Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

361–370 of 389 posts

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

#361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck no! Working in tech is an absolute nightmare! The pay is excellent which is why people do it, but the actual work environment sucks. Agile and modern performance review culture means that you are constantly pressured to work faster and churn out more code to keep your job (quality of course is never a priority). The "shift left" movement means that more and more work (testing, infrastructure, product management)…

yall are babies, 99% of jobs on earth suck ass but they dont pay half a million

Neither do most tech jobs.

When my dad worked as a butcher, he would cut himself all the time and the company was obligated to provide him mesh gloves to prevent such things, even though he was too stupid to use them.

Meanwhile in tech, we all sit in a chair 8 hours a day, something well known to cause real harms, and a creature that was never ever built to do Knowledge work is encouraged to run that system full bore for most of the day, even off hours, and when that inevitably harms you, burns you out, you get kicked to the curb.

When meat packing plants did this kind of thing 100 years ago, unionization was prominent and extremely effective at making sure my dad would be provided those gloves decades later. When unionization comes up for tech workers, a bunch of morons who are apparently incapable of reading history books insist that they negotiate better than any union could (laughable) because they make $300k a year while their employer pulls in millions a year per head.

It's truly astonishing just how little you have to trickle down to some code monkey to get them to think they are winning, and be willing to work against their own interests.

That union sure would have been helpful dealing with AI bullshit.

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

#362
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

300 employees is an extremely low number of employees for a project of this scope. I think some of yall need to think about how this would be run if it was a company. There would be thousands of employees, realistically.

I don't think that's true at all. I have to go pretty far up the Org tree at my corporate job to get to 300 engineers and that encompasses functionality easily broader than "running Wikipedia" in scope and scale.

Wikipedia gets far more traffic, use, and dependence than any of the multiple 3000 person companies I've worked for.

Like orders of magnitude. Wikipedia gets more traffic than Amazon.

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

#363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yall are babies, 99% of jobs on earth suck ass but they dont pay half a million

Neither do most tech jobs. When my dad worked as a butcher, he would cut himself all the time and the company was obligated to provide him mesh gloves to prevent such things, even though he was too stupid to use them. Meanwhile in tech, we all sit in a chair 8 hours a day, something well known to cause real harms, and a creature that was never ever built to do Knowledge work is encouraged to run that system full bore…

What does that have anything to do with what I said. We're talking about big tech here (which does pay half a million for mid level). If you can get a job at big tech then you can get a job elsewhere so if you think its unethical (which it probably is) then you can just move. The fact is that most people today are amoral and would gladly accept a big tech job so they can golf on the weekends; you'd be naive if you think that is against their interests. And if you are a history enjoyer then you should know that real change is predicated on violence and that some mesh gloves on software engineers will not stop meta from turning trillions of hours of human attention into ad revenue.

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

#364
post #88

I hope it collapses, the Foundation has long cared more about begging for money while sitting on millions, paying for unrelated events, than for the well being of its site editors - even before recent news, it offered zero protection or aid against constant legal threats, for example. And most editors care more about politics than facts, the political bias on Wikipedia is ever increasing. Or at least was, since I hav…

https://www.eff.org/pages/internet-still-works-wikipedia-def...:

"A decade ago, Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates Wikipedia, received 304 requests to alter or remove content over a two-year period, not including copyright complaints. In 2024 alone, it received 664 such takedown requests. Only four were granted. As complaints over user speech have grown, Wikimedia has expanded its legal team to defend the volunteer editors who write and maintain the encyclopedia."

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_...:

"Protect our projects: Sustain and defend our model. Wikipedia's volunteers and values are increasingly under threat. We will provide volunteers with the safety and legal support they need, and defend neutral point of view in a world where facts are increasingly contested and politicized. We will strengthen protection for Wikimedia infrastructure from bot abuse, and lean into responsible reuse that drives value back to Wikipedia, not just traffic away."

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

#365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets at one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia, IMO. I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

The alternative is that the Daily Stormer is usable as a source. There has to be some mechanism of determining what should and shouldn't be usable as a source.

I agree there needs to be a line, I just don't particularly like where the line has been drawn. Unfortunately I don't have a great idea for how to do it better. That is why I'm commenting on HN rather than arguing for any particular policy change on wiki.

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

#366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

probably the same reason they put banners on the site asking for money

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

#367
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true at all. I have to go pretty far up the Org tree at my corporate job to get to 300 engineers and that encompasses functionality easily broader than "running Wikipedia" in scope and scale.

Wikipedia gets far more traffic, use, and dependence than any of the multiple 3000 person companies I've worked for. Like orders of magnitude. Wikipedia gets more traffic than Amazon.

My employer's website is higher traffic than both Amazon and Wikipedia, if that assuages your concerns about my ability to judge scale.

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

#368

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…

Here's the applicable policy:

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

Generally, it is unacceptable to notify people of a structured discussion in a non-neutral manner to get them to advocate a specific point of view in that discussion.

This can be applicable to notifying specific groups of people if only groups likely to have a specific viewpoint were notified.

It's also generally considered worse to give these notifications secretly or off of Wikipedia.

In this case, it would be acceptable to notify a project related to Israel and a project related to Palestine of discussions related to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

But its not acceptable to only notify the project related to Palestine.

It's also not acceptable to instruct people in your notification to vote in a certain way. r/Palestine giving these instructions is a big problem.

The fact it's "secret" and offsite also plays a role. Collaboration on Wikipedia itself shows you didn't have malicious intent, so unintentional violations usually result in warnings the first few times it happens. The fact you need to join a Discord server hidden from others is a clear signal to any reasonable person that the group is against the rules.

The line is clear and the arbitration group has banned some participants, the challenge is detecting who participated.

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

#369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This gets at one of the biggest flaws in Wikipedia, IMO. I think the notability standard is way too strict and gives way too much weight to main stream media sources as the blessed arbiters of what is notable.

The alternative is that the Daily Stormer is usable as a source. There has to be some mechanism of determining what should and shouldn't be usable as a source.

Huh? The notability standard governs what may be the subject of a wikipedia page and what may not.

Ideological purity is enforced by the reliable source standard, not the notability standard. The Daily Stormer is unquestionably notable. And it has a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer

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

#370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but happiness and fulfillment isn't status. Not because there's anything wrong with them but because that's not what "status" means.

feeling better because your job fits better in your moral framework that you get from society is a status-mediated effect and i feel you can usually find social scaffolding under things that are articulated as purely intrinsic.

If words don’t mean what they mean, absolutely
Post reply on HN