A few months ago I cancelled my donations due to them firing a group of workers who stated their intent to unionize.
I’ve never even considered donating since I learned they have reserve that can cover site upkeep for decades, and the way Jimbo Wales spends the money. And this is like, more than a decade ago.
I instantly regret every donation I’ve made to Wikipedia, and won’t be making more in the future.
I had the same instinct, but then I read an argument from a contributor who recommended continuing to support the organization financially while writing privately and publicly in support of the union. Voting with your wallet in this case has a good chance of backfiring, or at least sending the wrong message. The bottom line is taking money away from the organization hurts regular employees more than the leaders. Then again, if you believe the leadership is going to do this no matter what you do, it’s understandable not to want to give the organization any support. It would be a terrible thing for this organization to die, but the ones putting it on this path are the leadership.
I don’t care if this backfires. My money helps people and union busting is modern day evil against the people.
Might as well mirror the whole site, run it elsewhere where the suits don’t have control over people.
This is bad.
…But I’m very worried about the future of Wikipedia.
Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.
The far right wants it gone, and are not shy about screaming it, because Wikipedia is not compatible with fascism.
If it becomes hated by the left too, and ignored by the masses because of Big Tech blacklists it, I worry it won’t have the political support to keep its prominence.
And to be clear, I’m not worried about it dying. Wikipedia will stay where it is for decades.
I’m worried about it ceasing to be popular.
It doesn’t function as a uncontrolled source of information if no one sees it. Modern fascist censorship works by simply shifting attention.
Questionable leadership or not, it is a lighthouse in the information dystopia of the 2020s, which literally helps hold society together.
It pioneered a novel mechanism for collaborating on a project with minimal trust between contributors. But it was also riddled with bias and vulnerable to exploitation and as prone to cultivating disinformation as a universal source of truth.
Rather than fixating on the site as some last bastion of Web 1.0 nostalgia, we would do well to do better than Wikipedia.
Organizations like the Internet archive project have, imho, done as much or more than Wikipedia because of their commitment to accumulating primary source material. Managing that catalog and incorporating it into an encyclopedia of knowledge is much more than just stuffing a hard drive full of editor arguments and dead links from the old site.
some entries are already questionable asf. some of them are written like an opinon piece, or a hs essay.
Then they need to drop the losers behind this anti-union BS. This isn’t a complicated problem. If they’re against working people they don’t deserve political support. Anyone who cares enough can rip the site and rehost it elsewhere anyway or preferably multiple elsewheres so we don’t run into this issue again.
being more worried about the reputation of your fave than the quality of your fave, because you’re so convinced it needs to exist, is how we get catholic church cover-ups and rightwing politicians transparently masquerading as populist socialists. value an insitution for what it is, not what you need it to be
I can’t tell if your’re agreeing or disagreeing with me but them taking an anti-union shows their quality. If they aren’t for working people then they have none and they don’t need to exist. The information there can easily be re-homed elsewhere.
yeah sorry pal, i was trying to add onto what you were saying, in disagreeing with the comment you were replying to. wish I’d made that clearer. sorry for the confusion
No worries.
I’m not familiar with how unions work in the USA. Why does a union need to he recognized by a company? Just to have a formal communication pathway or is there more to it?
I do know the answer to this. In the US, the process goes roughly so:
Workers want to form a union. Workers sign authorization cards allowing a specific union to represent them. The union approaches the company and says, we have enough of your workers who want to join, (50% +1) will you voluntarily recognize that your workers have formed a union.
At this point it can go a few ways. The company can demand proof that there are 50%+1 workers authorizing the union to rep them. A neutral 3rd party will inspect the cards and attest this to the National Labor Relations Board office in that state. Like a public notary or professional witness. This protects the anonymity of the workers.
The company can immediately, or following this process recognize the union. They can go to the bargaining table and strike a deal with the workers, or enroll with the union under the area agreement and get the workers signed up.
The company can refuse, like wikimedia did, and demand it go to an election. A date is set and the workers come in to vote by anonymous ballot wether to be represented by the union.
If the company is some real shitheels they’ll start dumping $$ into discouraging the workers from voting yes. They hire a union buster and hold captive audience meetings. The union buster tells the workers any kind of lies and bullshit they want, they are a 3rd party and therefore not liable for the bullshit they spout. They say the company will go bankrupt. The company can’t afford to have union workers. Unions are corrupt and suck you dry with dues and don’t deliver a better life for you and your family. Etc.
Companies frequently violate labor law during this time period. They give raises and benefits to anti-union workers. They fire union supporters (they will owe these workers back wages later). They lie to their workers, threaten the workers, intimidate the workers. Often this corrupts the election process and if the election fails, it can be overturned and repeated because of the illegal practices of the company and union busters. Their goal is to wear out and drive away pro-union workers by dragging the process on indefinately. When you see pickets, this is often what the picket is about. Informing the public that the company is mistreating the workers violating their right to form a union.
Wikimedia are some real shitheels.
they are a 3rd party and therefore not liable for the bullshit they spout.
Screw that liability BS so hard. You hire them to represent your company, you need to be accountable for what they do under your payroll.
I just hope the past generation (going on two now) have gotten people to see through the gaslighting and we can rise up against it this time.
Its not just liability, its that the laws apply to what you say to YOUR workers. So a union buster can say whatever they want because they are not the employer.
Unions then have to spend $$ on lawyers making arguments before the National Labor Relations Board that the union busters were acting as agents of the employer to violate the law. If that sticks, it is still the company that is held liable, usually through having to hold a fresh election. The union busters move on to another company collecting 5 and six figure checks for attending a few meetings to lie to the employees. Scum.
How do you get out of bed in the morning when that’s the “work” you do. Lying to hard working people trying to better themselves
That’s exactly how it worked for my agency.
They were dragging new hires in and ordering them to sign away the union without knowing anything about them.
