DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⥠Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
50% Positive
Analyzed from 1227 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#union#wikipedia#foundation#workers#reasons#wikimedia#community#employees#wiki#management
Discussion (44 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
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.
Safety nets cost time and resources to build and come at the cost of agility. They shouldnât be avoided at all costs. But a foundation in an industry where unions arenât the norm taking that step can correctly be interpreted as a sign management fucked up. Given the foundationâs recent actions, that hypothesis is sustained here.
Developers should consider the likelihood of even modest efficiency gains from AI, along with a naturally cooling job market, cratering labor demand in software. Every shred of cushiness and every dollar above average in your paychecks is because youâre in a high-demand field, but itâs been that way so long that many developers have mistaken that for some sort of inherent specialness. Companies donât pay people what theyâre worth, they pay people what theyâll work for. If the demand for developer labor goes away, people that are as-or-more qualified than you will do your job for a lot less, and your employer will hire them and kick you to the curb. Being an âAI engineerâ, unless youâve got an advanced degree in ML or something, is no safety net. If you can make the transition from âdeveloperâ to âfancy AI orchestrating developerâ in a few months, so can a lot of other people, and theyâll be looking for jobs.
The leverage might already be diminished enough to make unionization impossible in many places, but itâs certainly not going to get any easier. Consider it.
So, the people who helped create the valuable dataset are ârent seekersâ now? Must be using a different definition of rent seeking than any iâve heard.
Why do you feel so certain about that?
Why is it so hard to keep a public interest tech firm honest?
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.
So like, the community was angry management was ignoring them. The response was to create a group to ensure some engineering time was put towards community priorities. Now that group has been fired.
Per his tweet: "Well, thatâs thatâIâve been blocked by Wikipedia âindefinitelyâ for unstated reasons, by the âconsensusâ of a mob. There was no due process, no prosecutor, no dispassionate judge, no jury, no interpretation of law. All my judges were self-selected and hated me."
Link to his June 22nd tweet on the matter: https://x.com/lsanger/status/2069061483422425287
the reasons were clearly stated, which he knows because he replied to them in the discussion.
whether you agree with the reasons is one thing, but this tweet is just a lie, and only serves to discredit him.
âŚwhat are they?
"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 calls for outing."
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
Wikipedia workers in Britain are setting a âglobal firstâ by becoming the first body of workers at the online encyclopaedia to seek union recognition.
and
Outside the United States, the United Kingdom is WMFâs largest employment location, and a substantial majority of its UK staff are union members.
Something is inconsistent here. Are they trying to unionize people who edit Wikipedia for free?
First is this, the second paragraph:
> British-based employees at the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) wrote a letter to management today (Wednesday 24thJune) requesting their right to be represented by the United Tech and Allied Workers (UTAW) section of the Communication Workers Union (CWU).
That makes it clear that this is regarding the "British-based employees at the Wikimedia Foundation". Yes, the headline does say "Wikipedia": I expect the CWU chose that because many more folks know what Wikipedia is, vs. the Wikimedia foundation.
Second is this:
> Over 1000 Wikimedia volunteers and community members have also signed petitions in support of the workers, who have networked globally under the banner of Wiki Workers United (WWU).
I view terms like "[wikipedia] editors" as terms of art: "Editor" in the Wikipedia context maps to the more-generic "volunteer" in the broader context, which is why the post is referring here to "volunteers and community members".
So, I don't see any inconsistency in the article, but I see how the current post title can make it confusing.
In my opinion, I think it would be appropriate for you to email the HN folks, to ask the title be changed to something like "Wikimedia Foundation Workers to Seek Union Recognition".