In which my wages oppress others

[brainwane]

I disagree with this post about the dangers of Wikimedia/Wikipedia, but am glad I read it, if only to remind myself that yes, I can stand reading unfair attacks on my organization and on me.[0]

"So in what follows I describe Wikipedia as a problematic monopoly. I don't ignore its positive sides, but they don't play any role in this text."

Then there's really no point in critiquing it, is there? The point of such a rant is not to be fair or to point a way forward, but to present a bunch of assertions without having to back them up.

I'll argue about this if people want to hear my thoughts on some particular point.

[0] I say "and on me" in that the author argues that, since unpaid volunteers make Wikimedia's content and maintain its community processes, it is wrong to pay Foundation and Chapter workers: it is "the payment to some 100 people that makes the unpaid work of every other contributor so shameful [sic] abusive".

Comments

[rhivolution]

That logic is so messed up. I mean...by that, anyone who consensually volunteers for a project run by paid workers is being exploited.

[brainwane]

I am sure that there is a lot of exploitation going on at lots of organizations. But if someone's seeing exploitation anytime a single person is being paid, at all, where others are volunteering or donating anything, at some point one must ask, well, what do you mean by exploitation? Because if they're seeing it everywhere then the word "exploitation" loses its usefulness as a descriptive and prescriptive tool.

[chevdelachar]

That is a profoundly, profoundly stupid article. "Wikipedia is like a cult because cults aren't able to ever completely achieve their aims!" "Wikipedia exploits its unpaid volunteer workers because it pays other people for unrelated work!" "Wikipedia drove traditional print encyclopedias out of work and also it's chauvinist because most developing nations don't have internet access!" Just like... What?! Come on!

[brainwane]

I wouldn't go so far as to say "profoundly stupid". See my reply to missmediajunkie.

[missmediajunkie]

Oh good grief. I'd love to hear more thoughts, please.

[brainwane]

So, as a friend points out, there are a few interesting questions buried in the text, around Wikipedia as an inadvertent monopoly, encyclopedias and specifically Wikipedia-style collaboration as a Western model crowding out other forms of knowledge sharing, and who gets paid to do what. Other people have brought up all these questions in other places and with much more thoughtfulness.

Anything in particular you are interested in hearing thoughts about, missmediajunkie?

[heyfoureyes]

I have never felt oppressed by my few conributions to wikipedia.

so much of this is utterly messed up. I can't even get started because there is so much to attack.

In short, yes, wikipedia can take the attack.

[brainwane]

Wikipedia can even take much more thoughtful and reasoned critiques on the topics that the "Shadows in Wikipedia" author attempts to bring up.

I can't even get started because there is so much to attack.

I know the feeling.

[heyfoureyes]

Thanks for the link!

I find all of this shared culture fascinating. Questions of copyright/ownership -- things like, if I license a Flickr photo of mine as Creative Commons, do I ever get it back? Yet I don't dwell on the topic as I should, I go to work and code until my brain is worn down to a nub.

[magistrate]

Well, we all know that Wikimedia/Wikipedia volunteers aren't given the option to quit at any time and may face deportation if they speak up about working conditi––no, wait, that's Hersheys workers. Nevermind.

[brainwane]

There is a nuanced argument to be made (or rather, being made in other places by other thinkers) about the working conditions of the volunteers who collaborate to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects. But, again, nuanced.

(frozen) Re: a reply by simsa0

[brainwane]

Simsa0, you might have some interesting ideas, but you're being a jerk and therefore it's not worth my time to engage with you. My standards for discourse include the other person's tone, not just their ideas. If you ever decide to approach online conversations with fairness and civility, I'll change my mind, but I'm a busy person with limited energy, and when I can, I'm going to save it for people who aren't being unnecessarily hostile and rude.

If you need help understanding that, please consult a friend. Please don't comment here again until you can show appropriate civility. For example, when you can be more courteous, I will happily discuss the division of paid and unpaid labor in activist movements, including my job.