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.
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.
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.
> 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
Safety nets cost time and resources to build and come at the cost of agility. They shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. But a foundation in an industry where unions aren’t the norm taking that step can correctly be interpreted as a sign management fucked up. Given the foundation’s recent actions, that hypothesis is sustained here.
Wikipedia has a lot of money, along with a valuable dataset (for AI); it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. As we saw with OpenAI, it is difficult to keep a non-profit dedicated to its public benefit mission when it has something of tantalizing value.
> 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.
Humans are imperfect, systems require continual improvement. I’ll take a suboptimal union over no union any day, especially in the economic human factory farm that is the US. Companies, governments, and unions are all just people.
They recently laid off an internal team that was popular among workers and also fired one of the oldest employees for dubious reasons. Notably all of the people laid off or fired were union advocates, so this can be seen as a supercharged reaction to an effort to union bust (whether it was or not, it was certainly perceived that way).
The team was popular among contributors/editors. Their entire job was to handle the most upvited issues from the community and they were formed after the community felt like the management's priorities we not aligned with the community.
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.
Wow, they're on a roll over there. Just two days ago they permanently banned the cofounder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger.
Per his tweet: "Well, that’s that—I’ve been blocked by Wikipedia “indefinitely” for unstated reasons, by the “consensus” 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."
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 calls for outing."
While the merits of Sanger's banning are worth debating, Sanger is dishonestly representing the process here. The reasons, rather than being 'unstated', were stated repeatedly and were not unreasonable. [0]
There are other lines in the post that, to me, provide clarity.
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".
You can be a member of a labor union without that union being recognized as your exclusive bargaining representative for a certain employer (or whatever unit).
I read that as the majority of wikimedia employees in the uk have joined the union, but the union has yet to be recognized by the company with a collective agreement.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
Safety nets cost time and resources to build and come at the cost of agility. They shouldn’t be avoided at all costs. But a foundation in an industry where unions aren’t the norm taking that step can correctly be interpreted as a sign management fucked up. Given the foundation’s recent actions, that hypothesis is sustained here.
Wikipedia has a lot of money, along with a valuable dataset (for AI); it was only a matter of time until rent-seeker(s) would come along and try to get it. As we saw with OpenAI, it is difficult to keep a non-profit dedicated to its public benefit mission when it has something of tantalizing value.
> 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.
Foundation didn't create the dataset, just the framework for volunteers to do the work.
It's bleak it seems like wikimedia is controlled by the same ghouls who are running Mozilla.
Why is it so hard to keep a public interest tech firm honest?
Power, status, and control attract the same personalities, regardless of entity type.
It happens that these are also the types that are attracted to union leadership positions
Humans are imperfect, systems require continual improvement. I’ll take a suboptimal union over no union any day, especially in the economic human factory farm that is the US. Companies, governments, and unions are all just people.
Have the WMF done something bad that needs counterbalancing or are they just forming a union out of some sort of principle?
unions are institutions for bargaining power, even under decent employers
Yes but people generally don't bother with them under decent employers.
They recently laid off an internal team that was popular among workers and also fired one of the oldest employees for dubious reasons. Notably all of the people laid off or fired were union advocates, so this can be seen as a supercharged reaction to an effort to union bust (whether it was or not, it was certainly perceived that way).
The team was popular among contributors/editors. Their entire job was to handle the most upvited issues from the community and they were formed after the community felt like the management's priorities we not aligned with the community.
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.
This made my day. These workers will be better stewards of Wikipedia than management.
Wow, they're on a roll over there. Just two days ago they permanently banned the cofounder of Wikipedia, Larry Sanger.
Per his tweet: "Well, that’s that—I’ve been blocked by Wikipedia “indefinitely” for unstated reasons, by the “consensus” 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
>for unstated reasons
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.
> the reasons were clearly stated
…what are they?
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 calls for outing."
While the merits of Sanger's banning are worth debating, Sanger is dishonestly representing the process here. The reasons, rather than being 'unstated', were stated repeatedly and were not unreasonable. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no...
The announcement says both
Wikipedia workers in Britain are setting a “global first” by becoming the first body of workers at the online encyclopaedia to seek union recognition.
and
Outside the United States, the United Kingdom is WMF’s 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?
There are other lines in the post that, to me, provide clarity.
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".
You can be a member of a labor union without that union being recognized as your exclusive bargaining representative for a certain employer (or whatever unit).
I read that as the majority of wikimedia employees in the uk have joined the union, but the union has yet to be recognized by the company with a collective agreement.
I think it’s the WMF employees who are unionising, as in salaried employees.
we should form a Union at Meta!
It took people in tech an inordinately long time to start finally realizing the value of collective bargaining.
Between AI and H1b, it might be too late.