[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?