Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 389 posts

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#21

Post by card_zero »

12_throw_away wrote: post #18
nickff wrote: post #12

> "Wikipedia’s workers are fighting to unionize because the institution hosting the world’s encyclopedia has started acting like a regular employer at exactly the moment when the world most needs it to act like something better. > "The encyclopedia belongs to everyone. The labor that sustains it deserves the same protection." If Wikipedia has excess reserves, that money should be directed to a worthy cause, not just…

[flagged]

It means that us lowly volunteer Wikipedians, who write the articles, have long mistrusted those who are paid to work for Wikimedia, and we are unsure what good they do, if any.

This may of course be unfair, but that's the background information.

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#22

Post by 12_throw_away »

card_zero wrote: post #21
12_throw_away wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

It means that us lowly volunteer Wikipedians, who write the articles, have long mistrusted those who are paid to work for Wikimedia, and we are unsure what good they do, if any. This may of course be unfair, but that's the background information.

[flagged]

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#23

Post by gowld »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #17
nickff wrote: post #12

> "Wikipedia’s workers are fighting to unionize because the institution hosting the world’s encyclopedia has started acting like a regular employer at exactly the moment when the world most needs it to act like something better. > "The encyclopedia belongs to everyone. The labor that sustains it deserves the same protection." If Wikipedia has excess reserves, that money should be directed to a worthy cause, not just…

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular conflict, but I have thought about this in the abstract a bit (and landed on no satisfying conclusion). Basically, I've always been a strong proponent of workers demanding their fair share from a traditional company where the entire game is squeezing employees / society to maximize shareholder returns at all costs. However, I'm much less convinced that the same applies…

Wikipedia owners are free to not have any employees, to prefer employees who donate some of their pay back to the organization, or solicit only volunteers. Workers are free to ask to be paid for their work.

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#24

Post by benmusch »

xocnad wrote: post #15
nickff wrote: post #12

> "Wikipedia’s workers are fighting to unionize because the institution hosting the world’s encyclopedia has started acting like a regular employer at exactly the moment when the world most needs it to act like something better. > "The encyclopedia belongs to everyone. The labor that sustains it deserves the same protection." If Wikipedia has excess reserves, that money should be directed to a worthy cause, not just…

I am not knowledgeable at all about the structure or internal politics but on the face of it (based solely on the representations in this "article") wouldn't the staff that were directly dedicated to implementing the communities priorities be a "worthy cause"?

I think "worthy cause" is a poor choice of words from the OP, but the idea is: WMF has goals that it wants to accomplish in the world, and they should staff on that basis, not on the basis of honoring historical contributions, which were already compensated with the wages at the time.

I don't have an opinion on how that's used in this situation FWIW, this seems like an extremely reasonable engineering team to employ for that basis.

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#25

Post by benmusch »

12_throw_away wrote: post #22
card_zero wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that us lowly volunteer Wikipedians, who write the articles, have long mistrusted those who are paid to work for Wikimedia, and we are unsure what good they do, if any. This may of course be unfair, but that's the background information.

[flagged]

you can disagree with that comment but its clearly not PR speak lmao. not everyone who disagrees with you is astroturfed

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#26

Post by card_zero »

12_throw_away wrote: post #22
card_zero wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It means that us lowly volunteer Wikipedians, who write the articles, have long mistrusted those who are paid to work for Wikimedia, and we are unsure what good they do, if any. This may of course be unfair, but that's the background information.

[flagged]

I apologize for being a lizard person.

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#27

Post by legitster »

17 months of operating expenses are actually not a lot for a foundation. Especially one whose goal is to preserve something for a long horizon.

Unions exist to combat the monopsony power of corporations. Corporations and unions can exist in constant tension with each other because ultimately both are bound by the market of their product.

I don't think the logic holds up when you're talking about foundations or charities. I'm donating to Wikipedia because I want to advance their cause. If the unions goal is to raid donations and get an increasing share, that could potentially go bad.

Worse, the union can sometimes capture an org and begin to exert control of the mission.

Even if you're very pro-union, there is legitimate reason to be hesitant here.

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#28

Post by oytis »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #17
nickff wrote: post #12

> "Wikipedia’s workers are fighting to unionize because the institution hosting the world’s encyclopedia has started acting like a regular employer at exactly the moment when the world most needs it to act like something better. > "The encyclopedia belongs to everyone. The labor that sustains it deserves the same protection." If Wikipedia has excess reserves, that money should be directed to a worthy cause, not just…

I don't have a strong opinion on this particular conflict, but I have thought about this in the abstract a bit (and landed on no satisfying conclusion). Basically, I've always been a strong proponent of workers demanding their fair share from a traditional company where the entire game is squeezing employees / society to maximize shareholder returns at all costs. However, I'm much less convinced that the same applies…

An organization genuinely dedicated to a mission for common good has even more reasons to share power with its employees in my view

Re: Big tech's anti-labor playbook has come for Wikipedia

#29

Post by roenxi »

Maybe I'm behind the times, but isn't Big Tech known as one of the best employers on the planet? I thought most of the tech workers were in the industry because the work is light, the conditions pretty relaxed compared to most jobs and the pay was high. Especially for an industry where anyone anywhere can just get involved and become a great coder.
Post reply on HN