Article URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2026-08-02/News_and_notes Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143414 Points: 148 # Comments…

On July 20, Wiki Workers United U.S. demanded voluntary recognition as a union from the Wikimedia Foundation, following a similar request for voluntary recognition made by WWU-UK, the UK branch of WWU, in June. The request by Wiki Workers United U.S. demanded a response from the Wikimedia Foundation by Friday, July 24, i.e. during the Wikimania conference. No response was received by that date, though the topic of Wikimedia staffers unionizing was discussed at the conference (see video on the right). On July 27, the WMF published a statement declining voluntary recognition of Wiki Workers United U.S. [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate. The community response to the WMF statement has mostly been one of dismay, with fears that the Foundation will use the time gap between now and the secret ballot to discourage employees from union involvement, using union busting methods as described humorously in an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. A community petition to the WMF Board to recognize the union has been started on Meta-Wiki; as we were getting ready to publish this issue, it had passed 150 signatures. Two prior community petitions in support of the union, started in May 2026 on Meta-Wiki and on English Wikipedia, have attracted well over 1,200 signatures each. Jimmy Wales said on the Wikimedia-l mailing list that he had looked into the process followed by WWU, which had resulted in a supermajority of employees signing a union card, and thought it imperfect: One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other. It's pretty easy to see the problem if we imagine it in the other direction - imagine some company asking staff to sign pledge cards not to join a union, and keeping track of who did or didn't in order to put pressure on those who didn't. Gross. It doesn't make it better for it to be the other way around in my own personal view. I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance of pressure.