold to the Oval Office.
How much of our tax money goes to wikipedia? (Score:2)
"foreign operations and individuals at academic institutions subsidized by U.S. taxpayer dollars to influence U.S. public opinion."
How much tax money do we give wikipedia?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Elevenity billion dollars a year. Or one half the cost of a Trump Golden thrown (praise Trump)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's just a poorly formed sentence. Wikipedia gets no tax dollars, as far as I know. Unless you count the fact that they are a non-profit organization and so they don't pay some taxes.
I believe the subsidized people are the academic institutions which receive subsidies. Read that way they are alleging that people who work at publicly funded institutions are using wikipedia to influence the public. Probably part of their general crackdown on people like me (I'm a public university professor.) Hey! I
Re: (Score:2)
"Hey! I guess that means some of your tax dollars indirectly go to wikipedia."
No, but that wouldn't stop Trumpers from suggesting it.
"I turn around and give like $50 a year to the wikimedia foundation."
As is your right. How about this, should AMD and nVidia be concerned when the Trump Administration interferes in their business while taking a personal profit stake in their competitor, Intel? And we're talking about Wikipedia?
Re: How much of our tax money goes to wikipedia? (Score:2)
So they believe that people in academics should not have 1st amendment rights?
Re: (Score:2)
They believe that you should not exercise them as an "agent of the government" by extension of a part of your paycheck coming from them. Which is also no better. Any attempt at neutrality will have bias - anything else is close to impossible. What we're really doing is just arguing about whether the bias is intentional or facts-based. And even then, only if they are the "correct" facts.
Re: (Score:2)
The rule for us has always been that as a private citizen, we can say anything we like. If we are acting as a government agent though, like if I am in the classroom or on a news program with my university logo proudly displayed under my talking head, then we are more constrained. Honestly, that is as it should be.
But yeah, there seems to be a push in the direction of because our paychecks are derived from the government then that extends into all sorts of other controls. Like giving to Wikimedia or a politi
Re: (Score:2)
> How much tax money do we give wikipedia?
ChatGPT says "The short answer: virtually none."
Considering how obnoxious Wikipedia's donation beg banners are during what I affectionately refer to as "Wikipedia nag season" , I'm inclined to believe that our favorite LLM isn't hallucinating.
Re: (Score:2)
Nearly nothing. Most of wikimedia's income comes is small donations from individuals. Then there's donations or grants from the various philanthropic institutions and companies. I wouldn't be amazed if the grant from the US government is less than 1% of wikimedia's income, maybe even less than 0.1%.
Now, that does not disqualify their concern. Wikipedia is the goto place for a lot of people when they look up information on a particular topic, that makes them quite powerful. Wikipedia has a requirement to lin
Re: (Score:3)
> Now, that does not disqualify their concern. Wikipedia is the goto place for a lot of people when they look up information on a particular topic, that makes them quite powerful.
If the government doesn't like it, they're free to put out their own press releases or do a public awareness campaign, but they're not supposed to investigate Wikipedia. Have you even read the 1A? Here it is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an intentionally misworded headline, probably based on intentionally misworded press releases by those responsible for the story. Wikipedia has done nothing wrong. What they want here is an investigation of academic staff whose paychecks come partly from the government.
Much like Title IX, the only enforcement the government has against things it doesn't like is by conditionally withholding federal funding. The current administration would certainly love to pull federal funding from any public univer
Snowflakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Just fragile snowflakes lashing out. The Smithsonian is now too "woke" for saying slavery was bad and displaying artwork created by people darker than a latte. [1]https://www.npr.org/2025/08/24... [npr.org]
[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/08/24/nx-s1-5511241/smithsonian-white-house-art
It's not fragility (Score:5, Insightful)
They're systematically taking control of all available information sources.
Re: (Score:1)
How does the pace of Trump's march into fascism compare with the pace of Hitler's and Mussolini's?
Re:Snowflakes (Score:4, Interesting)
> Just fragile snowflakes lashing out.
They're doing more than just lashing out. This administration is also instructing states to [1]paint over their pavement art [orlandosentinel.com], ostensibly because it doesn't meet new DOT standards.
The real reason, of course, is they wanted to get rid of all LGBTQ+ themed pavement art, but that probably wouldn't hold up in court if they specifically singled it out - so it all has to go. Ever wonder why the cities in fascist regimes tend to look conformist and dull? Well, this is how it happens.
[1] https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2025/08/27/florida-orders-removal-of-orlando-student-road-art-it-promoted-3-months-ago/?share=rooordf8rnrn2ihmrrwt
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that cruelty is the point.
Ah, yes, of course. (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously the originalist interpretation of freedom of speech is "so long as congressional republicans claim it's 'neutral'". Very subtle constitutional law, that.
Re: (Score:3)
The classic definition of free speech: "You're free to speak as long as I agree with you... :P" /sarcasm
It's HUAC All Over Again (Score:2)
Comer has in his hand a list ...
Wikipedia can be moved (Score:4, Informative)
Wikimedia foundation has a lot of money.185 M of revenue. And an endowment of 100 million. They can easily move elsewhere and give the finger to censors. plenty of countries will be happy to house them.
The whole data fits on any HDD and is easy to duplicate, move and multiply, Streisand effect mode.
Re: (Score:2)
It only fits on a hard drive if you take the text. The media are about 470 TB (428 TiB) [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] The WMF operates 7 database servers worldwide, but the full data is in Texas and Virgina [2]https://wikitech.wikimedia.org... [wikimedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Size_of_Wikipedia#Size_of_the_English_Wikipedia_database
[2] https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_centers
Distract! Deflect! (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikipedia is OBVIOUSLY the most important topic in America today!
Right? RIGHT?!!
Talk about WIKIPEDIA!
Re: (Score:3)
It is a bit the point of this excellent article. The whole site is worth reading and subscribing (its free).
[1]https://www.doomsdayscenario.c... [doomsdayscenario.co]
His articles on ICE are chilling. Pun not intended.
[1] https://www.doomsdayscenario.co/p/a-watergate-everyday
Go after anyone that criticizes you (Score:4, Insightful)
We have a very thin skinned president and by extension a very think skinned Republican party. They are going after anybody and everybody that says anything they do not like. Examples include:
1. Revocation of Security Clearances
2. Legal Actions Against Media
3. Going after comedians for making fun of them
4. FBI raid of John Bolton
5. Trying to find some dirt on Obama. It does not have to be Epstein level, but anything better than the tan suit controversy will do.
6. High tariffs for countries that refuse to bend the knee to Trump. e.g. India refused to nominate him for the peace prize and is now suffering the consequences. Russia is the only country immune to any punitive actions from this govt.
The Republicans are doing serious and lasting damage to this country.
Democrats Investigate Fox Over Allegations of Lyin (Score:2)
One can dream, but I do think that any channel that uses public airwaves should be fined for any lie it tells and have its broadcast license revoked over a certain number. Outright lies are far worse than bias.
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't think less free speech is the answer here. I'm not one of those folks who is happy so long as it's my team that's trampling over The Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you referring to Fox News? Because broadcast licenses and their restrictions only apply to free to air stations, not cable/satellite/streaming TV. They can be sued by victims of libel/slander, of course. But aside from that, they can just call all their news "entertainment" or "fan fic" and get away with it.
Re: Two things are simultaneously possible (Score:2)
Remember the freak out by republicans around Biden trying to influence disinformation in social media? Pot meet kettle.
Wikipedia understaffed and overwhelmed, (Score:2)
It appears to me from the supporting sources mentioned in the Committee's letter that they are interested in organized groups that are violating Wikipedia's rules to inject propaganda.
Here's a link that contains some significant detail of what has happened and has some recommendations to restore neutrality.
[1]https://www.adl.org/resources/... [adl.org]
I suspect that this is what is driving the Congressional Committee. What may be happening is the committee is not taking the article linked below as gospel and are gathe
[1] https://www.adl.org/resources/report/editing-hate-how-anti-israel-and-anti-jewish-bias-undermines-wikipedias-neutrality
Isn't it a private organization (Score:2)
Isn't Wikimedia Foundation a private organization? Why does the Government feel the need to control it?
Wikimedia Foundation allows the full contents and even the software to be downloaded, TMTG could run their own version of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my question also. What law gives politicians and prosecutors the right to stick their fingers into the Wiki org?
For the sake of argument suppose the Wiki managers and paid editors are flaming biased bigots; that alone is not enough to prosecute an org. KKK is allowed to exist.
Can anyone name a specific law by identification and clause number?
Everyone knows... (Score:3, Insightful)
Objective reality has a well known liberal bias.
Re:Everyone knows... (Score:4, Insightful)
"But pointing this out got you branded anti-masker by the left. But it's not like the right had gained a handle on reality at this point."
Please stop with this shit. Nothing in the Trump era is about right vs. left except according to Trump and Maga.
The anti-masker shit is just an outgrowth of anti-information, Fauci said use a mask so MAGA opposed masks. That's it.
"But now the left has gone to absolute crazy town."
And there it is.
"...the left is politically aligned with Muslim groups so they won't publicly criticize the Muslim religion for their abhorrent treatment of women."
Bullshit and bullshit. In today's news, the only thing closely relevant is support for Palestine, but that's not support for Islam, it's support for an entire people suffering genocide.
" In fact a prominent women's rights campaigner from Iran was protested when she went to speak at a university in the UK,..."
You understand this is a topic about American politics, right? Or are you just a paid troll?
"And then there's the assertion by the left that it's fair to have biological males who went through male puberty competing in women's sports."
OK Trumper.
"That's as anti-science and anti-reality as you can get. "
Why? Why should sports be segregated by gender at all? Where's the science for that? And if a person receives hormonal Therapy, who are you to decide whether them competing in ANY capacity is fair? You don't seem to even know what science is.
"Finally, just look at the 1619 project, which is almost completely a work of fiction."
And now...racism. Full blown Donald Trump cheerleading.
"So no, liberals can no longer claim that reality has a liberal bias. "
Says the Trumper who thinks he's on the down low.
Re: Everyone knows... (Score:1)
Dude wtf? The poster above pointed out how batshit crazy it is to let men compete against women - including forcing women to share locker rooms - and you resort to ad hominem? No wonder Trump won a second term
Re: (Score:1)
> The poster above pointed out how batshit crazy it is to let men compete against women
Why is it "batshit crazy"? It isn't because men are always better at sports than women, because there's plenty of Reddit neckbeards who'd get knocked to the ground if they went up against professional female athletes. The reality is - it's just a vestige of sexual discrimination that you refuse to let go of.
> including forcing women to share locker rooms
So build more locker rooms, it ain't rocket surgery.
Re: Everyone knows... (Score:3, Informative)
Clay shooting does just that. Class based assignment with a system to move you up or down based on ability.
Works great.
Re: Everyone knows... (Score:4, Interesting)
> Works great.
Except that it ruffles feathers to even suggest that people should question why we still condone certain forms of sexual discrimination, so good luck ever getting other sports organizers to see things that way.
It's kind of ironic too, because if you're the parent of a young boy who'd rather do girl scout activities - yup, they'll be discriminated against and can't join. We certainly talk a great game about progress towards equality, but where the rubber meets the road there's still at least a few activities where what genitalia you were born with defines whether or not you'll be welcome.
Also, raising awareness of systemic inequalities in society was the original definition of "woke", so if it's making right-wingers with mod points feel uneasy, now's their chance to finally use the word in its correct context.
Re:Everyone knows... (Score:5, Insightful)
So no, liberals can no longer claim that reality has a liberal bias.
You're conflating moral choices from the left with outright lies and deception from the right. The whole premise of your argument is garbage. I'm very liberal but I do not in any way excuse what happened on Oct 7th, quite the opposite. But choosing to back Palestine is a moral decision isn't the same as the willful ignorance and lies told by the right.
Re: (Score:3)
> I'm very liberal but I do not in any way excuse what happened on Oct 7th, quite the opposite. But choosing to back Palestine is a moral decision isn't the same as the willful ignorance and lies told by the right.
Is it even "backing Palestine" to oppose genocide of Palestinians? I can't stand either religion whose followers lay claim to Gaza, but I don't think that disliking someone's religion is sufficient justification for genocide. Israel was founded on the British partition of Palestine by the USA through the UN and it immediately began literal and self-described colonization of as much land as it could get its hands on, whether or not it was included in the lands which were handed to it.
Hamas is terrible, but i
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand either religion whose followers lay claim to Gaza, but I don't think that disliking someone's religion is sufficient justification for genocide.
If the roles were switched, there wouldn't be a single Jew left alive in Israel right now, I have no doubt at all - and it would have happened decades ago if Palestinians had their way. I'm also not equating religion with Palestinians, the two are very different.
>in response to Israeli terrorist organizations which were murdering Palestini
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"now the left has gone to absolute crazy town"
Really ? You've seen Trump's presidency, and the left, is the crazy.
I'm sorry to inform you that your brain has left the building, hope you like living in Batshit Stupid City.
While I have you, I have a once in a lifetime deal on Trump's phone, with an exclusive 1,500%(*) off sale, $499 for a solid gold phone, 1,800%(**) made(***) in the USA, you can beat that deal, contact me, but be quick, the deal is only valid for 48 hours.
(*) Don't ask me, Ask Trump
(**) Same
Re:Everyone knows... (Score:4, Interesting)
Your argument is pretty typical of the "qualitative research" I like to tease my soft science colleagues about. You tell a story about "one side" and then tell another story about "the other side" and pretend they're equal. In your case your story about "the left" is pretty questionable too. A reasonably liberal view like freedom of religion and non-descrimination is in no way equivalent to excusing poor treatment of women (or anybody else) in hard core Islam any more than it is to excusing poor treatment of women in hard core Christianity.
In all but a few countries, support for implementing Sharia law is a small minority among Muslims. Support for such a thing is so vanishingly small in the US I couldn't find any polls that even asked.
Yet half of Americans think the bible should influence US law, 2/3 of Christians, and ~90% of white evangelicals.
Re: (Score:3)
> The left has gone so far left that the rest of us can't see them anymore. Which makes them pretty similar to the right in my opinion. Reality doesn't want anything to do with crazy.
You want to use Ronald Reagan as a benchmark for this? I'll begin with his 1984 speech where he offered amnesty to people who were in the country illegally. [1]https://www.npr.org/2010/07/04... [npr.org]
I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally
Today we have masked brown shirts snatching people from the streets and moved to concentration camps. I really do feel safer without the Home Depot day laborers...
How about when Gove
[1] https://www.npr.org/2010/07/04/128303672/a-reagan-legacy-amnesty-for-illegal-immigrants
Re: (Score:2)
> In 2025 what would happen if a republican offered amnesty for illegals and told people they could no longer open carry?
Bump stocks were banned during the previous Trump administration. The electorate just tends to have a very short memory for these sort of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really.