Even early Wittgenstein was never a positivist. One of the reasons he quit philosophy for so long was his frustration at that interpretation of works (see some of the interactions between him and Russell for example). What you are describing is exactly the opposite of what he was trying to say. If you're interested in another (much better) take on him, look into "the resolute reading", especially Cora Diamond and James Conant.
The lead editor of the SEP is a big Frege guy, and unfortunately, the site is extremely biased on anything tangentially related to Frege, and unfortunately this is one of those areas.
This is a very dubious claim, and you'd probably never hear the end of it if you claimed this in a graduate philosophy course at any reputable university. (There's probably some arguments to be made here, but still.) Of course, Wittgenstein later changed his course, but he was instrumental in popularizing logical positivism in its early days, unwittingly or not. The Tractatus was like contraband.
Graduate courses in philosophy at a top-tier department was where I learned it, lol. If you're interested, I can't recommend Cora Diamond's and James Conant's works on Wittgenstein enough (and "the resolute reading" in general). And would also strongly suggest not listening too closely to any modern author who thinks Russel understood Wittgenstein at any point (Wittgenstein certainly _never_ thought so).
The lead editor of the SEP is a big Frege guy, and unfortunately, the site is extremely biased on anything tangentially related to Frege, and unfortunately this is one of those areas.