PeachPie 🍑
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 WhatsApp57 Comments
Comments from other communities
JhexThe minute Wikipedia allowed AI to train on its knowledge base I stopped donating to them… what a sad sad world we are living in
As opposed to not allowing them to do it and having every AI company scrape the site 24/7 anyway?
NOT_RICKI mean, yes. With this type of argument you could rationalize away criminalizing or forbidding anything.
They are sitting on $296M. Why aren’t they suing the AI companies to defend the contributors?
Eh, as an editor I haven’t noticed I’m being attacked by AI companies. WMF would need some better argument if they’d want to sue successfully, especially aginst companies that are sitting on 100x more money than them.
BTW it’s already established that training AI models on copyrighted materials is legal without approval of the copyright holder, and IMO it’s unikely WP’s material would be an exception.
BTW it’s already established that training AI models on copyrighted materials is legal without approval of the copyright holder, and IMO it’s unikely WP’s material would be an exception.
That isn’t accurate - this is a highly unsettled question, and there are multiple cases in litigation today.
WMF would need some better argument if they’d want to sue successfully, especially aginst companies that are sitting on 100x more money than them.
A better argument than what - that they are openly violating the licenses under which the encyclopedia is distributed? What more do they need?
I think people have generally (incorrectly) seen certain settlements and deals, like with Disney as “this is legal now” when really it hasn’t been established yet. It’s just gone away for some companies because money.
I genuinely think Disney licensed to Sora because they saw how unprofitable it was and knew it would go under anyways.
Because Disney got OpenAI to pay for a license they now have no use for.
A better argument than what - that they are openly violating the licenses under which the encyclopedia is distributed?
That’s a bit more convincing.
this is a highly unsettled question, and there are multiple cases in litigation today
I followed Kadrey v. Meta a little bit, and the conclusion was in favour of the training being fair use. What are the other ongoing cases?
When there’s a dispute, courts consider the following four issues in deciding whether a use is fair use:
- why the party used the copyrighted material (for instance, for commercial versus educational purposes)
- whether the copyrighted work is informational or for entertainment
- how much of the copyrighted work the party used, and
- whether and how the use affects the market for or value of the copyrighted work.
- Commercial
- Informational
- All of it
- Definitely does
Based on this, not sure fair use holds up that well, but I’m not a lawyer.
Sure, train models on copyleft data as long as all the training data and pipeline code to train the model is open sourced under the terms of the license.
TheOrcWhoWrites<!–StartFragment–>
Seemingly, like other community sites, they think that people will continue to contribute to the slop machines for free, probably because they are losers.
<!–EndFragment–>
that is absurd. i know someone personally who just became a wiki editor volunteer. just like any corporation, they treat their lower level staff and volunteers like shit.
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.
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.
Seems like openly socialist projects are now the only ones worth donating to.
We have withdrawn our support.
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.
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
Me too, man, I was so confused
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
I stopped my monthly donation.
Same. As soon as I heard of their union busting.
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.
RIP Wikipedia