Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Organized Labour This page is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

I noticed that the article Luddite didn't have the WikiProject Organized Labour banner, so I added it and assessed it with mid-importance to the scope of the project. I think it has at least mid-level importance for its role in UK labour history.

I think it might have high importance because there's been writing in the last decade or so framing opposition to the modern tech industry (notably, the construction of hyperscale data centers, the gig economy and the deskilling of creative work with machine learning tools) in the context of the Luddite movement. It seems fairly recent that modern opponents have started unironically calling themselves Luddites, but tech industry leaders have been calling them Luddites derisively for a while. The "Modern Usage" section is pretty weak at the moment but there's enough material to expand it significantly. That being said, this could just be my bubble, so I'm curious to know what others think. Viv Desjardin (talk, contrib) 00:39, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and honestly surprised it wasn’t already categorized as being within the scope of the project. I could definitely see it being rated “high,” given their broad rhetorical impact on the labor movement, internationally, even to this day. Spookyaki (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, no problem with it being rated "high". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Haywood has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions welcome at 2025 May Day protests. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]