House Republicans Want to Dox Wikipedia Editors over 'Bias' Complaints
Original: House Republicans want to dox Wikipedia editors over 'bias' complaints
Key topics
As House Republicans threaten to dox Wikipedia editors over perceived "bias," commenters sound the alarm on the GOP's tactics, pointing out that this move is par for the course for a party that has long rejected fact-based discourse. Many observers note that Republicans are simply following through on their platform, with some highlighting the erosion of the social contract and the devaluation of facts in the digital age. One commenter wryly observed that "reality has a well-known liberal bias," sparking a debate over the nuances of "liberal" versus "progressive" ideologies. The thread captures a sense of unease about the state of modern information and the blurring of truth.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
8m
Peak period
10
0-2h
Avg / period
4.2
Based on 21 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Aug 29, 2025 at 9:30 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Aug 29, 2025 at 9:38 PM EDT
8m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
10 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Aug 30, 2025 at 6:35 PM EDT
4 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
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.
This election cycle it’s that “liberal” cities are overrun with criminal migrants and the only way to save the children is sending in the military. Constitution be damned.
Specifically it is the ideology of Capitalism, representative democracy, the rule of law, etc... basically the ideology of the enlightenment.
This misuse of Liberal is easy to track the etymology. The colloquial usage of "liberal" does sound like an opposite of conservative, it's basically a synonym for "lenient". But colloquial usage is often totally incorrect in certain contexts, like this one.
People who use "liberal" as an opposite of conservative are just bad at type theory.
You could just as well say he still agrees with your point about reality comporting more with a progressive understanding of ethics, while at the same time parodying Fox News for incoherently making spurious charges of "liberalism" at every turn.
Additionally, passionate invocation of "facts", "reality" and "objectively true" should be red flags for any discussion.
https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/
You can see this in edit history or discussions on various articles. For example whether something gets labeled as a conspiracy theory or not is a matter of opinion, but the coordinated groups of activist editors and their bots and various powers always win, and their bias is in one direction.
That said, I don’t think it’s appropriate for the government to interfere in speech, except by encouraging and supporting a diversity of ideas.
One niggle with your linked article is it says it's biased because it goes on about Trump's impeachments and doesn't say similar stuff about Obama but you could argue that's maybe because Trump got impeached twice and Obama didn't, rather than Wikipedia's biases or lack thereof.