[xvector]

Definitely a smear campaign, ironically one that seems to be organized by left-leaning individuals on Wikipedia, Business Insider, etc.

Which is bizarre to me because aren't these the people that would want the ability to disseminate information in the face of fascism?

They are attacking their own side (again.) When will idealists learn that this is not the way?

[Matl]

> left-leaning individuals

Here we go again.

As a 'left-leaning individual' it's funny because if you look up anti-war left leaning outlets and such on Wikipedia, they don't tend to have exactly glowing entries on there. Wikipedia and the other outlets described as 'left-leaning' are neoliberal institutions. Believe me that there's no love for these on the left.

When it's convenient for smears, neoliberals are left but then at other times it's the communists etc. In other words, 'left-leaning' is a grab bag of what one doesn't like these days, rather than any really meaningful group.

[marcosdumay]

> Wikipedia and the other outlets described as 'left-leaning' are neoliberal institutions.

What exactly do you think 'neoliberal' means?

I do agree Wikipedia is not 'left-leaning', mainly because 'right' and 'left' are bullshit names that don't mean anything. But it doesn't even have the power to act in a situation that would make it neoliberal.

[napkinartist]

It absolutely does. It's full of editorial decisions. What content is on there, what is cut. What editors consider germane, etc.

It can absolutely act in a way that makes it neoliberal.

[Matl]

Neoliberal as in prominent decision makers/editors etc, such as Jimmy Wales express the sort of free market and foreign policy philosophy that has been mainstream since about the 80s.

It means that entries on individuals, countries etc. are broadly in line with what you'd read in any mainstream media outlet and so is its outlook on 'Western civilization'.

That doesn't mean it's not a good project, or that it has some great power, just that its 'gatekeepers' are not exactly dissidents of any sort.

[marcosdumay]

> express the sort of free market and foreign policy philosophy that has been mainstream since about the 80s

Let's see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Right on the introduction it clearly says that any argument based on the curve is pseudo-science.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus

Is biased in claiming the consensus is a contentious topic, instead of only a tiny well founded minority ever supporting it. But it's the same bias you will see in any history book.

If we go extreme in another direction, this one has the same bias of representing fringe views as equally represented in a debate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

If we go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_science

There's a clear neoliberal bias. But if instead we go here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_administration

There's a strong modernist bias, with a secondary classical liberal one. What is about exactly the same bias you would see on the main literature of both subjects.

So, no, except for behaving like an encyclopedia and reflecting the literature biases, I fail to see how the wiki is neoliberal as a whole.

[Matl]

> What is about exactly the same bias you would see on the main literature of both subjects.

I think you just answered your own question.

[marcosdumay]

Why do out single out the neoliberal one if each subject clearly has a different bias?

[sanskritical]

The defining feature of fascism is these kind of tyrannical public-private partnerships. It was the entire basis of Mussolini's fascism. They are the literal fascists.

Redifining fascism as meaning "racism and anti-semitism" (certainly attitudes which by the current definition far predate fascism) has been one of the most clever acts of sleight of hand by the regime, giving it unlimited freedom to enact the most totalitarian form of fascism ever conceived.

[Hendrikto]

> aren't these the people that would want the ability to disseminate information in the face of fascism?

Everybody wants free speech — but only for opinions they agree with. And they are against censorship — unless the "right people" are censored.

Recently, the left has been far more authoritarian, labeling everything they don't like as "far right hate speech", pushing to make dissent illegal, and demanding censorship. I guess the pendulum will swing the other way eventually.

It's not really a left VS right issue, but an authoritarian one. Free speech can be uncomfortable, that is the point. "Free speech, but…" does not work.

[toraway]

> Recently, the left has been far more authoritarian

I'm not sure how a reasonable comparison of authoritarian behavior seemingly assigns more weight to random Wikipedia contributors lumped together as "leftists" compared to the literal government currently controlled by the right that is routinely threatening to pull FCC licenses for critical speech among other intentionally speech chilling threats.

I'd say the pendulum has already swung the other way, while swinging much, much further and more openly than nebulous mob demands for "cancel culture", over zealous Twitter moderation of hate speech or whatever else the previous go-to examples for the left were. Before 2025 showed what a truly authoritarian anti-free speech policy looks like when wielded by those with actual legal power and zero shame.