3 ms·
> 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 Wikipe
by Matl 9mo ago
> 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 9mo ago> 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.
- Matl 9mo agoNeoliberal 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 9mo ago> 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 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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism If we go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management_science 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 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 9mo ago> 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 9mo agoWhy do out single out the neoliberal one if each subject clearly has a different bias?
- napkinartist 9mo agoIt 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.