In general, the archive spiders the web and ingests information so that there is a certain mean frequency of visits and a certain likelihood of any particular revision of a web page being captured.

There would be instances in which data was entered into the archive more certainly and more frequently, on the basis of the nature of that data, than otherwise would have occurred.

What one means by bias when one says that this biases the contents of the collection needs to be understood with some care. It would be interesting to hear some historians discuss the matter. I do not think that it is a type of bias that is likely to lead them very far astray.

If it mollifies your concerns any, the last time I checked, anyone could manually archive any web page they liked. However, I would recommend writing to The Archive to express your concern.

I have an entirely partisan appreciation of the ability of The Archive to prevent redactions from the historical record of material that might later be disavowed. However, I share your more general view that there is no reason that the online history of any single major U.S. political party should be documented any less carefully than any other other.

Archive Team (not a part of Internet Archive) actually archives piles and piles of web-based material, sometimes in response to current events, sometimes because of known shutting down of services, and sometimes because of speculative worry about longevity. (For an example of the last one, we've been archiving all current FTP sites left.)

Meanwhile, Internet Archive's crawlers are bringing in millions (really millions) of URLs every day, just constantly grabbing websites, files, video, you name it.

There's certainly a "bias" to the current administration in terms of 1. They're in power 2. They keep removing things new and old. But think of it as us having a few lights shined in specific directions while thousands of other floodlights go literally everywhere.