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

351–360 of 389 posts

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

#351

Post by legitster »

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…

This is a bit of a naive response.

Unfortunately, with the NLRA as it currently exists, it is more or less impossible to form cross-sector unions like they have in Scandinavia. Which is why unions and industry are so hostile in the US in the first place.

If you're paying union dues, I would expect you want your union to fight to keep your job and make you more money above promoting the employer's values

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

#352

Post by ryukoposting »

tptacek wrote: post #172
ryukoposting wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard this before, but I've not seen anyone go into detail on it (until now) I want to help fund Wikipedia. Is there a better way I can do that?

I have different reasoning than the parent commenter. Why do you want to help fund Wikipedia? It is in no danger at all. Funding it even more lavishly probably won't help it achieve its goals more effectively; it's dependent (by design, and for good reason) on volunteer effort, which is the real bottleneck.

> Why do you want to help fund Wikipedia?

Because it's a very valuable resource that I use every day.

Without a solid base of grassroots funding, nonprofits are vulnerable to takeover by entities with ulterior motives.

> It is in no danger at all.

Given what's going on at WMF right now, it sure seems like it is!

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

#353

Post by BobaFloutist »

maccard wrote: post #310
Wikipedianon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more organized and professional they are about shilling, the better they do. This is incorrect. Shills do well when they contribute outside of the topic area, memorize wiki-law, and only coordinate to !vote in contentious high-impact discussions. e.g. requested moves, reliable sources noticeboard discussions, and RfCs. They are seen as "normal" Wikipedia editors. Professionally organized shills are unable to do…

> Essentially, you're given free rein to edit as you see fit with an encouragement to make many uncontroversial edits & befriend normal editors. You do not know who else is part of the project and do not interact with them on Discord. It is very antisocial in that sense. Genuine question - where does the line between “group of people who are interested in a topic” and “shilling” lie? I don’t envy the arbitration grou…

I think the answer is that neither is an appropriate way to contribute to Wikipedia, and so a group of people interested in a topic who, knowing that their intent (politicizing controversial articles, rather than their particular valence) is unwelcome, take steps to avoid being recognized as part of that group, is pretty clearly not acting in good faith.

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

#354

Post by archagon »

danaris wrote: post #273
dmurray wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "abstract Wikipedia" just seems like a solved problem with LLMs. However sceptical of "AI" you are, "give me the information on this page in my preferred language" is the kind of task they excel at. (I won't use the word translate ). It wouldn't even require prioritising the English Wikipedia: any agent today could one shot a task like "check the Wikipedia pages in all languages for X, summarize the results and n…

> "give me the information on this page in my preferred language" is the kind of task they excel at. ...So long as you don't mind it introducing random hallucinations into the information.

Biased by its training data to boot, the opposite of what you’d want in an encyclopedia.

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

#355

Post by BobaFloutist »

vintermann wrote: post #259
HerbManic wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is probably one of those things, once they are gone you will see just how effective they were.

I'm sure they're effective at maintaining the appearance of objectivity, so I agree that things will look terribly biased if they take a collective leave. That it will actually be worse on contentious topics, I'm not so sure if. My assumption for Wikipedia on any contentious topic, is that professionals have been gaming the system for so long that you're going to see very competent propaganda. Basically I think it's…

After a point, sufficiently competent propaganda is indistinguishable from information.

If you make the bias so subtle that people actively looking for it can't find it, you're just doing a decent job describing the topic. Sure, the cumulative slant across hundreds of pages might be enough to tweak populations at the margins, but I don't think that's a bigger negative than access to the information is a positive.

And any other source of information is hardly going to be unbiased anyway. Everyone has an opinion!

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

#356

Post by tptacek »

ryukoposting wrote: post #352
tptacek wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have different reasoning than the parent commenter. Why do you want to help fund Wikipedia? It is in no danger at all. Funding it even more lavishly probably won't help it achieve its goals more effectively; it's dependent (by design, and for good reason) on volunteer effort, which is the real bottleneck.

> Why do you want to help fund Wikipedia? Because it's a very valuable resource that I use every day. Without a solid base of grassroots funding, nonprofits are vulnerable to takeover by entities with ulterior motives. > It is in no danger at all. Given what's going on at WMF right now, it sure seems like it is!

I feel like my Wikipedia-boosting bona fides are pretty solid on HN. I think it's not just a very valuable resource but also one of the great intellectual achievements of the last 100 years. My point isn't that the project is unworthy; it's that they don't need your money.

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

#357

Post by glaslong »

account42 wrote: post #325
glaslong wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The organization mitosing from the product

Wikimedia is already way past that if you look at their expenses.

From Wikipedia for sure, but feeling like the ongoing cell division has them nearly fully divested from most of their stated mission and "What we do" pages.

Reaching the metastatic end stage of all organizations where the org exists for no purpose beyond continued existence of the org.

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

#358

Post by benmusch »

mschuster91 wrote: post #348
benmusch wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and which part of this makes any sense at all when applied to the wikimedia foundation

their point, if I distill it correctly, is that Meehan comes with an agenda of enshittification. Given the events we're talking here... it's not that far-fetched.

ok and it's worth discussing on its merits. but "wikipedia is private equity" is a dumb thing to say and it matters to actually make concrete criticisms instead of throwing around buzzwords. the agenda of private equity is driven by profit incentives that make absolutely zero sense here.

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

#359

Post by mschuster91 »

benmusch wrote: post #358
mschuster91 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

their point, if I distill it correctly, is that Meehan comes with an agenda of enshittification. Given the events we're talking here... it's not that far-fetched.

ok and it's worth discussing on its merits. but "wikipedia is private equity" is a dumb thing to say and it matters to actually make concrete criticisms instead of throwing around buzzwords. the agenda of private equity is driven by profit incentives that make absolutely zero sense here.

> the agenda of private equity is driven by profit incentives that make absolutely zero sense here.

well, that also makes a bit of sense. like, why focus on cashing in from AI crap or on continuously expanding the cash bunker like a PE firm would, instead of actually investing money into coordinating with the communities when it comes to stuff like a new theme?

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

#360

Post by Epa095 »

Jensson wrote: post #318
Epa095 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is there anything particular about Americans which makes them incapable of forming a rational, constructive union?
Post reply on HN