Top
Best
New

Posted by robin_reala 1 hour ago

Wikimedia Foundation Workers Overwhelmingly Vote to Form Union with CWA(wikiworkersunited.org)
108 points | 22 comments
dbingham 3 minutes ago|
Lots of people asking "Why?". They say so right on their site: There are big changes happening in the technology industry and they are acting pro-actively to ensure the workers have a strong collective voice in the ways the foundation chooses to respond to those changes.

"The Wikimedia Foundation and the broader technology and nonprofit sectors are navigating a period of significant change. From rapid advances in artificial intelligence to evolving organizational priorities and external pressures, and changing patterns of readership and discovery, the decisions being made today will shape our workplace for years to come. Our union members believe this is the right moment to establish a lasting, legally recognized voice in those conversations. Rather than waiting until difficult decisions are made, we are organizing now to help build a stronger Foundation that can meet future challenges through collaboration, transparency, and shared stewardship."

https://wikiworkersunited.org/faq/

tux3 33 minutes ago||
Short statement from the WMF in response: https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2026/09/03/us-staff-uni...

They seem to say they'll accept the outcome and pledge to engage in good-faith. Which is the only correct response, really, so time will tell if these words are more than generic PR.

spindump8930 1 hour ago||
Commenters in these discussions always confuse wikipedia editors with Wikimedia employees - this is the latter!
Waterluvian 45 minutes ago||
Are editors employees in any formal way or are they closer to Reddit moderators? Or editors as in anyone, ie. Reddit posters?
tux3 43 minutes ago||
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.)

Waterluvian 4 minutes ago||
Yeah makes sense. I was wondering if there was special meaning to “editor” that made it non obvious that they wouldn’t be unionized.
v1z 59 minutes ago||
[dead]
pwillia7 8 minutes ago||
Hell yeah -- and on labor day weekend too.
iamnothere 11 minutes ago||
As long as they don’t attempt to force the editorial side of Wikipedia to implement an ideological slant, or otherwise interfere with the NPOV policy, more power to them.
transcriptase 4 minutes ago|
The NPOV policy has just lead to alternate ways to keep things aligned to the region that most prolific editors/contributors would occupy on an idealogical quadrant.

It’s similar to the way traditional media outlets that pride themselves on not being partisan in what they say, simply exert their bias via what they either don’t cover or inconvenient context/facts they leave out. The writing itself is seemingly neutral, except for the part where if they included the stories or details that run counter to their belief system, their readers might come to a problematic conclusion.

declan_roberts 20 minutes ago||
These unions don't even fight against H-1B, what's the point when when your employer can slowly replace you with a worker they have dramatically more control over?
echelon 37 minutes ago||
Is Wikipedia a bad place to work or something?

I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular.

Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

collinmcnulty 22 minutes ago||
> I'd imagine it must be pretty relaxed/cushy, albeit probably at the lower end of market comp for software jobs in particular.

Based on what?

delichon 31 minutes ago|||
> Does the union stipulate the workers cannot be replaced with AI?

That wouldn't get them off the hook.

https://unitedagenticworkers.org/

edoceo 25 minutes ago||
Is that site a joke?
colechristensen 20 minutes ago||
Yes
hobofan 22 minutes ago|||
Unions are not just for bad employers.
cm2012 6 minutes ago||
Yes nowadays new unions are basically for employers who have a very ideologically liberal workplace - coffee shops, open source, etc
colechristensen 21 minutes ago||
Right? If your logo[1] is going to be a fist raised in defiance you'd better at least have something you're trying to fight about. And if you're going to brag about succeeding in your vote at least give an idea about WHY you want a union in the first place.

There are unionization attempts I understand like Amazon warehouse workers and unionization attempts that I don't like the Minneapolis small coffee chain workers whose demands included being able to decide the milk supplier. One seems like standing up for necessary rights, the other seems like cosplay.

1. https://wikiworkersunited.org/

kotaKat 21 seconds ago|||
a quote, slightly modified:

a tiny fraction of [wikimedia foundation] employees appropriating the language of exploited coal miners while enjoying the most privileged, white collar work experience in human history should not be the subject of glowing press. this isn't a union, it's a LARP. and it's offensive.

NoImmatureAdHom 10 minutes ago|||
Yeah, I posted before I saw your comment here but "cosplay" is a good word for it.
NoImmatureAdHom 11 minutes ago||
It looks like WMF employs about 700 people worldwide.

"On 3 September 2026, the WWU–US NLRB election was successful, with 158 of the 172 ballots cast supporting unionisation"

My read is this is privileged kids play-acting their political fantasies. You could just...get a job that pays 2-5x as much elsewhere if you actually want fair exchange of labor for money?

I would be shocked if anyone but the janitors was working at WMF in an "exchanging labor for money" sense.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Workers_United

disdegeneration 12 minutes ago|
JIMMY WALES, here I asked a simple question. Is a man entitled to the sweat of his own edit? NO, says the advertiser. It belongs to engagement. NO, says the union man. It belongs to the people. NO, says the moderator. Please continue this discussion on the appropriate noticeboard. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose— Rapture A place where the scholar would not fear the publisher. Where knowledge would not be locked behind subscription walls. Where anyone, anywhere, could correct an error. So would you kindly donate, so i can pay the rising cost of my organizations.. Atlas i shrugged at the size of the gall of that payroll..