Commenters in these discussions always confuse wikipedia editors with Wikimedia employees - this is the latter!

Waterluvian 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are editors employees in any formal way or are they closer to Reddit moderators? Or editors as in anyone, ie. Reddit posters?

▲

tux3 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, editors are not employees. Even the admins are not employees.

(As far as I know you only have to sign any kind of formal documents if you have one of the few roles (as a non-employee) where you may have access to sensitive personal data, which is very few people.)

▲

PorciiVorbesc an hour ago | parent | next [-]

>Anyone can edit Wikipedia

Hasn't been true in a very long time. Plenty of politically charged articles are locked so that only Wikipedia's editors can edit them, and you can guess which side they're taking. It's not a democracy.

▲

uqers 30 minutes ago | parent [-]

Could you give an example of an article that was protected for reasons other than preventing vandalism? I've seen other people bring this up, but never with evidence.

▲

PorciiVorbesc 21 minutes ago | parent [-]

Someone's opinion is always gonna be someone else's vandalism.

I could bring an example, but then what protection do I have from the HN mob flag-bombing it?

▲

Waterluvian 14 minutes ago | parent [-]

You're entitled to no protection, nor are we entitled to you providing an example. But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. This is just the fundamental core of rationalism.

The sky is green. I won't be taking any questions.

(actually the sky really was green a few days ago, related to tornado weather!)

	▲	PorciiVorbesc 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> But if you don't want to provide an example, your claim immediately turns to dust. That's not how it works in reality. If people disagree with the example it's dust anyway, except now you wasted your time. My opinions is irrelevant here since if people have made up their minds that WIkipedia is not biased, then no example will suffice and they simple ask for an example to have a target to shoot at. I've been on this rodeo before. There's no guarantee of a good faith argument when politics are involved. I have no guarantee I'm not dealing with people arguing in bad faith, so I'd rather not even start to save time and sanity. If you think it's dust, then so be it, I don't mind, I don't lose anything from this, nor do I gain anything from trying to convince you I'm right. I have my opinion, you have yours and we can leave it at that.

▲

Waterluvian 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yeah makes sense. I was wondering if there was special meaning to “editor” that made it non obvious that they wouldn’t be unionized.

▲

mmooss 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The OP talks a lot about volunteers, but doesn't clearly state they are part of the union.

▲

v1z 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]