293
Wikimedia Will Not Voluntarily Recognize Union a Supermajority of Its Workers Want (www.404media.co)
submitted 1 month ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 13 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I heard the final goal is to amass enough money to live fully off the capital gains.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    While the "volunteers" making it happen for real get nothing...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    That's not the problem, 'tho. Wikipedia is volunteer-written and needs money to pay for the SW development and the servers.

    The issue is that they are not upfront about their strategy and that they are resisting unionization by the workers who develop the software.

    A leading wikimedia software developer (@brooke@bikeshed.vibber.net) lost her job a while ago, most likely due to her involvement in the unionisation effort.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I disagree I think the fact the boss of wikimedia is very well paid and that he is benefiting at the end of day from free labor.

    They could reward/pay the most important contributors and they don't. Yes it's voluntary but it's also a comparatively very "" small "" group of people that write a big chunk of wikipedia.

    I absolutely can't stand that the boss of such utility service as wikipedia thinks first about his salary rather than rewarding their contributors.

    Also you say this is not a problem but I'm sure the Union would have pointed out the same thing I just did.

    That's not the problem, 'tho. Wikipedia is volunteer-written and needs money to pay for the SW development and the servers.

    Also you are missing an important point if you just say "hey they are volunteers, they choose to work for free". It's not like that because as I said it's a few contributors that do the bast majority of article edits.

    I'm wasting my time if you think that wikimedia has one problem and that's it. Multiple problems that would need to be adressed by a Union.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago*

    There are multiple studies showing that paying volunteers can backfire in many ways. It could turn an hobby into a chore, attract the wrong kind of contributors, or sour those that do not have enough time to qualify for money. Plus, any metric you were to use to assign rewards would quickly be gamed by the wrong kind of people.

    We can discuss about how much the administrators are paid and the many issues wikimedia has, but please, for the love of god, let's not pay editors.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent