3 ms·

Commenters in these discussions always confuse wikipedia editors with Wikimedia employees - this is the latter!

by spindump8930 21d ago

v1z 21d ago
[dead]
mmooss 21d ago
The OP talks a lot about volunteers, but doesn't clearly state they are part of the union.
Waterluvian 21d ago
Are editors employees in any formal way or are they closer to Reddit moderators? Or editors as in anyone, ie. Reddit posters?
- tux3 21d ago
  Anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors are not employees. Even the admins are not employees. (As far as I know you only have to sign any kind of formal documents if you have one of the few roles (as a non-employee) where you may have access to sensitive personal data, which is very few people.)
  - Waterluvian 21d ago
    Yeah makes sense. I was wondering if there was special meaning to “editor” that made it non obvious that they wouldn’t be unionized.
  - PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
    >Anyone can edit Wikipedia Hasn't been true in a very long time. Plenty of politically charged articles are locked so that only Wikipedia's editors can edit them, and you can guess which side they're taking. It's not a democracy.
    - uqers 21d ago
      Could you give an example of an article that was protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism? I've seen other people bring this up, but never with evidence.
      - PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
        Someone's opinion is always gonna be someone else's vandalism. I could bring an example, but then what protection do I have from the HN mob flag-bombing it?
        Waterluvian 21d ago
        You're entitled to no protection, nor are we entitled to you providing an example. But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. This is just the fundamental core of rationalism. The sky is green. I won't be taking any questions. (actually the sky really was green a few days ago, related to tornado weather!)
        PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
        > But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. That's not how it works in reality. If people disagree with the example it's dust anyway, except now you also wasted your time. My opinion is irrelevant here since if people have made up their minds that WIkipedia is not biased and takes sides, then no example will suffice and they simple ask for an example just to have a target to shoot at. I've been on this rodeo before. There's no guarantee of a good faith argument when politics are involved. I have no guarantee I'm not dealing with people arguing in bad faith trying to bait for a flame war, so I'd rather not even start to save time and sanity. If you think it's dust, then so be it, I don't mind, I don't lose anything from this, nor do I gain anything from trying to convince you I'm right. I have my opinion, you have yours and we can leave it at that.
    - 20after4 21d ago
      > only Wikipedia's editors can edit them Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, assuming you haven't done something egregious and gotten a lifetime ban. It takes no time at all to set up an editor account and you don't even have to divulge your real identity to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation appears to go to great lengths to defend their editors and has gone to court to defend their editors' rights to pseudo-anonymity. Note: I am a former employee of Wikimedia and everything I saw while I worked there supports that the vast majority of staff, including management, care a great deal about protecting editors, promoting free knowledge, and making the project as open and inclusive as possible.

Commenters in these discussions always confuse wikipedia editors with Wikimedia employees - this is the latter!

v1z 21d ago

[dead]

mmooss 21d ago

The OP talks a lot about volunteers, but doesn't clearly state they are part of the union.

Waterluvian 21d ago

Are editors employees in any formal way or are they closer to Reddit moderators? Or editors as in anyone, ie. Reddit posters?

tux3 21d ago
Anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors are not employees. Even the admins are not employees. (As far as I know you only have to sign any kind of formal documents if you have one of the few roles (as a non-employee) where you may have access to sensitive personal data, which is very few people.)
- Waterluvian 21d ago
  Yeah makes sense. I was wondering if there was special meaning to “editor” that made it non obvious that they wouldn’t be unionized.
- PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
  >Anyone can edit Wikipedia Hasn't been true in a very long time. Plenty of politically charged articles are locked so that only Wikipedia's editors can edit them, and you can guess which side they're taking. It's not a democracy.
  - uqers 21d ago
    Could you give an example of an article that was protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism? I've seen other people bring this up, but never with evidence.
    - PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
      Someone's opinion is always gonna be someone else's vandalism. I could bring an example, but then what protection do I have from the HN mob flag-bombing it?
      - Waterluvian 21d ago
        You're entitled to no protection, nor are we entitled to you providing an example. But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. This is just the fundamental core of rationalism. The sky is green. I won't be taking any questions. (actually the sky really was green a few days ago, related to tornado weather!)
        PorciiVorbesc 21d ago
        > But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. That's not how it works in reality. If people disagree with the example it's dust anyway, except now you also wasted your time. My opinion is irrelevant here since if people have made up their minds that WIkipedia is not biased and takes sides, then no example will suffice and they simple ask for an example just to have a target to shoot at. I've been on this rodeo before. There's no guarantee of a good faith argument when politics are involved. I have no guarantee I'm not dealing with people arguing in bad faith trying to bait for a flame war, so I'd rather not even start to save time and sanity. If you think it's dust, then so be it, I don't mind, I don't lose anything from this, nor do I gain anything from trying to convince you I'm right. I have my opinion, you have yours and we can leave it at that.
  - 20after4 21d ago
    > only Wikipedia's editors can edit them Anyone can be a Wikipedia editor, assuming you haven't done something egregious and gotten a lifetime ban. It takes no time at all to set up an editor account and you don't even have to divulge your real identity to do so. The Wikimedia Foundation appears to go to great lengths to defend their editors and has gone to court to defend their editors' rights to pseudo-anonymity. Note: I am a former employee of Wikimedia and everything I saw while I worked there supports that the vast majority of staff, including management, care a great deal about protecting editors, promoting free knowledge, and making the project as open and inclusive as possible.