Why Conservatives Are Attacking 'wokepedia'
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
wsj.comTechstory
heatedmixed
Debate
60/100
WikipediaConservatismCensorshipFree Speech
Key topics
Wikipedia
Conservatism
Censorship
Free Speech
The Wall Street Journal reports on conservative complaints about Wikipedia's alleged liberal bias, sparking debate among HN users about the site's neutrality and the implications of external pressure.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
19m
Peak period
4
0-2h
Avg / period
1.6
Comment distribution11 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 11 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 4, 2025 at 3:38 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 4, 2025 at 3:58 PM EDT
19m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
4 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 5, 2025 at 11:59 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45476040Type: storyLast synced: 11/17/2025, 11:04:18 AM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Yes, the current administration has issues. However, when we look at the numerous issues around previous administrations, such as the Disinformation Governance Board or the WH's directing social media companies to censor users, they are hardly new or distinct. Disregard for individual liberty is the norm. In fact, the opposition frequently celebrates what they dictate as "collective good" over the remaining notions of individual rights.
Partisans choose to engage in selective outrage.
The current issues are continuations of the trend. We see this in the rationalizations of the current partisans. School yard favorites, such as "They started it" and end-justify-the-means, "If we don't abandon the principles of free speech, we are at a disadvantage to our unprincipled opponents" are used to rationalize this behavior. Meanwhile, the principled remnant are castigated as weak, anti-maga turncoats.
Finally, the assertion around "objectivity" is either a misuse of language or a misunderstanding of basic premises. Objective truth may exist in nature, but we experience it subjectively. Further down the chain, we are able to use our limited facilities to describe it. We frequently make mistakes in both perception and description. In the case of Wikipedia, the results are of an even lower tier, as we can only describe what other, frequently partisan sources have previously described. Then there is the contentious issue of which sources are acceptable for Wikipedia's "Reliable Sources".
Huffing Post and Jezebel are acceptable sources?!?
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=jacobin.com
https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=mises.org