Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia’s cofounders, was banned from editing the site indefinitely after other editors determined he was canvassing, or in other words, calling on his followers off platform in order to influence Wikipedia’s content.
Sanger has spent more than a decade criticizing Wikipedia for what he claims is an ideological, left-wing bias on a variety of topics, and on X has framed this recent ban as further proof of everything that’s wrong with Wikipedia. The New York Post took that bait and last night published an article with the headline “Left-leaning Wikipedia blocked founder from editing site—after he campaigned to make it more balanced.”
Wikipedia editors obviously reject that framing and say that Sanger was banned for wielding his followers to sway discussion and decision making on Wikipedia. The discussion that led to the decision to ban Sanger concluded with what an editor called a “clear consensus” to ban Sanger.
The thing is Wikipedia isn’t even left-wing. User survey shows the editors holds left-wing and right-wing beliefs about equally. And Jimmy Wales, the founder, is an Ayn Rand reading “objectivist” for crying out loud.
all i found was that self-responses are preponderantly left/center-left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-04-25/Recent_research
And in the left Lemmy communities is known as ‘nato-pedia’ for his Western pov bias
reality has a well known left-wing bias
No, it’s just that the right-wing has become accustomed to lying it’s ass off to get what it wants.
If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a “superior”. Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it’s earned.
All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature’s history for their spiritual beliefs.
source? i’d doubt that unless you’re defining liberals as right-wing here
problem is the use has a large ultra right and centerist groups but the actual left is small but growing in recent days.
Looking at the primary victories in NYC recently is a good sign to come.
even these im not sure I would not call left of center. they are not looking to get rid of capitlism they just want to have taxes and regulation and social safety nets.
It is better than typical Democrat center right bullshit.
yeah im not complaining its just so crazy how far the overton window has went. And its true that many democrats today could have run as a rupublican in the 70’s and 80’s.
I blame Bill Clinton for moving that window. Him and Trump moved both their political parties astray into where they are today.
reagan “democrats”. Clinton just responded to what the people where telling politicians in elections.
There isn’t any difference between DSA’s vision for socialism and your’s*, it’s just NYC-DSA is building a movement on a municipal level.
A city can’t abolish capitalism on it’s own, it can however build a social democratic infrastructure that allows for a larger shift.
*Assuming you want socialism and aren’t some tankie who yerns to die in a pointless revolution so the capitalist class can be replaced with the capitalist class (ML)
If you asked 1000 randomly picked Americans “should the wealthy elite own your surplus labor value?” you’d find a lot more agreement with leftist views than you’d think. The ultra-right is a big chunk but it’s not the majority, the dedicated core is just well organized and most westerners are ignorant about what they are actually voting for so it appears more popular.
I would expect them to be confused and suspicious of the term “surplus labor value”. If not, then education has a problem.