[JdeBP]

This is the same press release from the union as at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48663861, and the same discussion points apply as there, including the fact that the press release is conflating 'Wikipedia Workers' and 'British-based employees at the Wikimedia Foundation'. The two are not the same.

This conflation appears to be the fault of the union. Certainly the people who write Wikipedia well know the difference between themselves and the Wikimedia Foundation staff.

[throw93949444]

Seems like a loophole not to employ people. "Editor" sounds like a job title! There is code of conduct, all sort of paperwork, you have to deal with comitees, editorial process... There is non disclosure agreement, you are not allowed to discus internal stuff with people outside from company... wery far from "i seen something was wrong, so i just made quick edit"!

Smells like proper job to me!

We closed the same loophole with uber and doordash employees. Wikimedia should employ its editors!!!

[weberer]

>There is non disclosure agreement

No there is not. You don't have to sign anything to make edits to Wikipedia. On the other hand, these people are full employees with work contracts.

[throw93949444]

There is like 50 page agreement, you even have to give up your copyright rights! The only way to do it legally in my country, is to hire editor as an employee!!! (Contractors can not legally give up copyright to their work)

https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Terms_of_Use

[francisdavey]

You license your contributions under an open licence. You don't give up your copyright. There would be no other sensible way to operate a collaborative encyclopedia without a license of this kind.

I (lawyer) have never encountered a jurisdiction where a contractor could not license their work under the contract with their employer (the person contracting them).

[sandworm101]

There are some non-divestable rights out there. Canada (and others) have a copyright concept of moral rights that cannot be given away by contract or, in other words, nobody can ever force someone to give them away. An artist/creator can decide to not exercise them but the artist/creator retains them regardless of contract language.

>> Unlike other IP rights, moral rights cannot be sold or given away. Even in the case of a sale, an author retains their moral rights in the work, unless they choose to waive these rights.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/canadian-intellectual-prope...

I was thinking about this as they were covering up murals and stadium names for the world cup. Canada doesnt really do that, but canadian stadiums are not generally named after tech companies (ie BC Place got to keep its name).

[some_random]

How is the right non-divestable if you can waive it? More importantly, how could wikipedia possibly work if contributors retained copyright in any form over their submitted articles and edits?

[some_random]

Have you ever read the ToS/ToU of any social media site? Did you know that by using this site you've agreed to arbitration? https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou

Giving up copyright when you write an article for Wikipedia is literally the only way it could possibly work. The biggest issue Wikimedia has is its full time staff, followed by full time editors.

[cccbbbaaa]

There is no copyright assignment on wikipedia. You are required to license your work under CC-BY-SA 4.0, so the WMF can distribute it, and other editors can reuse and modify it.

More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights

[throw93949444]

Social media is different from wikipedia. If i write my opinions here, it is not an opinion of ycombinator. If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published...

Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia!

Platform vs publisher...

[lkbm]

> If I write stuff on wikipedia, it is opinion of wikipedia

That's obviously false, if for no other reason than:

> and there is rigorous editorial process, to get my stuff published...

There are people who will see and review your work after the fact, but it's published immediately.

> Also here my name is right next to the text, not in wikipedia!

There's a link at the top of every page to see who wrote what text.

[bawolff]

> Smells like proper job to me!

In proper jobs you get paid, and there is someone telling you what to do. Neither of those things apply to Wikipedia.

There is no NDA. The only exception is if you volunteer to join the group that deals with private data (this is not the same as being an Admin, its the step above. Its a very small group)

Comittees exist but are largely optional. If you want to change things at a meta level or do wide coordination, there is no getting around that. But such stuff is optional. You don't need to join any comittees if you just want to write articles.

Now, if you want to say its exploitative (editors put in the labour and get almost none of the created value), then fair point. I would say its no more or less exploitative than your average open source project.

[functionmouse]

I used to work at a call center for a large (fortune 500) company. But that company did not sign my paychecks. It was a shell company with a different name, so that the company could not be held accountable when someone inevitably jumped from the roof.

Since then accountability sinks have stood out to me. I'm going to side with the Union on this one. And plus, unions are good.

[Nifty3929]

Speaking of keeping separate things separate: remember that Unions (a business in it's own right) is different from the Union Workers that it represents.

[xhkkffbf]

Good? They've been a mixed bag in my life. Unions are made up of people and they come with all of the good and bad of people. I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that. I suppose I can see some good, but for the most part the union ends up being another branch of management with a few slightly different powers.

[khriss]

If we are going by anecdotes, then I suspect the number and scale of anecdotes of capital misusing it's power are going to vastly outnumber unions doing the same.

[teachrdan]

> I watched a union refuse to support a colleague of mine. Why? Because the people in the union were competing against him for resources and they wanted him gone. And they succeeded. I've never really liked unions after that

Wait until you see what management does to workers, like fail to pay them on time, give them inhumane working conditions, or fire them arbitrarily.

Sarcasm aside, I've never understood this genre of comment. One second-hand bad experience and you seem opposed to unions for life? Unions are the only way workers can have anything like even footing with management.

[rjh29]

I've noticed a lot of Americans have an anti-union sentiment, probably a product of indoctrination.

[xhkkffbf]

Or maybe encountering union workers. Many Americans grow up in schools run by teachers' unions. Maybe the so-called indoctrination isn't working the way you expect. Ask yourself why 12 or so years of being on the receiving end of union labor isn't having the effect you expect?

[psychoslave]

So, coming with its own pitfalls. How does it feel however with no counter power at all in similar structures, in your own experience?

[bawolff]

British-based employees at the Wikimedia Foundation United doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

I suspect its just because naming things concisely is hard.

[some_random]

I don't think it comes from the union, Wikimedia has always gone out of it's way to conflate the people who are creating, editing, and maintaining website Wikipedia and the leeches who captured that effort.

[chobeat]

There's a union of wikipedia editors being formed and they are in alliance with the US and UK Wikimedia union. More public statements will follow in the next weeks about this.

[bpt3]

What are the legal protections for collectively bargaining as non-employees with a corporation, if any?

It seems like there wouldn't be (and shouldn't be) any.

[arethuza]

Different legal systems have options for groups organizing to do a join litigation e.g. England and Wales have Group Litigation Orders.

I'm not a lawyer and not in England or Wales! ;-)

[nvr219]

Oh boy here we go

[HugoTea]

Very exciting good luck to them all