178
Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA (wikiworkersunited.org)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
:handshake: 1
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

If not them, who? I don't know of any project that comes close to Wikipedia, and as someone who doesn't know anything about their internal politics (although I'm open to learn), I feel like it would be a bigger tragedy if it went under. It seems to benefit from being independently funded instead of either being absorbed by some corporation with other motives, or being replaced by a product from some corporation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Here is an article about the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fundraising/issues

    There was a great graph which I cannot find about how Wikimedia (Wikipedia owners) is hoarding massive amounts of money and doing unnecessary fundraisers. Their capital has bloated to infinity. Wikimedia already is a corporation.

    To top it off their owners are Zionists who tried to use their influence to stop the Wikipedia page calling Gaza a genocide but failed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    I read through the page and I understand the problem better, but I still don't know what I could do differently as an occasional donator. I found this for helping with development, but I'd prefer to support with donations since I don't really have time for more dev work. Is there some way to donate directly for the operating costs, or to volunteers, or something?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    The fundraising issues page seems to be gone now.

    Bummer to learn of Wikipedia's Zionist leadership. Followed that trail to Jimmy Wales' comment from 2025 November :

    I assume good faith of everyone who has worked on this Gaza “genocide” article. At present, the lede and the overall presentation state, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Israel is committing genocide, although that claim is highly contested. This is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV that requires immediate correction. Remember: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus."

    A neutral approach would begin with a formulation such as: “Multiple governments, NGOs, and legal bodies have described or rejected the characterization of Israel’s actions in Gaza as genocide.”

    Nice response to that there:

    We don't even seriously argue some Robert F. Kennedy Jr. type anti-vaccination positioning anywhere, for instance, or for moon landing hoax or flat earth theories. Those are extreme examples, but even on the spectrum of those to the Gaza genocide, the same basic formula and calculus applies. The conclusion of an article under WP:NPOV on anything contentious is always inconvenient for someone. That's neither a bug nor a feature. It's a mirrored reflection of consensus reality.

    Anyway, I'm left in a similar conundrum. I stopped my monthly donation when they refused to recognize the union, and was going to restart after I caught up on the news the union got the NLRB's recognition, but now I'm hesitating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent