It's basically the free movement of people and jobs

Are you guys taking aboout politiscales?

As far as wikipedia defines it

lol. Using wikipedia for politics. That won't ever go wrong. //s

Lol

With neo liberalism, united fruit company happens

And you do not want united fruit company

English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,

^ This

Wikipedia is amazing

Wait I'll do 8values

Wiki is amazing. For stuff where you can't really go wrong (like chemistry)

I was centrist last time

@pratel Hey I had an idea

Imagine a news site

about two weeks old

Run like wikipedia

But if you are using wiki for stuff that gets people emotionally charged and you can gain from manipulating public opinion...

Where there's headlines and people can add to it with sources

Political issues, particularly current ones, get heavily brigaded.

I think what 8 values is using is what wikipedia would describe as far as neoliberalism

@Deleted User I can sorta see it. Continue?

I haven't seen much evidence of wikipedia being false and misleading to a significant degree

I'm not entirely sure what just adding sources to headlines would necesarily achieve besides being a big collection of links.

Nah, nah

You have to add to the story

And to prove what you are adding you can provide links

@ExceptionalFeather

Look up a current political figure and look for the words used. Look up some other opinions. You'll eventually find something.

Or even stuff that you yourself have found

Like video evidence

The Gamer Gate people here tend to have lots of complaints about Wikipedia. Evidently they got hit hard.

yea

literally anything that's false but can be supported by 'reliable' media will get on wikipedia no problem

@Deleted User

I can sorta see it, but I'm not sure I see how it is that different in principle from wikipedia if it's just general news.

It's also going to get brigaded hard.

If it was limited to something specific like misleading media narratives and had controls or something to keep from bleeding, I could see it.

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

not finding any issues here

Something like that for a fact checking site might work

But not for articles i feel

It's usually subtle. Missing Scandals on some politicians. Who gets linked to whom. Inclusion of speculation without denoting it as speculation.

Then there's sometimes really blatant examples.