Where it might get “extreme” is on niche topics that few people care about. For example I remember some articles associated with the whole “audiophile” scene were claiming some silly things without much evidence behind them, but that’s pretty innocuous in my view.
> In psychology, the parental investment theory suggests that basic differences between males and females in parental investment have great adaptive significance and lead to gender differences in mating propensities and preferences.[10]
First, the reference is to a text book. That's not good. Second, the theory is not not widely accepted, and did receive criticism. It's certainly not an established fact. Third, the statement's prominent place, and lack of further qualification, suggests that human parents should take care of the amount care men and women invest in parenting, but that's not at all what the theory is about. The article linked explains that very clearly.
Why it was placed there is a mystery, but it's not been a neutral, well-informed edit.
Then contribute a link to that criticism? AFAIK that's the normal policy on widely criticized statements that are still popular enough that they should be mentioned.
From a quick Google search, I was able to find other articles that draw this distinction clearly (example https://spectator.us/whats-wrong-cultural-marxism/). However, the Wikipedia article doesn't draw this distinction well, and it seems intent on casting the phrase "Cultural Marxism" as racist, and so it features the worst interpretation of it. It sources articles that are also written primarily to repudiate right-wing political figures or intellectuals like Jordan Peterson. The related debate and edit wars are apparent when you look at the "Talk" page for this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_Marxism_conspira.... Note that the Talk page mentions the article is controversial, is in dispute, that there have been attempts to recruit editors to change the article, there have been circular sources introduced, and so forth.
That's just one example, but if you dig deep enough into any topic that has a left- and right- perspective and a Wikipedia article, you'll find the same. Wikipedia is, in my view, developing a US-centric English-centric left-leaning bias. All that said, I still love Wikipedia and will continue to use it everyday. I just worry that like all human-centric institutions, it is itself a target, a theater of battle in the on-going ideological wars.
Both are terms that are generally used to disparage views of others. Except for the new 'Neoliberal' clique who are centre left most people described as Neoliberals don't describe themselves that way. Just as what many right of centre would term as 'Cultural Marxists' wouldn't describe themselves that way.
That's quite different from referring to the other side of a debate on sexuality as 'Cultural Marxism', despite Marx having had zero interest in sexuality, many self-proclaimed Marxist states having conservative policies on it and few people on that side of the debate having any interest in Marx. At best, you could argue right wingers describing their culture war opponents as Marxists are trying to invoke the spirit of Joe McCarthy rather than Lyndon LaRouche's ridiculous Frankfurt School conspiracy theory and literal Nazi origins of the term.
Scholarly analysis of the conspiracy theory has concluded that it has no basis in fact and is not based on any actual intellectual tendency.[5][7]
The problem is real as I've mentioned elsewhere, but it's overwhelmingly a sourcing problem. There simply aren't many sources about non-Western or traditionalist (as opposed to modern/progressive) worldviews.
Have you tried to remedy this by editing any of those articles and backing up your edits with a solid factual argument?
Specifically en.wikipedia.org has a western (US/UK sphere of influence) worldview.
This is because en.wikipedia is/can be edited by everyone who speaks English: not just the USA, not just regular English speaking countries, but also all those countries that teach children English as a second language, (and a not insignificant smattering of people who learn English outside of school too)
When you compare countries around the world, The United States of America is said to lean rather right of center.
Thus from a US perspective you would expect en.wikipedia to appear to indeed be a bit on the left.
(this is not a comprehensive answer, but it does cover a lot of the ground)
I'm not sure that this is the case. Maybe with respect to English-speaking countries, the U.S. leans more capitalistic which some people would call "right". But U.S. society/worldview is nonetheless far more liberal, socially progressive and open to diverse views than most countries around the world.
These can be:
* Native speakers: From eg. USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland.
* People who speak English as a second language (which is most of the western world including western Europe)
In general out of this set of countries, the USA tends to be fairly (economically) conservative and right-leaning. (Compare with eg. Netherlands, Norway, Germany, France, Canada, New Zealand, etc. )
What makes you say that countries in eg. Asia are more right leaning than the USA? That surprises me a bit.
> What makes you say that countries in eg. Asia are more right leaning than the USA
By living there most of my life.
(In return: I'm currently in Germany, Netherlands. These countries are considerably left of the USA in terms of eg socialized health care and education, views on woman's rights, and general permissiveness and openness to new ideas.)
What do you consider right/left wing in this context, and how is the country you are in right wing? (Perhaps you're in Singapore or so?)
America was not the only country to have a great revolution. Starting almost a century earlier, and (in part following america's example) up to this day, many countries have seen revolutions or reforms. The world has continued to evolve and grow.
Americans are often taught of American exceptionalism, that an enlightened America is (was) alone in the dark.
Perhaps (nearly) so in 1776; But the fact today is that America is no longer the only nation with a liberal world view, social progressiveness and openness to diverse views. Now many other nations stand beside it or even ahead of it. This is not a bad problem to have of course (or even a problem at all! )
I'm not sure what the fix is for these issues, but it does mean that I seek out opposing perspectives elsewhere when I read articles that concern such topics. It'll probably always be important for readers to seek multiple perspectives, including ones they disagree with, instead of blindly trusting Wikipedia to be correct. After all, it is written by humans.