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

111–120 of 389 posts

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

#111

Post by wsve »

legitster wrote: post #27

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 charit…

Non-profit executives are even more capable and better situated to "raid donations" or change the direction of the mission, and can do so a lot easier when there is no organized labor force to push back against it.

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

#112

Post by wsve »

whimsicalism wrote: post #65
hiddencost wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the countrary, nonprofits need unions more than for profits. They exploit their workers more. They have fewer resources and exploit their mission to get more work from their workers.

Yes, workers in non-profits are status-compensated as well as monetarily compensated. I don't think this is an argument for non-profit unionization.

"status-compensated"?

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

#113

Post by kennywinker »

nickff wrote: post #13
kennywinker wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Employees being loyal and well paid are in the company’s interests. And “the right to protect its interests” doesn’t actually include firing people for organizing. That’s illegal most places.

These employees trying to organize seem to be ignoring that they don't actually provide the majority of the value that Wikipedia benefits from, volunteers do.

What a horrible take.

The janitor deserves to be paid well, work in safe conditions, and have stable hours. They may not provide “the majority of the value” but without them work would grind to a halt.

Same applies to every other job. If it needs to be done, then it should be treated with respect and dignity.

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

#114

Post by louisbourgault »

SkinTaco wrote: post #95
pesus wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the differences are because those are different people who have done much different things? I don't see a strong slant either way in these articles.

Agreeing with the negative portrayal does not make it an unbiased article.

If you think about the most salient or well covered things by the news in each of their presidencies, they're right there in the header. I'd say it's difficult to write in an unbiased sense about these issues, and given the difficulty, Wikipedia has done a decent job.

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

#115

Post by kenlefeb »

stogot wrote: post #104
dgacmu wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is sometimes said that reality has a liberal bias. But it is literally the case that historians rank these two presidents at nearly opposite ends of the spectrum, and the article's tone seems to reflect that. Which isn't really an example of bias in Wikipedia - it is supposed to reflect what reliable sources say.

OP’s chosen example was terrible. I’d agree with the premise, based anecdotoly but what a terrible selection of articles to prove a point. Better to link the discussion articles where the editors actively slant the articles People become more conservative as they age, so maybe the reality quote is about the young and the young edit Wikipedia more

I think people become more conservative as they get wealthier. Getting older just correlates with increasing wealth.

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

#116

Post by faidit »

SkinTaco wrote: post #92
jfengel wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that's bad, you should compare the pages for Genghis Khan and Mr. Rogers.

You should've checked those pages first, they're actually very neutral lol.

How is the Trump or Obama article not neutral? You can literally correct them yourself if there is anything untrue or biased.

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

#117

Post by james_marks »

chr15m wrote: post #77

> The point is the Foundation is rich. Seventeen-plus months of operating runway in the bank. I don't think "rich" is the correct way to describe this. It sounds like a lot of money but there are a lot of expenses and people to pay. Seventeen months sounds fragile - one long-ish recession and they're toast. I hope they survive.

17 months of runway for the something with the scale and ambition of Wikipedia is living hand-to-mouth.

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

#118

Post by appreciatorBus »

faidit wrote: post #116
SkinTaco wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should've checked those pages first, they're actually very neutral lol.

How is the Trump or Obama article not neutral? You can literally correct them yourself if there is anything untrue or biased.

You could correct them but the admins responsible for the slant will just revert them or debate you until you give up.

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/how-wikipedia-whitewashe...

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

#119

Post by troad »

DaSHacka wrote: post #79
kleton wrote: post #58

> The Wikimedia Foundation closed last fiscal year with $208.6 million in revenue. It holds $296.6 million in reserves, 17.1 months of operating expenses. The actual physical cost of hosting Wikipedia is < $5 million per year.

[flagged]

Internal DEI initiatives are very helpful for an organisation trying to create a comprehensive knowledge base without falling to any group's bias. That requires diverse perspectives.

I don't care about internal DEI if the job is managing sewerage systems, but this is a perfect example of a context where fostering diverse engagement is both rational and improves the end product.

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

#120

Post by meibo »

DaSHacka wrote: post #79
kleton wrote: post #58

> The Wikimedia Foundation closed last fiscal year with $208.6 million in revenue. It holds $296.6 million in reserves, 17.1 months of operating expenses. The actual physical cost of hosting Wikipedia is < $5 million per year.

[flagged]

Posting this without actually looking at what these stand for is more than useless.

People need to be paid. People want benefits. People need to be taught how to edit. Children need to be taught how to research. People need to be brought together to figure out where the site and the tech is going. People want to feel safe participating in their community. If Wikipedia had only ever been "server costs" it would be nowhere close to what it is today.

Post reply on HN