4 ms·

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

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. 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-israel-antisemitism/ 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.

gnerd00 1y ago
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
- hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
  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 the international students, etc.
  - wrs 1y ago
    Also, note that only the second of those actors is prohibited by the Constitution from infringing free speech.
    - schoen 1y ago
      UC Berkeley is a public university, so its administration is bound by the first amendment according to the incorporation doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... (Though maybe the actors you're referring to are students rather than the administration. It's true that students can't violate someone's first amendment rights, although they can interfere with their exercise in a way that the administration might have a legal duty to prevent.)
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- bhouston 1y ago
  I do not know the exact specifics of UC Berkeley and you didn't link to them. That said, I am a financial supporter of FIRE, which often has come to the defense of free speech of conservatives. It is also opposed to the Trump administrations moves against Harvard: https://www.thefire.org/news/findings-against-harvard-are-blueprint-national-campus-speech-code https://www.thefire.org/news/findings-against-harvard-are-bl...
- tyre 1y ago
  > 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.
  - int_19h 1y ago
    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.
- tastyface 1y ago
  Based on how things are going, looks like they were very much justified.
xpe 1y ago
> 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.

gnerd00 1y ago

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

hshdhdhj4444 1y ago
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 the international students, etc.
- wrs 1y ago
  Also, note that only the second of those actors is prohibited by the Constitution from infringing free speech.
  - schoen 1y ago
    UC Berkeley is a public university, so its administration is bound by the first amendment according to the incorporation doctrine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights#Amendment_I https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_R... (Though maybe the actors you're referring to are students rather than the administration. It's true that students can't violate someone's first amendment rights, although they can interfere with their exercise in a way that the administration might have a legal duty to prevent.)
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bhouston 1y ago
I do not know the exact specifics of UC Berkeley and you didn't link to them. That said, I am a financial supporter of FIRE, which often has come to the defense of free speech of conservatives. It is also opposed to the Trump administrations moves against Harvard: https://www.thefire.org/news/findings-against-harvard-are-blueprint-national-campus-speech-code https://www.thefire.org/news/findings-against-harvard-are-bl...
tyre 1y ago
> 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.
- int_19h 1y ago
  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.
tastyface 1y ago
Based on how things are going, looks like they were very much justified.

xpe 1y ago

> 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.