Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2026-08-02/News and notes - Wikipedia

Wikimedia Foundation refuses voluntary union recognition, hires union-busting law firm

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.

The statement said:

[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.

In terms of time, energy, and money - I don't think it should take very long and again speaking only for myself I hope we get it done as quickly and efficiently as we can and I hope that everyone - staff, management, board, and community can come together to celebrate the outcome. I know I will.

WWU announced on 28 July that they would file for a union election with the National Labor Relations Board. The announcement also accused the Wikimedia Foundation of being disingenuous in their public communications:

Thousands of workers across the tech and nonprofit sectors have achieved voluntary recognition through this "card check" method. Our demand of the Wikimedia Foundation was simply that they live up to their values and be the high-road employer that they purport to be. They refused.

While the Wikimedia Foundation touts to the public that they plan to take a neutral stance in our organizing efforts, they have already proven that not to be the case behind the scenes. When the Foundation rejected our request for voluntary recognition this week, they immediately sent out to employees and the public statements couched in classic union-busting rhetoric, rhetoric undoubtedly provided by outrageously expensive union-avoidance law firms. This insulting and wasteful use of Foundation resources is both an insult to Foundation employees and to the Free Knowledge Movement as a whole.

Insisting that our right to organize be adjudicated by the National Labor Relations Board is not a neutral choice; it has nothing to do with election procedures or employee choice. It has everything to do with delaying the process and stalling the vote in order to give time to the union busters to launch a potentially coercive anti-union campaign against Foundation employees.

Community members expressed concern about the fact that the Wikimedia Foundation has a business relationship with the Jones Day law firm, which is particularly well known in the U.S. for aggressive union busting. In this context, it is worth pointing out that the WMF's relationship with Jones Day dates back over a decade and that Jones Day has primarily dealt with the Foundation's brand and trademark management. However, it eventually transpired that the Foundation has chosen to be represented by the law firm Littler Mendelson, which has an equally strong reputation for union busting.

Relevant links:

• June 24 press release from the Communication Workers Union (CWU, UK)
• FAQ, Wiki Workers United
• Announcements, Wiki Workers United
• July 20 press release from Communications Workers of America (CWA)
• July 27 WMF response, including an FAQ
• National Labor Relations Board case page (for U.S. users), archive link for users outside the U.S.

Community pages:

• Wiki Workers United/Solidarity Signatures on Meta-Wiki, started 12 May 2026, over 1,250 signatures
• Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity on English Wikipedia, started 21 May 2026, over 1,200 signatures
• Community petition to the WMF Board to recognize the union on Meta-Wiki, started 28 July, over 150 signatures

AK

Eligibility criteria for board candidates

Following the 2025 selection process for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, which saw two of the candidates disqualified (see previous Signpost special report and interview as well as 2025 WMF Board reform petition), the WMF Board decided to review the selection process of new Trustees.

On 17 July, the board publicised its proposed new, significantly more stringent eligibility criteria. The main difference is that the proposed new criteria demand considerably more board or community experience, with ordinary community members who are not already office holders unable to stand for election. The proposed new criteria are as follows:

Feedback is invited on Meta-Wiki. AK, C

Reports of sexual harassment at Wikimania events

On July 26, Wikimedia Korea released an open letter calling for an investigation after allegations a Wikimania participant experienced unsought physical contact and sexual harassment.

Several key activists from Wikimedia Korea took part in this event. I had hoped that our participants would return from this event—which brings together Wikimedians from around the world—having gained a range of valuable experiences, and that they would continue their activities with even greater vigour. However, today I heard that one of our members whilst offering well-intentioned assistance to another participant, was instead subjected to unwanted, forced physical contact and sexual harassment. We find this deeply regrettable and are deeply dismayed.
— User:Jjw, president of Wikimedia Korea Wikimedia Korea/Open letter to the Wikimania community July 26 (translation)

Wikimedia Malaysia released a statement the next day, and said that one of their own members had experienced sexual harassment in a separate incident.

Their issue is not an isolated case. Earlier, one of our own community members who attended the conference in person has filed a Trust and Safety complaint to the conference team regarding a separate case of sexual harassment by another Wikimedian against another Wikimedian from a different region. Similar to the other case, this case also involved physical touch and forceful intimacy against a person who has expressed her discomfort at a breach of personal space.
— Tofeiku, Chair of Wikimedia CUG Malaysia, on Wikimedia CUG Malaysia's response in support of Wikimedia Korea’s statement on Wikimania (translation)

Vice President of the WMF Community Resilience & Sustainability team Maggie Dennis responded to the open letter, confirming communication with the individuals involved.

The Foundation is treating this matter seriously. You may be aware that we do not discuss Trust & Safety incidents in respect to the privacy of all individuals, but I can confirm that we are in contact with individuals involved in the reported incident and witnesses to other concerning behaviors. [...] While we will not be able to update community, including Wikimedia Korea, on the outcomes according to standard Trust & Safety policies, the person who made the report to us will be told the outcome directly.
— Maggie Dennis at Community Resilience & Sustainability/Response to Open letter to the Wikimania community July 26

–M

The title of this entry is from the Abstract Wikipedia article on itself.

A Request for comment has opened over on Meta Wiki about Abstract Wikipedia. Discussion is ongoing about whether rolling out to more languages should be paused, the project should be closed, or the Foundation should have more "transparency" about the project. Originally approved by the Board of Trustees in 2020, the project aims to provide a way for smaller language Wikipedias to access articles in their language. The community has raised concerns about allowing the integration of Abstract Wikipedia into small-language Wikipedias given its current state. The Wikimedia Foundation has responded on Meta-Wiki, expressing confidence in its approach to natural language generation and the improvement of project quality over time, and acknowledging the difficulty of navigating documentation and reporting on the project's development.

Relevant links:

• Request for Comment on Abstract Wikipedia
• Response from the project team to the criticism

– M

Brief notes

• New administrators: The Signpost welcomes the English Wikipedia's newest administrators, MCE89 and Staraction, elected through "old fashioned" requests for adminship. Of note, a handful of editors opposed both RfAs explaining they saw open-ended support of the Wikimedia Foundation workers' union (see above and prior Signpost coverage) as potentially damaging to the project.
• Articles for Improvement: This week's Article for Improvement is Customer experience, and next week's (starting 3 August) is HDR10. Please be bold in helping improve these articles!