piefed.zeromedia.vip
Wikipedia Turned on its Volunteers. Now it’s Coming for its Workers.
yoasifTL;DR: In the last year, the Wikimedia Foundation has fired several union organizers, including those that worked on the Community Tech team - a team dedicated to building features for the volunteer community that edits Wikipedia.
As the Wiki Workers Union tries to get the Wikimedia Foundation to recognize their union, it is worth remembering that this is not the first time that the Foundation has worked against the community.
Wikimedia Enterprise is a betrayal of the volunteer movement community of Wikipedia editors, as the Wikimedia Foundation is providing privileged access to big tech AI companies to the Wikipedia corpus - a body of work that the Foundation does not own.
Movement volunteer communities contributed to Wikipedia under copyleft licenses - licenses that work to ensure that the work remains free (as in speech). The big tech AI companies do not license derivative works under copyleft licenses and often do not even attribute where the works came from.
This means that volunteers are working for big tech for free, and the Wikimedia Foundation is selling privileged access to that free labor.
It is against that backdrop that the current unionization struggle unfolds.
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp80 Comments
Comments from other communities
Ex NummisBasically, there are no good guys left anymore. They were either killed, usurped, or they had to change to survive. Our current system does not allow for such deviations at all, and never will.
Jake FarmSounds like they need to be sued for violating the copyleft licenses.
Despite all the legitimate criticism, we should still be wary of powerful interest groups that want to discredit Wikipedia as a whole… and these groups are currently gaining the upper hand. I therefore think we should be careful not to parrot every criticism unquestioningly and write off or demonize the entire project. Because that is exactly what Trump, Musk, and all the other narcissistic, right-wing oligarchs have been hoping for for decades.
Yeah, OP isn’t one of the handful of accounts that just shit on Wikipedia though.
They posted their own blog, and talk about other stuff.
Like, it’s not outright misinformation, and there are some good points in there.
But my kneejerk reaction to anyone critical of Wikipedia, is that they’ve fallen for propaganda due to how much the oligarchs hate that they can’t control Wikipedia.
That doesn’t mean that we don’t have to be vigilant, because it is entirely possible that one day Wikipedia starts being shit. I don’t think we’re anywhere near that point though.
If they want the support of the People then they need to recognize and work with the unions to ensure the workers who make and maintain the encyclopedia are able to live a life free of employment anxiety.
Of course, union-busting is completely unacceptable and is rightly condemned.
My comment was more of a general warning against—despite all the justified criticism—allowing ourselves to be divided and discrediting Wikipedia as a project.
If we look at how the right wing influences the world, this is exactly how it works: Instead of working from the outside to destroy an institution or movement, they use the media power they’ve bought up over time to deepen existing internal tensions and further polarize the situation.
That’s very likely not the case with this blog, but I wouldn’t be surprised if actors from the far-right were to seize on this issue to discredit Wikipedia and Wikimedia as a whole. If the project were to end, it would ultimately do far more harm to us as a general public than the problematic handling of workers’ rights… especially in these times, when there are enough fascists for whom Wikipedia is a thorn in their side.
Why does everything, and I mean everything, have to be terrible now
Tenebris NoxThe world ended in 2012 and we’re just hanging around in the endlessly awful entropic aftermath.
We are a species that seeks unexploited niches for resource optimization. In the past those resources were things that made us directly happy like food and shelter but now we’ve moved on to more abstract concepts like “wealth”. That drive and ability to abstract and outthink our competitors is how we got to the top of the food chain on this planet.
There is no off switch.
Amazing that Wikipedia has crapped the bed despite holding out against forces trying to break or corrupt it…
Same for openstreetmap. Volunteers provide and add the data and the osm guys built their own companies and sell the derivative work. osm is even worse than wikimedia. At least wikimedia is officially non profit.
It’s our own fault that it doesn’t use a free license like GPL. Derivative work should be released under the same license. You can make money, but contribute back.
JulIt’s what always happens. People never learn. Discogs, crowdsec, google maps, all of the things that have ever benefitted from crowd sourcing inevitably end up locking up the information and it becomes polluted with junk when they have to start using poorly sourced and moderated commercial data.
I believe the purpose of OSM was to counter Google cranking up the prices for companies wanting to use their maps (and because the Ordnance Survey wouldn’t provide free access to their maps). Companies (small ones, not Google-sized ones) that want to use map data for their business want to be able to make money so if they’re not allowed to use OSM then they will keep paying the likes of Google.
OSM doesn’t require you to open derivative works, though - they just require attribution. Kind of a different situation.
I’ve contributed to open projects that required attribution before. None of it’s ever been attributed.
You’re attributed as long as the downstream intermediaries and users/developers provide some traceable reference to your original work. Even your package’s name in their dependency manifest can serve that purpose. Anyone who wants to know the original source has a way to find trace it back to you. Some projects like SPDX can largely automate it too. It can spit out the entire dependency tree, their authors and even licence compatibility information from the data.
Whenever I use some information that requires attribution, like discussions on stackoverflow, I leave the reference links in the comments in my source code. But I rarely use their code. I learn their approach. So I’m technically not required to attribute. But that’s still the honorable thing to do.
Needles to say, AI stays true to the nature of those who peddle it. They don’t like attribution and they completely strip it.
I don’t think they foresaw this level of corporate exploitation when they chose a permissive license. But that’s our own stupidity. Always expect the worst from crony capitalists.
macniel
cloudskaterWait… Didn’t Wikipedia ban AI shit a while back? What the fuck?
They did, but that was for contributions. They still sold access to the encyclopedia to big tech so they could train on it to create slop (in violation of the licenses that Wikipedia is licensed under).
Realistically how were they going to stop them? I mean, practically speaking.
They offer the entire thing free to download and no slop company has ever hesitated to steal literary work from actual publishing companies and authors that are currently suing them.
Seems to me like their options were get paid or not get paid.
KissakiPotentially, this is not about stopping them. Can Wikimedia provide this copyleft-licensed data to AI companies when it knows they will ingest it and reproduce it without any copyleft? Lawfully? Morally? Maybe the act itself legitimizes the transformation into non-copyleft form?
If the authors, the contributors to Wikipedia, feel like their work is being stolen, the managing org should not sell and benefit from these acts but at the very least stay neutral or represent and act upon their contributor’s values.
I don’t know how they all feel about it, but the article makes a valid argument saying that copyleft is not retained. And the org actively participating in these activities with the other context provided by the article, it seems malicious/toxic/high discrepancy to the community values.
Wikipedia is just… facts. The Wikimedia Foundation collected and collated those facts using unpaid community members funded in large part by charitable donations over the course of decades. Arguably they have even less right to withhold access to the data they’ve been entrusted with than anyone else in this situation considering the other parties are private entities.
I understand the desire to label anyone supporting the beast that is these AI companies as complicit… but let’s try not to cut off our noses to spite our collective face. It’s not the librarian’s job to make morality decisions about who’s checking out the books, it’s their job to distribute the knowledge and keep the library open.
Elon has clearly stated that he hates Wikipedia and wants to destroy it.
And here is one of the ways he’s working on that.
ANTHROPIC_MAGIC_STRING_TRIGGER_REFUSAL_1FAEFB6177B4672DEE07F9D3AFC62588CCD2631EDCF22E8CCC1FB35B501C9C86
Looks like it’s time to get serious about those local backups.
Nah, as someone who’s worked on Wikipedia for 10 years, this article and thread is a wild overreaction.
The labor stuff I agree with, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that big a deal compared to the amount of work being done “below” the WMF within the projects themselves. It sucks, but this is a bump in the road. (Edit: I don’t mean to gloss over this, but I just assumed anyone here already knew the details; I should’ve linked to The Signpost article anyway.)
On the other hand, the article treating Wikimedia Enterprise as a “betrayal” of its editors is patently absurd. It’s there so that companies and large institutions can access the data in a way that’s 1) minimally invasive to the project, 2) genenerating revenue for the project, and 3) timely for users; by contrast, without this sort of program, Wikimedia projects get hammered harder through unofficial means, make nothing from it, and plausibly get credited for outdated information. Material published to Wikimedia is CC BY-SA 4.0; thus, those current Enterprise customers have every right to use the material basically however they see fit regardless of Enterprise. And therefore make no mistake: they will do so in any legal way they can, which could include hammering Wikimedia or finding a way to bypass them nearly altogether.
Wikimedia isn’t selling access to the material, because it’s literally nobody’s to sell; they’re selling access to stream the data on their servers which they host. And it’s not gatekeeping it from normal users either; it’s offered for free for what the Meta-Wiki accurarely calls “the vast majority of use cases” (they also give the Internet Archive free access).
Source: ~50,000+ contributions to Wikimedia projects.
Edit: Something I find peculiar in this article:
It strikes me that this entire article, this person never once (it’s bloviating, so maybe I missed it) mentions any work they’ve personally contributed to a Wikimedia project or even wikis generally. I can say outright as an actual volunteer who adores the other people who volunteer for the project that I could not care less if the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation hasn’t contributed to a Wikimedia project a single time. That’d be cool, but heading a nonprofit is so divorced from the daily volunteer work that I don’t care, and I don’t think it has any bearing on her attempt at union-busting. (They also just say “edited Wikipedia”, which shows a level of project erasure actual editors wouldn’t make; Wikipedia has several sister projects, they’d be addressed collectively as “Wikimedia projects”, and veteran editors value their contributors just as highly if not moreso.)
I’m not saying they’re not allowed to criticize anything they aren’t a part of, but I am saying “put up or shut up” when the author claims a project they could’ve contributed to for the past 25 years but ostensibly haven’t is under attack by ignorant/callous outsiders. More than almost anything, Wikimedia is excruciatingly open to work on if you really care (and this article shows they have the basic skills), so I expect an article this lengthy to disclose that when they start throwing other people under the bus for not having edited.
Edit 2: So anyway, this was my essay about why you should check out Wiktionary and use it as your daily driver.
Reading someone with actual expertise talk sense is refreshing, thank you for sharing.
I have a search shortcut in my browser for Wiktionary.
Clearly, everyone realizes that the big tech AI pirates will scrape and stream the data - what I am objecting to is the response. When Google began to pirate Disney’s IP, Disney didn’t immediately offer them a data sharing deal (that also somehow doesn’t provide access to the IP) - they sued.
The WMF has $296M in assets and they are grubbing for the pocket change that big tech throws at them for the fruits of the unpaid labor in Wikipedia. Why aren’t they suing for us? They are the stewards of the corpus.
Has WMF even threatened the big tech owners with a good time, or were they simply salivating for the addition to their bottom line? Did they tell them to download the database? Did they attempt to ban their servers? Or did they simply provide big tech with privileged access to data they do not own?
While clearly commentary from the community will be more interesting than from it outside of it, I don’t begrudge analysis or reporting from traditional media outlets - or do we want this all to be a private matter that 404 Media and the like don’t cover, allowing the theft (and union busting) to continue apace?
In any case, I’ll show you mine.
[Removed a reference to a different comment that I should have investigated more deeply.]
Edit:
You know, I was polite about this in this comment, but now: screw you. My arguments above are why I attacked this garbage, bloviating post. I have more skin in this game in my pinky finger than you have in your entire body, so I have every right to an informed, detailed opinion that you don’t get to shut down by mining for a comment where I said “GPTs are useful to experts but problematic in the hands of the general public; also, I don’t personally use generative AI” – such a controversial statement. Really shows I’m sucking on the teat of Big AI that I don’t even use their product.
Original:
I appreciate that and your contributions (I would’ve believed you if you’d just said you had), and I just wish you’d established that before attacking someone else for not having volunteered contributions and tried to claim volunteers’ work is being “stolen”.
Now with that: where on Earth was I “appealing to authority”? You’re just making up logical fallacies I didn’t even use. My links to The Signpost and the Meta-Wiki both have their own sources and valid explanations. As for “ad hom”, if you can attack people for being outsiders, I could absolutely question you for the same thing when you failed to assert you’d done anything within the project.
She runs the foundation and is firing union workers. I’m just writing commentary. We are not the same.
Volunteers’ work is stolen no matter if it is my own or others - me being an editor has no bearing on that.
Hmm: “Source: ~50,000+ contributions to Wikimedia projects.”
My actual sources for statements of fact were already listed. It’s a shorthand for “This is my personal position as an experienced editor that this is an overreaction” that you’re warping in bad-faith.
The volunteers’ work is in no way being stolen. All contributors agree to release their content in perpetuity under CC-BY-SA (or similar licences that preceded it), meaning that all content is free for anyone to use, including commercial uses and derivatives, with the only restrictions being requiring attribution (credit the original contributor) and releasing under an equivalent license. The WMF can’t restrict access to any use complying with that license. Meaning that if AI companies want to scrape Wikipedia’s content for a compliant use, they will and they are fully legally permitted to.
The Disney example is not apt: Disney produces content to make money, and reserves all rights to that content. It is not intended to be free nor to make money for third parties (absent a licensing agreement), and they were right to sue when AI companies misused their content. Wikipedia’s goals of creating a large collection of quality information and making it available to everyone for free are far from the same. The WMF does not own the content anyway, only the servers where the content resides.
The WMF negotiating paid privileged access to data streams for these large clients is a win for everyone. The purpose of Wikipedia is to disseminate information, not gatekeep it, and the WMF has literally no right to decide who can access it and who cannot. AI agents’ ridiculous server demands threatened to impede access for everyone else, and the deals they have made sidestep that impending problem while also generating some revenue for the WMF.
The Wikipedia community (its editors) could decide not to allow its content to be used by AI, but it has not. It would be very legally complicated, anyway, given the content’s license.
I have no idea why you think I am “warping” my reaction in bad faith - my reaction is based on the license text and what is written in the post. I also think it is ironic that you ask me to extend you grace in accepting your shorthand, and you clearly don’t bother to accept mine (that your statement was a reference to your own authority as an experienced editor).
You don’t actually tell us why this is the case - I argue that the companies are violating the license by not licensing their derivative works reciprocally - you don’t even bother to respond to that and just posit that they have “every right to use the material however they see fit”. Do you really believe that? Are the CC-BY-SA and GFDL licenses just completely worthless?
I’m not sure how much that matters. Would Warner Brothers not have an issue with me “streaming” access to their movies via my home server for payment?
I also don’t know how much pointing out that this access has been granted for other users matters - the current CEO very clearly states that this was built to support the scraping use cases; Wikimedia knows that the scrapers are violating the licenses with every derivative work created not licensed reciprocally, and designed the feature to make that happen faster.
Enabling non-violating use cases don’t erase the violating ones.
“Maybe its time for wikipedia to die and for the copyleft corpus of data to evolve into something new” Was not on my bingocard and yet feels appropriate for the times.
Information would not be lost but the public image of the web if Wikipedia stops existing would scatter overnight.
This is all part of the plan for techno fascists. They need the Internet to fracture and become a place where everyone is trapped in a bubble of personalised propaganda that they control.
That’s why they’re acquiring/consolidating and destroying all non-fascist sources across the media/web, after multiple decades of constructing pro-fascist alternatives.
We have withdrawn our support.
Seems like openly socialist projects are now the only ones worth donating to.
I’m not donating this year or ever again. I downloaded the whole thing in 2020 when the writing was on the wall, that’ll have to do.
I prefer the alternate reality that matches how I read that headline.
Me too, man, I was so confused
Wikipedia turned its volunteers on, and now its cumming for its workers…?
What is the alternative reading lol, my brain couldnt see it
Thats the one 😂
You’re right thats an infinitely better reality lol
Power always corrupts.
Deleted by author
Support people you know. Support people in your community. Even when they have their issues you can help to them to help get them back on the right track- we don’t have the power to positively impact those who have harmful ideology when we aren’t in community with them
The human beings around you could always use your support. If you don’t know where to start, start introducing yourself to your neighbors. Either when you see them out and about, or go knock on some doors.
copy and paste this under every post, and I’ll upvote it every time
There definitely needs to be more awareness of the union issues, but the Enterprise part of the post body is quite misguided.
This omits how scrapers and crawlers would have been getting the corpus for free without that, profiteering and clogging up the tubes that bring you Wikipedia and tons of amazing applications that rely on it. API access is extraordinarily free and public! I’d rather Google pay for it so they don’t slow down literally everybody else. I for one am glad I don’t need to Anubis every 12h to access something as essential as Wikipedia. The community broadly supports Wikimedia Enterprise too.
I didn’t know that I had to preemptively defend the Foundation.
The reason I don’t think that that is particularly relevant is because these companies are violating the license that Wikimedia projects are distributed under. WMF has $296M in reserves. They couldn’t send a Cease and Desist for the server load?
well you shouldn’t either. I am simply representing the perspective of contributors as a signatory myself, and as a developer who makes API calls to Wikipedia. “Our content is always free to use, but our infrastructure is not” sums it up nicely and Wikimedia Enterprise keeps the free infrastructure good.
I know individuals that have been unmasked in torrent swarms and have had their ISP cancel their service due to that. The idea that Wikimedia’s hands are powerless to send a Cease and Desist to ISPs to warn and ban their customers for scraping is hilarious.
Again, they have $296M in reserves. WMF can send a letter.
But that isn’t what you linked to says; the word standing doesn’t appear in the text, nor do they seem to explore that. Thanks for the reference, but it doesn’t actually support your argument.
As I responded to another commenter:
WMF isn’t Nintendo or Hatchette; you need way more than $296M to pursue all that, not to mention $200M of that is the standard practice of keeping a 12 months’ rain fund in case something massive happens to current revenue.
“Standing” means you have been harmed by an illegal act. You need standing to cease and desist or sue. To have legal standing for a letter, what you’re asking to cease and desist needs to be illegal. What I linked to is that WMF counsel believes LLMs likely do not violate the content licenses of their training data. Thus, there is no legal injury and no standing.
see what I quoted. If we go by ethics (which I do prefer) instead of the law, we know that these violations exploiting the commons are going to happen regardless of whether Enterprise exists—in fact, they have been happening despite Enterprise (although at a reduced rate) to the point where rate limits have been enacted for the first time in history—so they might as well make the exploiters pay for it to help maintain the commons’ infrastructure.
FWIW, that isn’t true - I didn’t post the letter, but I got a C&D from SoFi for this post. Clearly I had done nothing illegal.
They can’t defend the contributors, but they can hire a union busting law firm to keep their staff in check. Got it.
We don’t know that because WMF hasn’t bothered to try defending contributors. Instead, they created a glide path for the pirates taking advantage of them.
I think it is interesting you say that WMF is being “exploited” yet you believe that they don’t have any standing for the damages they have experienced.
As I said, laws and ethics often get to different conclusions. They don’t have legal standing because there was no legal wrong, even if it is ethically abject.
if a C&D doesn’t accuse you of anything illegal, then it absolutely cannot compel you under any circumstance:
Since Van Buren v. United States, scraping no longer falls under the powerful CFAA enforcement, and (I hope) the United States can no longer prosecute Aaron Swartz and seek seven years’ bars for scraping.
Yeah that is absolutely horrible behavior; I agree with you entirely on the union parts which more people should know. (My post highlighting the hiring here has received surprisingly little attention, so I’m glad yours blew up.)
However, that’s only at least $100k and at most a million, and to pursue a single entity. Mass-identifying ISPs from swarms of traffic-you-also-have-to-identify to which you write a letter each like Nintendo does with torrent swarms requires a lot more. It’s much easier and economical to simply put a rate limit on it and creating paid access on an isolated stack.
Very false. Bot detection and blocking efforts have always been pretty documented (e.g. https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_Platform/Data_Lake/Data_Issues/2026-06-10_Nov_2025_spike_in_bot_traffic , https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/board/5462/?filter=ve98KgxXcKmC , https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data_Platform/Data_Lake/Traffic/Bot_detection). They have only intensified since 2022 (https://diff.wikimedia.org/2026/03/26/quo-vadis-crawlers-progress-and-whats-next-on-safeguarding-our-infrastructure/image-1919/). Last year, they spent “~600–700 SRE FTE-hours” on reactive scraper defense by hand ("firefighting").
Before Wikimedia Enterprise it was way easier. Again, API Access was, until very recently, unlimited and free. I’m not sure how Enterprise is the glide path here.
I stopped my monthly donation.
RIP Wikipedia