Does Wikipedia do a good job defining the Far Left?

“Far-left politics, also known as extreme left politics or left-wing extremism, are politics further to the left on the left–right political spectrum than the standard political left. The term does not have a single, coherent definition; some scholars consider it to be the left of communist parties, while others broaden it to include the left of social democracy. In certain instances — especially in the news media — far left has been associated with some forms of authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism, or are characterized as groups that advocate for revolutionary socialism and related communist ideologies, or anti-capitalism and anti-globalization. Far-left terrorism consists of extremist, militant, or insurgent groups that attempt to [realise] their ideals through political violence rather than using democratic processes.”

There’s a lot to unpack there

1. “Further to the left on the left-right political spectrum than the standard political left”. The problem with this definition is that it’s not obvious what the “standard political left” is. And even if it were what does being to the left of the Left even mean? There is no clear marker separating the two. Probably, why Dr. Jordan Peterson is so adamant that people on the Left come up with an easy way of identifying when the Left goes too far.
2. “The term does not have a single coherent definition”. It should have one.
3. “the left of communist parties” I can accept the idea that unless you’re a Communist then you aren’t Far Left. That said, if you have to be even more radical than literal Communists to be Far Left then the term is far too restrictive to be useful. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels were openly advocating for the mass murder of the rich. That is what Communism is. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to regard that as the moderate version of the Left. If Communism is the mainstream Left, then we’ve already gone too far and are all doomed. That said, defining “Far Left” as “Communist” could make sense.
4. “others broaden it to include the left of social democracy”. This is where things get complicated. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production. Democratic Socialism is Socialism being implemented through democratic means. Social democracy is similar to democratic Socialism inasmuch as it is implemented through democratic means but differs in that it is more willing to tolerate private ownership of the means of production but advocates high taxes, subsidies and a generous welfare state. I have siad before that I regard Socialism as a form of theft,and I stand by that, but I don’t view Social Democracy the same way. That said, there are several aspects of Social Democracy to which I would object because I don’t find them to be effective measures. For instance, the more you raise taxes on the rich the more likely it becomes that the rich move to other jurisdictions to avoid those taxes and taxing the poor is hardly a solution given the poor, by definition, can’t afford it. So the only way to solve this problem would be for the government to print its own money which would make products more expensive thanks to inflation unless the government were to impose price controls. But if the government were to impose price controls then we would run into the calculation problem. The government is ill-equipped to take into account the supply and demand for a product to determine how much it should cost and as such the producers will find themselves going out of business thanks to not being able to charge as much as they need in order to make a profit. Unless the government subsidises them of course but then we still have to get into the question of “how will they pay for it?” They could borrow money from other governments but that only creates more problems because after all how will they be able to repay those debts? It’s a rabbit hole that you don’t want to go down. That being said, I can accept that supporting Social Democracy is left-wing but not far and that supporting Socialism is what makes you Far Left. That is an entirely fair definition.
5. “authoritarianism, anarchism, communism, and Marxism”. This definition suffers from being too broad. Augusto Pinochet was authoritarian but he’s considered a right-winger. Communism is practised as an authoritarian ideology but Anarchism advocates for statelessness such that it doesn’t make that much sense for them to be grouped together. It also isn’t self-evident why Anarcho-Capitalism is not regarded as a form of Anarchism given Anarcho-Capitalists also seek to abolish the government (though their support of Capitalism results in them being considered right-wing.)
6. Violent extremism practised on behalf of the Left. That’s a fair definition. The problem, as Dr. Peterson often points out, is that several things must have happened already to get to the point of embracing violence such that, unless one draws the line before the violence comes, there’s no way to nip it in the bud.

This is not a critique of Wikipedia as a website. I understand that Wikipedia’s policies require it to offer all the definitions of Far Left used by mainstream media and mainstream academia and to do so with neither opinion nor commentary. It’s inevitable that the definitions will be inconsistent with one another. While this isn’t an indictment of Wikipedia ,by any means, it does render it less than useful in providing a good definition of the Far Left.