It is biased. I do not think we can "both sides" the impact of DOGE here and I think the site makes its case for why it should be seen as a destructive force.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43624536#43625085
It calls DOGE workers "wreckers" and it lists all the staffers related with the DOGE project with a detailed description of how they're related and what they've done recently. They even have a page just for revealing anonymous staffers in court documents: https://dogetrack.info/people/aliases/
I agree DOGE is destructive but is it productive to reveal all the names and history of every staffer, contractor, lawyer, etc... related to the DOGE project?
The above is why I see it as "biased and emotionally charged".
This website very well could've gone without the extensive list of people related. Which is why I see this as more of a harassment list.
I called certain members of the DOGE staff wreckers, because that is precisely what they've been deployed to do. For instance, if you read about DOGE's activities at USAID or CFPB or the National Endowment for the Humanities or USIP, you see a pattern of some DOGE staff coming in under the pretense of "IT modernization" and then immediately seizing control of systems to suspend all employee access and cancel grants. I think "wrecker" does cover that pretty well, but I will grant it's a loaded term. I am currently working on a major revision to better tie actions/positions/etc. to certain major DOGE projects to make it more obvious.
As for the other point, DOGE has purposefully done a lot to avoid oversight and scrutiny. If you want privacy, you should not work for the federal government as your position and work will be public. DOGE has used this evasion and ambiguity to lie about its actions publicly and try to wriggle out of accountability in the courts and Congress (the whole question of "who is running DOGE?" continues to be unclear). Giving names and locations both provides clarity into what DOGE is doing, reveals patterns (as in the way in which specific DOGE staff at GSA were sent to small independent agencies) and provides info for FOIA or other public-serving transparency measures.
I have purposefully avoided ever giving addresses or photos, and I scrupulously only use public sources for my information to avoid the risk of it seeming like a harassment list, but I'm not going to hide information about activities that should be public and transparent and accountable.