Live data from Hacker News

Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

wikiworkersunited.org

21–30 of 169 posts

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#21

As long as they don’t attempt to force the editorial side of Wikipedia to implement an ideological slant, or otherwise interfere with the NPOV policy, more power to them.

The NPOV policy has just lead to alternate ways to keep things aligned to the region that most prolific editors/contributors would occupy on an idealogical quadrant.

It’s similar to the way traditional media outlets that pride themselves on not being partisan in what they say, simply exert their bias via what they either don’t cover or inconvenient context/facts they leave out. The writing itself is seemingly neutral, except for the part where if they included the stories or details that run counter to their belief system, their readers might come to a problematic conclusion.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#22
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are editors employees in any formal way or are they closer to Reddit moderators? Or editors as in anyone, ie. Reddit posters?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors are not employees. Even the admins are not employees. (As far as I know you only have to sign any kind of formal documents if you have one of the few roles (as a non-employee) where you may have access to sensitive personal data, which is very few people.)

Yeah makes sense. I was wondering if there was special meaning to “editor” that made it non obvious that they wouldn’t be unionized.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#23
Lots of people asking "Why?". They say so right on their site: There are big changes happening in the technology industry and they are acting pro-actively to ensure the workers have a strong collective voice in the ways the foundation chooses to respond to those changes.

"The Wikimedia Foundation and the broader technology and nonprofit sectors are navigating a period of significant change. From rapid advances in artificial intelligence to evolving organizational priorities and external pressures, and changing patterns of readership and discovery, the decisions being made today will shape our workplace for years to come. Our union members believe this is the right moment to establish a lasting, legally recognized voice in those conversations. Rather than waiting until difficult decisions are made, we are organizing now to help build a stronger Foundation that can meet future challenges through collaboration, transparency, and shared stewardship."

https://wikiworkersunited.org/faq/

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#24
post #6

Is Wikipedia a bad place to work or something? I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular. Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place. There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers…

[flagged]

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#25
Everyone wants a piece of the wikipedia gravy train.

In 2010: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses were about $20m

In 2025: Wikimedia Foundation annual expenses are about $200m

The story of Wikipedia of the last 10 years especially is endlessly higher spending for a very stable number of monthly users (1.5b or so). You can make the case that 80% of this spend is not necessary to what the average users donating to Wikipedia think of as "wikipedia".

It makes sense for the employees to want to lock in their share of the bag.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#27
post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place. There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers…

[flagged]

This is divide-and-conquer rhetoric from someone who doesn’t want labour power. Workers would be much better off if we all stood together no matter how much we were paid or what our conditions were.

Edit: oh I see, your bio brags that you’re a scab, that explains it

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#28
post #6

Is Wikipedia a bad place to work or something? I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular. Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place. There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers…

How severe should your workplace grievance be before you’re allowed to decide to protest? Are only coal miners allowed to grouse about their jobs?

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#29

As long as they don’t attempt to force the editorial side of Wikipedia to implement an ideological slant, or otherwise interfere with the NPOV policy, more power to them.

The NPOV policy has just lead to alternate ways to keep things aligned to the region that most prolific editors/contributors would occupy on an idealogical quadrant. It’s similar to the way traditional media outlets that pride themselves on not being partisan in what they say, simply exert their bias via what they either don’t cover or inconvenient context/facts they leave out. The writing itself is seemingly neutral…

Are you saying it would be better to pick a specific ideological slant? If so, which one?

I am well aware of the existing Wiki slant, it’s certainly not perfect especially on highly political articles. But an imperfect attempt at NPOV seems better than no attempt at all.

Re: Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA

#30

Lots of people asking "Why?". They say so right on their site: There are big changes happening in the technology industry and they are acting pro-actively to ensure the workers have a strong collective voice in the ways the foundation chooses to respond to those changes. "The Wikimedia Foundation and the broader technology and nonprofit sectors are navigating a period of significant change. From rapid advances in art…

This is the right move. Unionise when things are good enough that labor can take a hit and keep standing, or when they’re so bad that people might actually die. Either way labor has a strong BATNA.

Right now a lost of software work is kinda in the middle; it’s not very secure and labor isn’t confident and doesn’t have a lot of great, easy alternatives, but by and large getting food on the table tomorrow isn’t an open question.

Post reply on HN