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

191–200 of 389 posts

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

#191

Post by pas »

jp_sc wrote: post #176
legitster wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm donating money to fight cancer, and the majority of the money goes to administrative staff, that's inherently a flawed charity. It's exactly what led to the downfall of the Susan G Komen foundation. There's also a death spiral problem. If donations drop and administrative costs stay the same, that charity's ratings only get worse. There's a reason most examples of successful non-profit unions all rely on stead…

Is there any charity (older than five years) where the majority of the money doesn’t go to administrative staff?

yes, check program expense ratios

https://www.charitynavigator.org/discover-charities/best-cha...

but see also

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/blog/arent-the-best-charitie...

and

https://www.givewell.org/

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

#192

Post by kennywinker »

nickff wrote: post #150
kennywinker wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I agree that everyone deserves to be paid according to their contribution, and have their employer follow all relevant laws. I am not aware of anyone being murdered, enslaved, or even tortured by the Foundation. This group seems to be trying to ‘cash in’ on Wikipedia’s AI windfall, and I think that will cause long-term damage to the organization.

So, what you’re saying is you believe the bar for starting a union is being murdered, tortured, or enslaved?

Why?

Why would the bar not be: we feel our contributions are undervalued. Because that’s what you’re calling a “cash in” attempt.

If they made the company work up to this point, and the company got a windfall because of its position, why do they not deserve a piece of that windfall?

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

#193

Post by AndrewKemendo »

benmusch wrote: post #157
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t matter because they don’t control anything tangible - which is the point. Just like the 501(c)3 that openAI was. Read for knowledge: Bernadette Meehan became CEO on January 20, 2026, recruited from a career that included Wall Street stints at J.P. Morgan and Lehman Brothers, a spokesperson role at the National Security Council, senior leadership at the Obama Foundation, and most recently a posting as U.S.…

It's not at all like the structure OpenAI was. OpenAI had a bizarre structure where the non-profit held shares in a for-profit sub-corporation. That's not how WMF is set up. Did this person even have stints in PE at those firms? You can think someone is bad without throwing around the names of the bogeyman du jour as if you're actually making a meanigful argument.

You’ll have to excuse me if I’m not continuing.

All I can say is the anticapitalist train isn’t new, I’m just glad people are starting to get on, though tbh it’s annoying how illiterate they are in the history and theory. I doubt it will stick but this is the most excitement I’ve seen since Occupy though.

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

#194

Post by hsuduebc2 »

bberenberg wrote: post #182
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #74

I spent ~2 years actively editing Wikipedia for multiple hours every day. I remember taking my laptop out at airports for 20 minutes between transfers, just to tweak an article or improve a source. While I originally started because I found some articles lackluster, I quickly realized how vigorous the editing process could be on controversial topics. For what simple HTML you see on the surface, you would be absolutel…

I have a hard time with the idea that Wikipedia is unbiased when the main source in most cases is news reporting. Wikipedia is a societal form of Gell-Mann Amnesia.

This is not entirely fair. The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia is not meaningless politics, but stated facts backed by decent sources.

The phenomenon you are referring to usually happens in areas where there is ideological or political friction. Sure, some articles can be biased, because staying perfectly factual in the middle of an active political debate or social change is difficult for most people. But in that case, there is still the option to edit the page or start a discussion.

If something is created by a community and editable by anyone, then yes, you can safely assume that certain topics will not be perfectly unbiased. But the fact that you can see the sources, edit history, and discussions that led to a given decision is already a major advantage.

Personally, I do not know a better alternative. I have a friend who told me Wikipedia is biased, so he refuses to use it. When I asked him what he uses instead, he said, completely seriously, “X is my main source of information.”

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

#196

Post by hsuduebc2 »

hackyhacky wrote: post #181
portmanteur wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. Does it need to be 100% immigrants to count as “filled”? 50%? 25%? Canadian residents, for example, as of 2021 [1], were 23% foreign-born, and further 2.5% non-permanent residents. In the five year period from 2016 to 2021, the number of foreign-born Canadians increased by 18% alone, which to me is significant growth. The number of non-permanent residents dou…

> “Filled with immigrants” will always be a subjective term. An encyclopedia is no place for subjectivity. [1] > Canadian residents, I don't care. I'm not here to discuss immigration. We're talking about Wikipedia and its standards. You can like immigration or be against it, but it's not Wikipedia's job to allow you to express your opinion. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_vie...

Absolutely. I usually see this type of posts on twitter where people are simply mad that they can't shit on imigrants like that in there.

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

#197

Post by emilfihlman »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #74

I spent ~2 years actively editing Wikipedia for multiple hours every day. I remember taking my laptop out at airports for 20 minutes between transfers, just to tweak an article or improve a source. While I originally started because I found some articles lackluster, I quickly realized how vigorous the editing process could be on controversial topics. For what simple HTML you see on the surface, you would be absolutel…

[flagged]

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

#198

Post by im3w1l »

stirfish wrote: post #122
kenlefeb wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it's more about the way things are vs the way things "should" be. e.g "teens are going to experiment with sex, so comprehensive sex education is the best way to keep them safe" vs "Teens should not have sex, so abstinence-only education is the best way to keep them safe"

"The purpose of a system is what it does". Dangerous principle to apply too literally but almost always worth considering. In this case, the purpose of abstinence-only education is to increase teenage births and the purpose of modern sex education is to decrease it.

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

#199

Post by redman25 »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #175
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #74

I spent ~2 years actively editing Wikipedia for multiple hours every day. I remember taking my laptop out at airports for 20 minutes between transfers, just to tweak an article or improve a source. While I originally started because I found some articles lackluster, I quickly realized how vigorous the editing process could be on controversial topics. For what simple HTML you see on the surface, you would be absolutel…

[flagged]

I too prefer my misinformation delivered with maximum confidence and no accountability.

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

#200

Post by 2muchcoffeeman »

LewisVerstappen wrote: post #175
OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #74

I spent ~2 years actively editing Wikipedia for multiple hours every day. I remember taking my laptop out at airports for 20 minutes between transfers, just to tweak an article or improve a source. While I originally started because I found some articles lackluster, I quickly realized how vigorous the editing process could be on controversial topics. For what simple HTML you see on the surface, you would be absolutel…

[flagged]

Is this satire?
Post reply on HN