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

311–320 of 389 posts

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

#311

Post by shrubby »

slg wrote: post #265
shrubby wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is a threat to the technofeodalist AI mind shaping consortium. As long as it's reasonably decent, the AI can't go full biased without consequences, but once it's gone there's nowhere normal people can easily to go and get a good enough sanity check.

If I saw this comment 5 years ago, I would have thought you were some crazy conspiracy nut. Today I read it and worry that you might be right. I wonder what I will think seeing this sentiment 5 years from now. I personally don't know if the world is on some sort of precipice. It seems like that's possibly the case. The strongest piece of evidence is that many of the rich and powerful, including those big tech leaders…

https://youtu.be/TaKrm5txGCQ?si=VQ3R64fSeQ9Xv_Rr this is something I keep coming back to. It doesn't seem so fictional anymore.

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

#312

Post by skissane »

rob74 wrote: post #288
skissane wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in that case, there is still the option to edit the page or start a discussion. Honestly, I think on any politicised topic, that’s a waste of time - there’s a large contingent of Wikipedia editors with a shared deeply ingrained perspective that will reliably back each other up. There are better uses of one’s time than fighting such a losing battle. > Personally, I do not know a better alternative. I have a frie…

> 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.” I guess that was a few years ago? Because now he also has Grokipedia ("from the guy that brought you X")...

To what extent does Grokipedia reflect Musk's personal ideological biases?

I haven't paid that much attention to it, to be honest.

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

#313

Post by rob74 »

skissane wrote: post #312
rob74 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.” I guess that was a few years ago? Because now he also has Grokipedia ("from the guy that brought you X")...

To what extent does Grokipedia reflect Musk's personal ideological biases? I haven't paid that much attention to it, to be honest.

According to https://www.npr.org/2025/10/29/nx-s1-5588695/wikipedia-groki...

> Musk is positioning Grokipedia as an alternative to Wikipedia, which he called "Wokepedia" in an X post last December.

> Grokipedia also says Wikipedia is the subject of "persistent criticisms regarding factual reliability, susceptibility to vandalism and hoaxes, and systemic ideological biases — particularly a left-leaning slant in coverage of political figures and topics.

...which is consistent with what the right side of the US political spectrum keeps saying about media outlets that dare to disagree with them.

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

#314

Post by onel »

doctorpangloss wrote: post #261
bberenberg wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i'm not sure you're why you're being downvoted, relying on journalism is the weakest part of wikipedia, far and away, because it affects accuracy, which is what gell man amnesia is about, not bias. in comparison bias, in general, seems to happen regardless of sourcing.

He got done voted because that's an exaggerated claim. With no proof. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are just facts about nature, geography, history, etc and they don't need a newspaper as a source.

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

#315

Post by coldtea »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #185
coldtea wrote: post #107

No donated cent should be going to such "foundations" anymore. Projects like Wikipedia should be run strictly by volunteers and paid contributors with moderate pays. Not Wall Street people, big corporate execs, and lavish offices. "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…

Her exact comp hasn't been filed yet (watch for next year's IRS filings) but I'd suspect she'll make around 500K. That's a lot of money, but it's obvious she could make more in some of those other roles. This is not "Big Tech CEO" money.

>That's a lot of money, but it's obvious she could make more in some of those other roles.

She should be told "thank you" then, and let go to make more in some of those other roles.

Such corporate/political world/etc non-community-arising execs just mess with the goals of such projects as Wikipedia or Mozilla.

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

#316

Post by thrance »

866-RON-0-FEZ wrote: post #300
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…

> an encyclopedia that, to be honest, is about as unbiased, astroturf-free, and low barrier of entry as you can get. I recently read an article about a notable person. The article attacked her personal appearance as having "Mar-a-Lago Face". I'm certain it was backed up with quality "sources". The outrageous part is that description linked to a deranged multi-page article explaining what that is, written by who I ass…

Surely, you must have taken on yourself to correct this blatant mistake (that you curiously won't link to)? Can you name this "notable person"?

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

#317

Post by thrance »

bad_username wrote: post #267
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…

> honest, unbiased, astroturf-free That is not the case, sorry. Pre-2015 Wikipedia was as honest and unbiased as we can get. Now the political, historical, philosophical segments of English Wikipedia is very biased and I cannot recommend or support it.

In what ways? Provide examples.

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

#318

Post by Jensson »

Epa095 wrote: post #252
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…

> If the unions goal is to raid donations and get an increasing share, that could potentially go bad. Why would you assume that is the unions goal? That the employees of Wikipedia will suddenly have as their purpose to raid donations from the foundation, instead of promoting the values they probably started there for? Unions gives the employees a voice representing them, and it gives the organisation someone to talk…

> In places with strong functioning unions (e.g. Scandinavia) they can often function as a moderating force, keeping salaries low when times are bad

But this isn't a Scandinavian union now, is it? It is an American union with all the problems which comes with that.

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

#319

Post by IshKebab »

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…

I agree. For a decade Wikipedia has squandered it's substantial income on frivolous outreach and community projects when they should have been building up a large endowment so that they could be financially independent. They could have amassed a billion dollars by now and not need any donation begging at all.

The fact that they have a couple of hundred million at least is a great thing. (Firing developers isn't of course.)

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

#320

Post by bberenberg »

onel wrote: post #314
doctorpangloss wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm not sure you're why you're being downvoted, relying on journalism is the weakest part of wikipedia, far and away, because it affects accuracy, which is what gell man amnesia is about, not bias. in comparison bias, in general, seems to happen regardless of sourcing.

He got done voted because that's an exaggerated claim. With no proof. Most of the articles on Wikipedia are just facts about nature, geography, history, etc and they don't need a newspaper as a source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_of_primary_sourc...

It’s their official policy.

Post reply on HN