Talk:R/antiwork/Archives/2023/December

Doreen did not found r/antiwork
It was founded by u/andreasw and Doreen ended up as the top moderator after u/andreasw was removed from moderation duties due to being inactive for five years.

https://www.reddit.com/r/redditrequest/comments/kzqv69/requesting_removal_of_inactive_top_moderator_of/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyink (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I know Doreen and she asked me to remove the inaccurate claim. My edits were not "adding material that needs a citation"; they are removing material which is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobyink (talk • contribs) 07:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation, . Just so you know, I've added you to the Connected contributor template at the top of this page – that's not meant to scare you off, just a procedural thing. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 16:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

r/antiwork is more about complaining than philosophical ideas.
The antiwork philosophy is not discussed on r/antiwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8804:1202:C500:59BF:F342:DEB6:6E5F (talk) 07:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed Meninist Aparatchik (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead section
Hello! So I discovered this article after reverting an IP's unexplained removal of content. I noticed that there are a ton of tags in the lead section. 1. The lead section of an article generally doesn't need to be referenced since those refs come later in the article and 2. I'm unable to know how long those statements have been unreferenced since the templates lack any dating whatsoever. Anyone mind helping me out with this? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

There, fixed it. Meninist Aparatchik (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the removal of that it rejects social democracy, etc. and advocates for class consciousness is a bad "fix" and needs to be cleaned up, considering the moderator clarification sees this as an anarchist-focused subreddit, (https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/rwuwzs/rantiwork_introduction_rules_clarification_thread/). Now, Reddit isn't a source (which is why I can't edit the main article) - but we can't keep it up like that, as it currently stands it sounds like it is Marxist ("class consicousness"), even though Anarchism as the very least has the intersectional model and rejects hierarchy. Edit: I'm a moderator of the subreddit. I did not meant to sound neutral. Sorry if it was confusing, I thought the username would make it obvious. Kimezukae (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Note to r/antiwork members from a Wikipedia editor
Hi r/antiwork members! I'm Ezlev – I edit Wikipedia, and I created this article. I'm glad to see that some of you are interested in improving the article. However, Wikipedia has various policies that you'll need to follow in order to make constructive edits. Some of the most important ones are that edits must cite reliable sources to support them, must have a neutral point of view, and editors generally should not edit with a conflict of interest. Because of the recent spike in edits that are not supported by reliable sources and/or are not neutral, it's likely that this article will temporarily be semi-protected, meaning that IP editors and editors with new Wikipedia accounts won't be able to make changes directly. Whether or not that happens, my talk page is open if you have questions about editing Wikipedia or want to chat specifically about my creation of this article – if you have general comments or suggestions about the article, this page is a great place to leave them. I would appreciate it if someone would copy this message over to r/antiwork, specifically this thread, or link to it from there. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can do that once I get home. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Formation Section Contains Irrelevant Information
At time of writing, the "Formation" section of the "r/antiwork" article is largely information about one moderator, who does not even appear to be the founder:

"r/antiwork was created in 2013.[1][2] Pseudonymously known online as Doreen Cleyre after American anarchist writer and feminist Voltairine de Cleyre, Doreen Ford describes the subreddit (from her position of longest active moderator circa 2014) as a big tent of the anti-work movement.[1][3] In 2014, Ford was writing a blog called AbolishWork.com.[1] Until 2017, Ford worked at a series of retail jobs for a decade, which she described as 'miserable'.[1][3][4] In 2017, Ford quit working in retail to work with animals, mainly dogs, on the advice of her grandmother. As of 2021, she earns a living through dog walking, pet sitting, and through crowdfunding on her Patreon. Ford resides in Boston and is autistic.[1][3][4]"

(emphasis mine)

This information (bolded above) is largely irrelevant to the formation of r/antiwork, and should be removed, or perhaps placed in a different article dedicated to the person if said person meets the notability criteria.

Sushanti (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind me asking but did you come from the subreddit? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries! I did not come from the subreddit, but I would suspect that the friend who pointed me to this article does browse the subreddit. Not sure how you want to count that? Sushanti (talk) 06:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules and policies. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the bit about where she lives and her being autistic, as it didn't seem relevant, but her subsequent employment activities seemed to be germaine to the topic. The Vice article appears to be the best source we have at the moment for a founder (per WP:RSP, there's no consensus on Vice as a source, which means it can be used, though it would be nice to find additional and/or more trusted sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason that there needs to be any mention of this person or their occupation at all in this section? They are the top moderator, but they are not the "founder", and this section, based on the heading, is about the founding of the subreddit/community and not so much the guiding political principles. On the topic of a better source for the founder than Vice, if Reddit itself is to be believed, the subreddit was founded by one "u/andreasw" (found in the sidebar by disabling subreddit style on https://old.reddit.com/r/antiwork, which is the old Reddit layout. I'm not sure if the "self-published source" guideline is necessarily applicable here since this is auto-generated metadata by the Reddit site about the community, same as a publication date on an online news article, but even if that were applicable, I think all the guidelines have been met as far as questions of authenticity or the nature of the claim being made. Sushanti (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, we generally prefer third-party sources, though as noted, Vice is acceptable as a source but not great. I think your reddit source above would be fine (as long as it's attributed) and would not constitute an "unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" for an alternative founding story. My gut would be to include both.
 * Additionally, I can imagine a forum/community's frustration with feeling like they were being misrpresented by journalists; however, you need to keep in mind that the reason this article exists in the first place is because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. . By the same token, the material in the article should be primarily supported by those sources. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , I genuinely believe that Doreen Ford likely meets WP:NOTE criteria. The sheer amount of info that exists on her both before and after the interview is a substantial amount. I think this would serve as a happy medium, especially since there seem to be continual efforts to add more info to her segment/concerns of notability to the r/antiwork article. That being said, this will likely need to wait till after this whole controversy has blown over to avoid harassment/vandalism concerns (per WP:BLP). Etriusus (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ford is definitely notable, though I'm not sure if they're still a low-profile individual or not. The Fox interview was obviously ill-advised. I tend to agree that her bio doesn't work very well in the "Founding" section, but I'm not sure where else to put it. I think right now is a really bad time for a new article. ~Awilley (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Awilley, I agree that now would not be a good time for creating the article. I don't think that the low profile individual policy applies in this case, however. Ford has a number of interviews prior to this and has generally been both active enough, and covered enough to warrant an article. I can, however, potentially see the "Appearances and performances" low profile criteria work. To be brutally honest, we've created articles for far less and I was a bit surprised to find she did not already have one (I originally came here to see if anything needed page protection). After the interview, however, we're gonna have to wait before creating an article. I'm scared to even toss anything into the draftspace since vandalism is almost a guarantee. Etriusus (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Topics discussed in anti-work
I think it also important to note that while people do go on to call out about poor working conditions, treatment, pay, etc. People also tend to go on the sub to praise their bosses who actually appreciate the time and effort that they put into their work. And don’t treat them as just an employee number. That, I feel is the bottom line of it. Treat people like people not commodities. 2600:8800:468B:5100:A1F0:8AA:ECB7:2AD4 (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this topic relevant enough for Wikipedia?
It seems like this isn't really a relevant enough sub to demand a Wikipedia page? 2601:240:E301:4900:E940:66F6:E728:D808 (talk) 05:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * No, this topic does not deserve an article, it should be deleted. This is ridiculous. 199.231.199.27 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Claims presented without evidence can just as easily be dismissed without evidence. Consult WP:N for ideas on how to bolster your argument.Somers-all-the-time (talk) 03:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Antiwork originally rejected organized religion
This claim in the opening paragraph is unsourced and baseless. The three sources provided do not mention religion or christianity, except the Vice source including a quote from historian Benjamin Hunnicutt that links modern work culture to Protestantism. 82.197.48.206 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Antiwork doesnt seek unemployment
99% of people on the subreddit quit lowpaying, abusive jobs in order to pursue better paying positions or more fulfilling careers. The vast majority of posts are intended to expose the drastic lack of business ethics that the average worker faces in the american wealth oligarchy. I very specifically call it that because we do not have free market capitalism in the united states. If we did, the actions of a worker seeking better employment would be lauded rather than criticized. In fact, it should be recognized that the national media speaking out against the r/antiwork subreddit is an indication that the free market has completely failed- the very reason for the discontentment of the subreddit members. 12.39.93.196 (talk) 06:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The recommended literature in the subreddit's wiki points heavily at anti-capitalist literature, some of them being anarchist, that want to end all kind of jobs through several means like for example through automation or abolishing work itself and replacing it through play (Bob Black's "The Abolition of Work"). I'd say it would be strange to call Antiwork to not seek unemployment, when it has such literature linked and the sidebar introduction also talks about ending work and talking about work-related struggles. Kimezukae (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent Edits Claiming Closure Unsupported
Recent edits made by KlayCax state the subreddit has been "closed shut down" whereas the editor's own citation states it has instead been made private by its moderators (presumably due to an influx of newcomer users given the public attention it is currently receiving). There is a clear distinction between closure and being made private, the ladder of which would not warrant the usage of past tense vocabulary throughout the article. The noteworthiness of private status for a subreddit is debatable in its own right. Recommend revert to 00:31, 26 January 2022‎. —MaviLight (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * A sticked post on the subreddit said so at the time. (Although it's now outdated.) I'm aware the circumstances have changed, so I changed it back. KlayCax (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Why does this page exist?
This topic does not warrant its own article per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability 47.220.166.52 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems to meet most of the notability guidelines. R/antiwork has had significant coverage over the past few days on several media outlets. ― Tuna NoSurprises Please  20:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary image caption
The caption for the main image is "Figure of a person lying down, used in the header". "the header" is non-specific, what does that mean? The header of what? Who wrote this garbage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.231.199.27 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The header of the subreddit ― Tuna NoSurprises Please  22:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

r/WorkReform
After the fall of r/AntiWork, many ex-users have made r/WorkReform as a replacement subreddit. The sub has gained 207k members in only a single day of being created. I think this should be mentioned in the post, as the sub is intended to be a follow-up to r/AntiWork and has gained significant traction.

Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorkReform/

49.2.32.214 (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, in order to mention that here, we need a secondary reliable source (such as a news organization) discussing that and specifically mentioning r/WorkReform. ~Awilley (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Here you go https://fortune.com/2022/01/27/antiwork-reddit-subreddit-forum-shuts-down-private-fox-news-interview/ 49.2.32.214 (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Subreddit's no longer private.
Can anyone find any sources? – AssumeGoodWraith  (talk | contribs) 16:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about sources other than the subreddit itself, yesterday the subreddit had a notice that it was private and now it behaves as normal. —MaviLight (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Kimezukae actually relevant enough and if yes, should they receive an own Wikipedia page about their brief moderator career?
Ex-Moderator /u/Kimezukae has been quoted in media like Forbes, Bloomberg and Vice and seems fairly relevant to the split between the old, more revolutionary user-base and the newer, more reform-leaned user-base. It seems like it has not been mentioned yet that Kimezukae severely condemned the liberal userbase in their announcement of resignation, is this due to self-published source, or has another editor simply not found this one yet as an archived link? Appreciate any info, --DefendingFree (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Due weight is important here, for one. What said in the articles you linked may be notable and due for inclusion. What they said in their resignation announcement is likely undue unless/until it has been reported on by reliable sources. It's extremely unlikely that Kimezukae is notable enough for an entire article about them specifically, per WP:1E and WP:BLP1E. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. I might need to read more about the linked guidelines, then. Have a good day! --DefendingFree (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Vice source biased?
Is this source biased? Trying to figure out why this was reverted. I was looking for information about the early years of anti-work before it went viral, and the Vice article was the best I could find. Is there some reason Vice should not be trusted, and how is it biased?

If the problem is that I described it as "far-left", I think that's accurate. One of the things the article talks about is how the recent explosive growth has taken antiwork away from its original far-left Marxist philosophy, or at least diluted it somewhat. And how there's tension between the old-timers and the newcomers.

Thoughts? ~Awilley (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've just looked into the linked source above and in the newest /r/antiwork Wikipedia version as I got confused why you would call it a originally far-left Marxist philosophy, considering, before the moderators cleared up the library most likely due to Reddit's content policy, a lot of the literature in the library were favored towards Anarchism rather than Marxism. The web archive shows the old version, here. I originally also didn't know that there were even anarchist insurrectionist texts included in there, such as from currently alive authors like Alfred M. Bonnano. Other noticeable Anarchist authors or Anarchist groups linked in there are David Graeber, Proudhon, George Woodcock, post-left Anarchist Bob Black, Anarchist post-left collective CrimethInc and Anarchist media collective sub.media versus authors such as Karl Marx, Bertrand Russell and a few other, more unknown authors that are able to be considered helping contributing to the Marxist ideology. The Vice article mentions that the Anti-work philosophy originally came from Marxist and Anarchist thought currents. However, the differences between those ideologies are hard to get, especially for journalists outside of that field of expertise. I think that this bit of the Marxist article of Wikipedia shows, that this particular ideology is not compatible with the abolish of work, due to socialism only meaning that the workers have the means of the production, but that doesn't necessarily mean the abolish of work as we know it. But considering articles are written more like how the public sees it, my detailed research should probably not be included and the particular bit that this supposedly was a far-left Marxist Subreddit is removed anyways in the current version, so me researching the difference is not relevant. I think the current version of the Wikipedia's article is one of the best I have seen so far from my occasional lurking. Sincerely, --DefendingFree (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with using Vice as a source, per WP:RSP. Any individual editor's "detailed research" is unacceptable for inclusion in the article, per WP:OR. GA-RT-22 (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and I wasn't intending to include my research here anyways, which is why I left it to the talk space to answer a question. I guess the editors then need to decide whether some media contradicts each other, and from the short glance I've got by reading WP:OR it seems like it is decided on the more trustworthy source whether an information is right or wrong. Definitely interesting! Thanks for the clarification. --DefendingFree (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Antiwork subreddit image.svg

Leading slash
I wonder if someone can help me - why does this article omit the leading slash when referring to the subreddit? The usage here is "r/antiwork", while on reddit a more common usage would be "/r/antiwork". In fact, until a few years ago, omitting the leading slash when posting on reddit would prevent the text from automatically linking to the subreddit. Is this leading slash omission a Wikipedia-wide policy? Psychlohexane (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are some technical issues around having a leading slash (see WP:NC-SLASH), and since r/antiwork and /r/antiwork are both valid, it makes more sense to use the variation that doesn't have those issues. – Anne drew  20:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is the credibility of this news good enough to insert in /r/antiwork wikipedia article?
I've recently stumbled on this article: https://theatlasnews.co/partner-articles/2022/09/25/leak-the-fbi-has-infiltrated-r-antiwork-subreddit/ I happened to found it when on /r/antiwork in Reddit some threads were locked and deleted that linked to this article with statements of former mods. DefendingFree (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , doesn't look reliable enough, no. Let's wait and see whether a WP:RS picks it up.<span id="Ezlev:1664215281572:TalkFTTCLNR/antiwork" class="FTTCmt"> — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 18:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ezlev, is an FBI document enough? https://archive.org/details/antiwork_foipa_response DefendingFree (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @DefendingFree did you even read that? It just says they have nothing subject to FOIPA. Nothing of note there.
 * As for the Atlas News source, it claims one of the mods of the subreddit is a person by the name Laurelai Bailey, who is apparently some woman well known to hackers for helping charge Julian Assange and faking her death to avoid rape charges, which I was going to dismiss as malarkey but I was able to find a Gizmodo article from 10 years ago about a Laurelai Bailey in Davenport who was connected to some hacker group and got raided by the FBI. Thing is the Atlas News source says she’s an FBI informant when it seems gave a bunch of already accessible info to the FBI when they raided her home 10 years ago. (There’s a whole rabbit hole down here, which I refuse to go down) Nothing about Atlas News when I Google either so I’d say come back with a better source, a much better source, at least a source with independent Google results MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 05:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

error in quote?
'We're going in the short-term future not accept any media interviews...'

Is there a missing 'to'?

Regards to all Notreallydavid (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)