Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

cwu.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 300 posts

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#41

Post by john_strinlai »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #35
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

off-wiki canvassing for his proposal. its in the title of the issue and the summary is right at the top of the page. " There is clear consensus for a community ban of User:Larry Sanger. There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute…

I’m not versed enough in the culture to understand what this is and why it’s a fireable offense.

you don’t really need to know the ins and outs of the culture.

the discussion for his ban was public and he actively participated in it. the reasons for the ban are clearly stated in that discussion. he knows the reasons because he argued against them. so, saying they were “unstated reasons” is a lie.

the issue is linked by the sibling comment if you want more context and links to definitions of canvassing, bludgeoning, etc

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#42

Post by john_strinlai »

spoaceman7777 wrote: post #39
john_strinlai wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

off-wiki canvassing for his proposal. its in the title of the issue and the summary is right at the top of the page. " There is clear consensus for a community ban of User:Larry Sanger. There is general agreement among participants that he has engaged in off-wiki canvassing and is not here to constructively build the encyclopedia. There is also a significant concern shared by many editors that his actions constitute…

The charge against him is specifically "Stealth canvassing", which, beyond the use of the word "Stealth", is clarified several times as: """Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)""" Between calling it "stealth" and specifically calling out email/IRC/Discord, it makes it pr…

i don’t really care to get into litigating the issue itself (i have not made up my mind). my only point is that the reasons were stated and discussed publicly, so saying they were “unstated” is a lie

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#43

Post by [deleted] »

john_strinlai wrote: post #42
spoaceman7777 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charge against him is specifically "Stealth canvassing", which, beyond the use of the word "Stealth", is clarified several times as: """Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)""" Between calling it "stealth" and specifically calling out email/IRC/Discord, it makes it pr…

i don’t really care to get into litigating the issue itself (i have not made up my mind). my only point is that the reasons were stated and discussed publicly, so saying they were “unstated” is a lie

[deleted]

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#45

Post by Apocryphon »

nickff wrote: post #37
kennywinker wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. So, the people who helped create the valuable dataset are “rent seekers” now? Must be using a different definition of rent seeking than any i’ve heard.

The employees of the Wikipedia foundation did not create the dataset, though they definitely contributed to the infrastructure behind it. Sam Altman (and the OpenAI employees) contributed even more to OpenAI's continuing success (and that of their industry). Both groups are still rent-seekers, as they are attempting to profit off a market position which was developed under different auspices.

Did you see the subthread that the motivation behind this union does not seem to be collective bargaining over compensation, but in response to management's decision over personnel issues:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48665062

Indeed, the OP does not mention increased pay at all, but rather "concerns over transparency, trust, and the organisation’s future direction."

You can go ahead and call that rhetoric, but you are also reading in intentions that do not seem to match reports from the ground.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#47

Post by spoaceman7777 »

john_strinlai wrote: post #42
spoaceman7777 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The charge against him is specifically "Stealth canvassing", which, beyond the use of the word "Stealth", is clarified several times as: """Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, IRC, or Discord, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)""" Between calling it "stealth" and specifically calling out email/IRC/Discord, it makes it pr…

i don’t really care to get into litigating the issue itself (i have not made up my mind). my only point is that the reasons were stated and discussed publicly, so saying they were “unstated” is a lie

well, i do! >:D ;)

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#48

Post by kaikai »

declan_roberts wrote: post #29

I've been mostly resistant to unionization for my whole career, but I think now is the right time. Between AI and H1B, the pool of jobs available for engineers is getting smaller and smaller, especially at the low end. When you destroy the entry level position, you also destroy the pipeline that creates senior engineers, a shortage of which is used as leverage to increase H1B in America.

Now may be the right time to HAVE a union, but the time to unionize was when engineers had more power. That same soft job market means we have much less leverage to unionize than we used to.

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#49

Post by neilk »

hungryhobbit wrote: post #8

Man, it's sad how far the wiki foundation has fallen. For (literally) decades no one there would have even thought of forming a union! To get them to not only consider it, but actually go through the effort of actually doing it ... the foundation truly has shit the bed.

> For (literally) decades no one there would have even thought of forming a union!

Why do you feel so certain about that?

Re: Wikipedia Workers to Seek Union Recognition

#50

Post by pseudalopex »

yesco wrote: post #34
shye wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unionization shouldn't be seen as an emergency measure. Even if I would hypothetically accept union as a last resort, which I don't, safety nets should be built not only when you are speeding towards the ground, and often lack the resources, but much before that, when you are safe.

My perspective until now was that the Wikimedia foundation was already supposed to be a union-like organization. Would it make sense for Linux maintainers to form a union within the Linux foundation? The vibes feel similar to me.

You thought WikiMedia Foundation were like a union how?

Linux Foundation are a business league. Many Linux maintainers work for Linux Foundation members.

Post reply on HN