User talk:Jimbo Wales

"intellectual diversity" now an article

Just to notify you: Intellectual diversity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). George Ho (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps Jimbo might like to comment in the thread I started on the talk page, regarding whether the article actually has a clear topic at all or is concocting one out of diverse sources that use the phrase 'intellectual diversity' to mean several entirely different things. To quote your lede: "The definition and usage of this term have varied over time". That's not 'a term', it's two words found next to each other. It's possible that in later years, and in one particular context there is some sort of vague agreement about what this two-word phrase might mean, but even that doesn't make the two-words-together-occurrence a topic in of its own right, as far as I can see. Certainly not one that makes out that usages entirely beyond this particular discourse (the usual repetitive US-focussed academic 'culture wars' one) are actually discussing the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on whether this should be an encyclopedia article. For a broader understanding of the question I'd look for other articles that are arguably "two words next to each other" and I'd look at sources. As ever, in difficult situations, I would personally take a "wait and see" approach - let the article flourish for awhile to see if it makes sense.

An obvious concern that we should have here is that there is, quite separately from questions of an article, a lot of debate about the term *within Wikipedia*, where I think it patently obvious that we should value and seek out intellectual diversity in our contributor base in order to help us to avoid bias. People who disagree with that (at least some of whom are egregious POV pushers) may have a bias against an article like that even existing I suppose. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I'm of the opinion that before seeking something out, one should at least attempt to come to some sort of vague idea as to what it is one is seeking. 'Intellectual diversity' certainly sounds like something nobody should object to, but that's how buzzwords often work. 'Intellectual diversity' appears to me to be a 21st-century 'Motherhood and apple pie' phrase, concocted not for meaning (which nobody can agree on) but for effect (which is largely down to its vague nice-soundingness, and avoidance of definition). Certainly, Wikipedia needs diversity amongst its contributors, and from the sources it builds its articles from, but that isn't going to be achieved by parroting vague phrases from a hot-topic discourse within a section of the potential editing community that is already over-represented. While I'm not surprised that Larry fails to take into account Wikipedia's global readership and contributorship, I'm disappointed to see you doing the same, Jimbo. Wikipedia's problems with a lack of diversity aren't going to be solved by buzzwords, or by building policy around political debates within one particular country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with you completely. And I don't think anything is going to be solved by buzzwords nor by building policy around political debates within one particular country. I don't see any point or meaning to your comment whatsoever. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

The article was recently changed almost completely by Voorts... or rather Voorts narrowed down the scope of the article. Have you reread the article yet? George Ho (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

I haven't but I'll have a look. As I say, I don't really have a strong view about this as an article. It's an important concept for us to think about in terms of community health, civility, quality, and avoiding bias. But that's a different question from whether it's a concept that needs an article. (My instinct is yes, but as I say, I don't really have a strong view.) Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I've edited that article a bit and looked at some sources. Intellectual Diversity and the Mission of Higher Education, was somewhat interesting, the authors said basically "Instead of trying to define intellectual diversity, we'll try for something more productive." I found this quote of theirs interesting: "Perhaps surprisingly, we are largely united in the view that most colleges and universities simply do need more ideas and methodologies often associated with political conservatism in order to achieve their mission.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• It's an important concept for us to think about in terms of community health, civility, quality, and avoiding bias.

  In other words, this you said is you think more important than the Wikipedia article about the term itself, right? With all due respect, without (re)reading this Wikipedia article that I submitted for AFC review, i.e. wanted to be re-moved to the Draft namespace, how else have you defined "intellectual diversity"? The term/phrase itself has no unified definition among especially academics, indeed. BTW, the Larry Sanger article now includes the "intellectual diversity" one in its "See also" section. —George Ho (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  OTOH, WP is not an American college. The sources we use in that article talks about it in that context. If people use it in internal WP-discussions, they'll probably use a what-I-see-as-common-sense meaning. I think both Jimmy and Larry do that. Trying to hammer out a WP:Intellectual diversity policy may not be time well spent either. Perhaps those who want to work at improving WP:s internal intellectual diversity should consider "Wikipedia had no formal rule addressing AI-generated content for nearly 3 years after ChatGPT’s launch. This was not for lack of concern but for an excess of ambition: the community’s instinct toward comprehensive regulation collided with the structural constraints of consensus-based governance, producing two failed RfCs and a prolonged regulatory vacuum. The eventual breakthroughs—G15 and WP:NEWLLM—succeeded because they were narrow, objective, and deliberately incomplete. They targeted specific, identifiable harms while deferring the contested normative questions that had sunk earlier proposals." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the article (I've just glanced over it while writing another comment here) is currently very narrowly construed in a way that I think attempts to pigeonhole this idea as some kind of right-wing view, which it obviously isn't. At times in the past when various institutions of all kind were populated solely with people of the dominant perspective of that time they would have benefitted (and sometimes eventually did benefit) from opening their minds to dissenting views and having more viewpoint diversity around the table. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, it's a new article. It can improve as more WP-good sources are found. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:49, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP is not an American college.

  Sure, it's not. Indeed, the WP:academic use essay has treated all encyclopedias like starting points especially for research, and many colleges and universities may still have policies against Wikipedia itself... right? Nonetheless, let's not underestimate an incentive by academics to use or contribute Wikipedia in some ways or whatever. Also, even our relationships with academic editors are important. George Ho (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think you are asking me what I mean by the term and that's certainly a good question. I would say that intellectual diversity, in Wikipedia, means an inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought. I am in agreement with academic organizations who have a long history of supporting academic freedom in order to protect the open exchange of ideas. I think we should always foster thoughtful, respectful, and evidence-based discourse.

  I think my views here are not controversial at all, and if they are I would very much like to learn more about why. It seems transparently obvious to me that our articles on economics, for example, benefit from the sharp eye of experts from various schools of thought working together harmoniously in good faith whether they be Marxist or Keynesian or Austrian.

  And any attempt to portray this as some kind of "right wing" view (as the current version of the article seems to want to do) seems doomed to fail for the obvious reason that it cuts in all directions. We hear correct and heartfelt pleas for it from genuinely marginalised groups as well as from, yes, conservative academics. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  Dunno whether the article's current portrayal as some kind of "right wing" view is doomed to fail as you have predicted. Actually, as indicated, an "intellectual diversity"-related policy in colleges and universities has consequences, especially if academics have already warned about the vagueness of the term itself. Speaking of vagueness, apparently, right-leaning folks, including (but not limited to) politicians, may have exploited the term and its vagueness especially for their own goals (as indicated in the article about the "political term" itself).

  I appreciate your willingness to have conservative academics included in the atmosphere like this, but let's be careful before making "intellectual diversity" a rule in Wikipedia. Well, I'm thinking about writing the essay WP:Intellectual diversity must not be a rule someday. George Ho (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think intellectual diversity ought to be a rule in the same way and for the same reason that NPOV ought to be a rule. What are you arguments against it? Do you suppose Wikipedia would be improved by not having an inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought? I can't imagine that you really think that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  A few or several academics were sanctioned under an Indiana law that supposedly promotes "intellectual diversity"... but also prohibits lecturing political views. One of them had her teaching contract expired without renewal for that. Imagine what would happen to editors if "intellectual diversity" becomes a rule in Wikipedia.

  Trying to enforce an "intellectual diversity" rule, even with some clarity, would severely affect not only diverse range of articles but also inadvertently and implicitly promote false info about often-debunked topics. (Academics have argued how punitive and vague "intellectual diversity"-based rules have been.) Also, I'd be more worried about editors being solely concerned about "intellectual diversity" but also ignoring all other rules without second thoughts or whatever. George Ho (talk) 09:08, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Intellectual diversity is already inherently implied through our NPOV aspect of Impartiality. If we were impartial in things like source analysis, editor behavior analysis, and the like we would have greater intellectual diversity. --Kyohyi (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think that's right. They definitely go hand in hand. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  @George Ho I'm not sure I'm following you here so I want to give you the opportunity to explain. First, we already have a very firm rule about NPOV which is obviously very closely related - do you think that's problematic? Or do you support it? If you support it, can you give me an example of how promoting the idea of intellectual diversity is problematic but requiring NPOV is not?

  Second, and you'll surely notice that I'm rejecting firmly your scare quotes around the concept of intellectual diversity because I feel like you're using them to suggest something that I don't mean at all, and that no one serious is proposing. I'm reading it as if you're saying "so-called intellectual diversity" every time you say it, as if you might (? am I right) support the idea of intellectual diversity but are opposed to some kind of fake intellectual diversity? If that's what you're saying then of course I agree but that's kind of irrelevant since it isn't relevant to what I'm saying in the first place.

  Finally, it strikes me as an implausible thing to say that "an inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought" would somehow "would severely affect [... a] diverse range of articles". Can you give an example of that? Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think the foundational text opposing intellectual diversity on Wikipedia is WP:Lunatic charlatans, an immortalized text by a prominent Wikipedian that always struck me as uncivil but correct. Sesquilinear (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• First, we already have a very firm rule about NPOV which is obviously very closely related - do you think that's problematic? Or do you support it?

  Frankly, I'm struggling to follow. Why do you think NPOV and viewpoint/intellectual diversity are closely related? Neutral point of view means a viewpoint should be totally neutral, especially when attributing reliable sources. People with heavy bias may ignore NPOV policy and rather insert multiple viewpoints of their own. Also, NPOV ≠ intellectual diversity. Perhaps intellectual diversity stuff in Wikipedia may be... more civility-related perhaps?

I'll address your second and third points soon. —George Ho (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

NPOV and intellectual diversity are closely related in exactly the ways that I've said. I don't quite understand what's missing for you. Having people with diverse knowledge backgrounds helps ensure that errors are biases are spotted. Getting together a group of people all on one side of a political debate is not likely to result in a neutral article. You said it yourself: people with a heavy bias may ignore NPOV policy and rather insert multiple viewpoints of thier own. That's why it's important to have a diversity of people in the room, otherwise no one will be around to spot that and bring about positive change. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Having people with diverse knowledge backgrounds helps ensure that errors are biases are spotted.

Did you mean other kinds of diversity, like racial diversity and cultural diversity and other kinds explained at diversity (politics)? Honestly, diverse knowledge backgrounds would mean anything, not just intellectual diversity or viewpoint diversity.

That's why it's important to have a diversity of people in the room, otherwise no one will be around to spot that and bring about positive change.

All kinds of diversity, ya mean?

NPOV and intellectual diversity are closely related in exactly the ways that I've said.

In that case, I may wanna ask others then at WT:NPOV (or WP:VPP) about connection between NPOV and (your definition of) intellectual diversity. Indeed, I've done my best to make you reconsider intellectual diversity. George Ho (talk) 08:06, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed and you've not persuaded me at all. It seems simple to me: if you have ideologically uniform people all editing an article, the result is not as likely to result in an NPOV outcome than if you have people of different perspectives working together in good faith. You've said nothing that even calls that into doubt as far as I can see! Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:36, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

• When I said civility-related, I should've said perhaps civility towards especially heavily biased editors, e.g. conservatives... and liberals.

  Second, and you'll surely notice that I'm rejecting firmly your scare quotes around the concept of intellectual diversity because I feel like you're using them to suggest something that I don't mean at all, and that no one serious is proposing.

  I didn't mean to make scare quotes, ya know. I just have been figuring out whether there has been such a thing as intellectual diversity.

  I'm reading it as if you're saying "so-called intellectual diversity" every time you say it, as if you might (? am I right) support the idea of intellectual diversity but are opposed to some kind of fake intellectual diversity? If that's what you're saying then of course I agree but that's kind of irrelevant since it isn't relevant to what I'm saying in the first place.

  Real vs. fake intellectual diversity, huh? I'm thinking certain editors, especially ones whose critical thinking has been lacking these days, have had a hard time to distinguish a real intellectual diversity from a fake "intellectual diversity". Academics might have had a hard time too.

  Can you give an example of that?

  One lecturer taught how bad and related white supremacy and MAGA stuff are at a diversity-related class. She lost her job for that under a state's "intellectual diversity" rule. I'm thinking that such related articles would be affected or challenged somehow. Another sanctioned professor expressed how much of a bad guy Israeli military is at Gaza. I'm thinking articles related to ongoing Arab–Israeli conflicts would be also affected... or worsened than before. Let's not forget race- and sexuality-related articles under the name of... well, intellectual diversity. Not to mention pseudoscience and abortion. Are my points clear and plausible to you? —George Ho (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I believe I know who you are talking about, so I'm going to try adding some more context. First the law bars using classroom time to lecture on classroom time to lecture on political views not related to their field. And the two people I believe are being brought up are Jessica Adams, a lecturer on social work, and Benjamin Robinson, a Germanic studies lecturer. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:11, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about either of those cases, but I also don't really see the relevance for our discussion. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

Well then too bad. I've realized just now how much of a spokesman you've been about especially intellectual diversity and how much faith you have on an inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought. Nonetheless, please be careful of trying to achieve such inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought, If you push too hard, that would put left-leaning editors on the line or put off such editors, right?

Also, please look up updates about Jessica Adams and Benjamin Robinson before trying to promote an inclusive approach to engaging thoughtfully with a wide range of ideas, political affiliations, and schools of thought. All right? George Ho (talk) 07:56, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

If we have left leaning editors who seek to exclude other viewpoints, then I think it would on the whole be a good thing if they were put off from being that way. This is not wokipiedia, nor should it be. That sort of battleground mentality is unwelcome. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

My first link here was probably too clever (and victim to a dedent), but you weren't nearly this concerned about exclud[ing] other viewpoints when it was the Association for Comprehensive Energy Psychology. And while, again, I don't endorse your language there, it seems pretty obvious to me that the unwoke position has the same relationship to research in the humanities as ACEP's does to that in science (an EXPERTSPS on this that is worth reading ), and this is before we get into why RFK Jr is in the current Trump administration and what he's doing. Sesquilinear (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm really sorry but I'm not really clear on what you are saying or asking! And I mean that: I am really sorry that I can't quite get it. I don't think that intellectual diversity means we have to treat crackpots as being the equivalent of serious and widely held positions in society.

Here's one bad approach: "we know what is true, and anyone who disagrees should be treated as a crazy person." And here's another bad approach "no one knows anything, so we should treat every position as equally valid."

The right approach, the classic Wikipedia approach, is to seek consensus in the sources and consensus in the community about what the consensus in the sources actually is. We can both discount "the moon is made of cheese" as a joke position and we can also step back from trying to give a final adjudication on every controversy in the world.

Of course this leaves a wide range of things that we should discuss, assuming good faith, trying as much as we can to not take sides in any legitimate controversy. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are to entertain the idea that "left leaning editors who seek to exclude other viewpoints" are a substantial problem, can you please point me to some reliable sources on that matter? 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

thats clear from anyone that has seen a few of these discussions. There are a small number of editors some with significant experience, that want to be an ivory tower on some topics and not even consider possible discussion of material that is not from their desired sources. Now, some of that likely comes from being jaded over years of IPs/anon users trying to push for inclusion of material that would never meet our content policies. But this also leads to these editors rejecting even moderate positions that come from maybe not top quality RSes but RSes nevertheless. Masem (t) 12:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

If you can (not forcing you), can you please lead me to at least one of those discussions? I've seen some political discussions before and I've never once saw editors take extreme or irrational decisions in the name of being liberal. 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

You're mentioned elsewhere and it's not a good look

In this blog post, a former employee of the WMF states:

When I asked my colleagues what could be done about this, how should I proceed, and what have they tried, what I heard back was very discouraging. My colleagues shared prior attempts to work with WMF’s HR, leadership and Board of Trustees (BoT) through similar issues. These attempts were mostly unsuccessful, and left many people feeling betrayed and distrustful of all three of these groups that were supposed to support and lead them in doing their best work for the Wikimedia movement community. Things looked quite bleak. It seemed that there was no one who could conduct an objective investigation into the unethical conduct I observed, nor into the broader systemic leadership misconduct patterns described by my colleagues. Even the BoT and Jimmy Wales most likely would not help, according to my colleagues, because in the past, when employees came to them reporting serious problems with WMF leadership, they would simply delegate solving those problems back to WMF leadership, to the same people who were causing the problems.

I think this person has a tremendous amount of integrity for refusing to accept being forced into silence in exchange for $26,000 severance. This post is incredibly detailed and is unfortunately yet more proof that what's been happening internally is not morally or ethically right. It's not the first time I've heard stories like it, either. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

$26,000 in hush money?! SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup, that seems questionable on its own. Why would the WMF consider such an inducement necessary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Having non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements is a very standard corporate practice. Particularly if someone's leaving because of a dispute. Of course, if you don't sign the agreement you don't get the severance package. Endwise (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This isn't the case everywhere. Just because it's standard for corporate America doesn't make it right. I see it as a significant human rights issue. Where I live, you'd be breaking the law if you withheld severance by requiring someone sign an NDA to get it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

A blog post such as this one on a "Wikifired" website wouldn't be regarded as a reliable source for a WP:BLP on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why the blog is "yet more proof that what's been happening internally is not morally or ethically right".

I have no idea whether the allegations in the blog are true or not, but a blog post doesn't qualify as proof for me. The WP:SPS guidelines "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. Self-published material, such as books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs), content farms, podcasts, Internet forum posts, and social media posts, are largely not acceptable as sources" would place a question mark for me over the source and I treat the allegations in the blog with caution rather than proof. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that there are essentially no Wikipedia-standard reliable sources for verifying these kinds of allegations of employee misconduct because it appears that most fired WMF employees sign non-disparagement clauses in exchange for severance pay, rendering them unable to conduct interviews or otherwise report the misconduct to secondary sources.

This scenario is a good example of why Wikipedia sourcing guidelines usually only make sense when applied to mainspace content verification. Outside of mainspace, blogs from former WMF employees are among the best possible sources for knowing what is happening internally, as the WMF, like all organizations, has a strong incentive to deny allegations of misconduct regardless of whether or not they are true, and official communications from the WMF are pretty much guaranteed to be sanitized by the PR department. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Based on my own experience, the non-disclosure clause of the settlement agreement is much more broad, and therefore restrictive of possible behavior and communications, than the non-disparagement clause even though non-disparagement gets the headlines. brooke (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

(And yes I paid a lawyer to look at it and give me advice.) brooke (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This discussion is not for article. Wikipedia's reliable source policy is irrelevant here. 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is the board getting directly involved in individual HR issues would both eat a lot of their time (which is why their starting position is going to be that they will be unwilling to want to) and functionally indicate a loss of faith in at least a section of senior management and all the issues that would cause (it would functionally be a demand for resignations of said senior management). It has sort of been done with the Lila Tretikov mess but simply stabilising from the fallout of that took years. The intended way of acting is that they appoint an ED good enough that they address any such issues.©Geni (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see what casts me personally in a bad light in that? Someone speculates, incorrectly, that in the case of a report to me of "unethical conduct" I would simply delegate back to the WMF leadership. That description - that there's some kind of unethical conduct - covers a wide range of different hypotheticals and of course there would be many different correct responses depending on the detail. Some of those would involve discussion with the WMF management, some would involve discussion with HR/legal, some would involve discussion with the board chair or wider board.

The other thing to note, as has been noted, is that "non-disparagement clauses in severance agreements is a very standard corporate practice". I think the WMF should as a general rule be as generous with severance packages as we can (consistent with responsibility to be responsible stewards of donor money, etc.). I don't know where you live, Clovermoss, but I very much doubt you are right about the law. Of course it would be in many places breaking the law to refuse some statutory minimum by making it somehow conditional. But for a generous package that isn't legally required, I don't know of any jurisdiction where it would be illegal to offer it nor to accept it contingent on signing a normal agreement.

Finally, @Geni is also right - it wouldn't be appropriate at all for individual board members to get involved in every individual HR issue. That's a recipe for disaster. But there's also a willingness on the part of at least me on the board to get involved where I see an opportunity to be helpful or to steer the WMF toward what I hope will always be the case: the WMF should be an amazing and joyful place to work, with highest ethical standards, and a hard working staff with a team player mentality who are energized by our mission. Within that, of course there are going to always be tensions and complications and necessary changes that won't always sit well with everyone - and I think in general even those who don't agree with a particular decision will agree that the WMF does have to set direction and do things and not do other things. That in and of itself shouldn't be a major issue.

Finally one last thing to add: having read this linked blog post: I don't know who wrote it, I don't know what happened, and I just note that as far as I am aware no one came to me about any of it. I can be reached in the usual ways and people should also note that because my email is overwhelmed I can't actually read all of it. A note left here asking me to check my email is always a good idea, or if more privacy is desired, a note to jwalesassist@gmail.com just to tell my assistant the subject line and sending email address of something that someone feels it urgent for me to see will also be helpful. Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Jimbo Wales, now that you're aware of the event, do you commit to commenting on it in detail after relevant details are shared with you? (As they probably will be) Egezort (talk) 16:12, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I can't really commit to commenting on something when I don't even know what it is, obviously. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good look for people to not feel comfortable bringing up systemic issues to you as a person and to feel like it'd be pointless to even try. Your response here convinces me that this person's fear was entirely warranted. But this isn't the first time I've heard concerning stories from former employees and even current ones. There's troubling patterns here. If I was in your shoes, I'd want to create an environment where this wasn't the case.

I don't know why I came here when you were so hostile during the initial CommTech discussions and insisted that I was misleading people. I guess I keep hoping that I might be able to convince you to do something when all the power I have is my words. I often spend so much of my time wishing I could do something more than that in my life when it comes to many things and angry at the people who choose not to do anything when they can. I often think about that NYC mayor showing that it's possible to get many things done if people simply care and don't decide that it's not their problem.

As for severance, there are legal minimums for severance in many places, where it's a right and not a privilege. See this for information about my province. Non-dispargement clauses are human rights issues for me. The fact that they're normal in the United States doesn't make the practice right, and isn't one of your values freedom of speech? The United States has an abysmal track record when it comes to workers' rights and being able to fire someone and hold severance over their head like that bothers me immensely. The Wikimedia Foundation should be better than that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I have not been hostile to anyone in any commtech discussions. I did point out that you were misleading people at one point, and you seemed to later concede that you had gotten my position wrong. I'm not angry with you and there's no reason for you to be angry at me that I'm aware of. Many times over the past week I have told people that I think highly of you, and I still do.

In the present instance, I really don't understand what you mean by this: "I don't think it's a good look for people to not feel comfortable bringing up systemic issues to you as a person and to feel like it'd be pointless to even try. Your response here convinces me that this person's fear was entirely warranted." My response to the inquiry was to say that I'm open to hearing from people, that I would not just dismiss any such allegation, and that I'll take it seriously. I even gave advice on how people might best make 100% sure that they can reach me either publicly or privately. What else might you hope for from me, other than to say that? Serious question, because if there's something I've missed I'd sure love to know and to clarify!

Finally, not that either you nor I are employment lawyers, I got curious and did some searching. and discuss nondisparagement and nondisclosure clauses in the context of Ontario law. As in California and other US states, these are widely used in severance situations and as in California and other US states, there are some strict limits on them. Neither you nor I can do anything about that but my point is just that they are very common.

Since I live in the UK and I was curious about it, I read this as well: I haven't had time to look at Europe but I assume the same situation holds there as well, at least broadly.

In California, and again I'm not an employment lawyer of course (!), non-compete agreements are generally not legally valid whereas they broadly are legally valid in the UK. I prefer the complete ban on them that California law has. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Maybe you should take some time to reflect on why she may be unhappy with you, but I can see why she would be displeased (and I agree with her). Maybe you don't realize that you're being very dismissive towards her, but the last few messages I've seen both talk down to her and are not respectful at all in my opinion. Abzeronow (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I've been angry at Jimmy for months now and that anger is a rational reaction to what I've been experiencing. This conversation in itself feels like gaslighting. There's a reason I did as much as possible to avoid him, other board members, and executives at wikimania. Any trust I used to have has been broken for a long time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Your link to non-dispargement clauses in ontario is for non-dispargement clauses in divorce proceedings. Presumably that is not applicable to employment matters. That said IANAL, but as far as i can tell, they are generally allowed as long as they aren't used to cover up misconduct (and have to be in exchange for severance pay beyond legal minimums or some other form of compensation), the link is just for the wrong type of non-dispargement clause. Given that the WMF allegedly has a standard separation agreement, i think it would do a lot to reassure the community if WMF just published the agreement. It would cut through the fear, uncertainty and doubt. Bawolff (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not saying they don't exist at all, but a minimum legal severance exists, and that is not the case in the United States. I have heard from numerous former employees that you either sign the non-dispargement clause or get nothing and that's extra messed up in a place with at-will employment and affordable healthcare being tied to if you have a decent job or not. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:18, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The UK example is about settlement agreements. It is a very different kettle of fish from standard severance pay. Settlement agreements are about financial compensation and terms agreed in exchange for an employee giving up the right to bring employment claims to a tribunal. Andreas JN466 23:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

But there's also a willingness on the part of at least me on the board to get involved where I see an opportunity to be helpful or to steer the WMF toward what I hope will always be the case: the WMF should be an amazing and joyful place to work, with highest ethical standards, and a hard working staff with a team player mentality who are energized by our mission.

Will you get involved to stop the use of non-disparagement clauses (not non-disclosure clauses) in employment and severance agreements? Because if employees are prohibited from disparaging the WMF, then how could we ever know if the WMF is an amazing and joyful place to work, with the highest ethical standards, etc.? Levivich (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Such severance agreements are routine and I believe broadly a good thing. They are generally two-way - mutual non-disparagement clauses also help employees who have left so that a company doesn't afterwards bad mouth them. What I would support is a regular program of employee satisfaction surveys with published metrics, and of course we are in the unusual position that a huge portion of the staff are in one way or another community facing. In an ideal state, people would be very satisfied with their work and vocal about it.

There's a lot of nuance here, of course. What is the wording? Is it part of an employment contract from the start, or something brought in during a separation? Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Hasn't WMF done regular cultureAmp surveys for years now? Publishing the metrics and trends would certainly be nice. Bawolff (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

That's true, severance agreements with non-disparagement clauses are routine at least in the US and some other countries. But as other editors have pointed out elsewhere: just because something is common doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean the WMF must, or should, do it.

I don't know whether the non-disparagement clauses used by the WMF are mutual or one-way, or whether they're in employment agreements or just severance agreements. But while I agree severance agreements are a good thing, I cannot imagine how a non-disparagement clause, one that protects the WMF, is a good thing.

One of my favorite things about Wikipedia -- and the reason that I think it worked in practice but not in theory -- is its commitment to transparency. You and the other people who founded this site really got it right on this score. I like to say Wikipedia's tagline is "transparency and accountability through excellent record-keeping." It's the page histories that makes crowdsourcing work, IMO. It's such a core value. I cannot reconcile that value with prohibiting employees from publicly speaking ill of the WMF. Why do you think such a prohibition is a good thing? Levivich (talk) 23:11, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - The blog post doesn't show unethical behavior. Anyone who has worked in the American workforce for even a brief period of time will have seen fairly extraordinary behavior of all sorts. The blog post describes ordinary office discussions, some of which made the poster uncomfortable. The biggest issue is a financial one: to what extent should certain components of WMF finances and impacts be fully public, or not? I have no problem with the community discussing this of course, but I assume the WMF makes such decisions in the best interest of Wikipedia unless that's proven otherwise. Whether you believe that or not, I can't see anything here. -Darouet (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Why Not?

یا نَورَ النُّورِ

Dear Mr. Jimmy Wales,

I trust this message finds you in good health and continued purpose. I write to you, with profound respect for the extraordinary vision you brought into being, to share a matter of quiet concern regarding the collaborative spirit that has long defined the project you founded. Despite my consistent efforts to contribute with care, accuracy, and the purest of intentions — seeking only to expand knowledge and understanding — a number of my edits have been reverted. This has occurred even when the changes were limited to constructive linking or modest improvements, and even when I acted upon your own personal page. Such reversions, though no doubt undertaken with diligence by others, have left me questioning whether the pathways for well-intentioned contribution remain as open as the founding ideals once promised.

As the originator of this remarkable endeavor, you stand in a unique position — not merely as its founder, but in many ways as its enduring guardian. Just as a parent watches over the growth of a child, so too might your continued guidance, or the appointment of trusted stewards who share your original spirit of openness and curiosity, help ensure that the project remains true to its highest purpose. My own aim, as Dardaneh Amiri, has never been otherwise than the quiet advancement of awareness — the simple belief that knowledge, freely shared and carefully tended, benefits us all.

I offer these reflections in a spirit of genuine respect and shared commitment to the work you began. With sincere regards,

Dardaneh Amiri

هُوَ اللَّهُ الْوَاحِدُ الْقَهَّارُ Dordaneh Amiri (talk) 06:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

looking at a few of what you had reverted i see two common issues. First is over linking of common terms. There is a density and appropriateness for links covered at MOS:LINK for when a link is appropriate or not. Second is that some material added is from primary sources. We can use primary sources but there are a lot more concerns to avoid using those for promotional, trivia, and other such content. These are both common new editor struggles and it just takes experience to know how to avoid or properly use both. Masem (t) 13:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Petition to BoT

As one of the more prominent Board of Trustee members, I want to direct your attention to this growing petition to instruct WMF CEO to recognize the US and other Wiki Workers United union recognition requests. Meta:2026 recognize Wiki Workers United petition.

At best, the WMF believes that a majority of its US staff are lying when they sign union cards and wants additional verification. At worst, the WMF knows that a majority of its staff have signed union cards and hopes that, over the upcoming months, pro-union staff will vote against in a desperate bid to make this stressful situation go away. Communication Workers of America, the union representing US WWU staff, has a union-election success rate of 80%, above average for private-sector unions. They are serious about winning and have dealt with employers far worse than Wikimedia, so even with NLRB elections, there is good reason to be optimistic, but it is clear we cannot be complacent. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Since you're only drawing my attention to this, I won't respond directly exactly but just point out some factual errors. First, absolutely no one believes any staff are lying when they sign their cards. I have been talking to board and staff and I haven't heard even the slightest suggestion of that! I don't even understand why you or anyone else would come to that conclusion. Surely you understand that the WMF leadership aren't stupid, and it would be a really weird and stupid thing to reach for that conclusion. We should all just dismiss this idea as ridiculous right away. If there is anyone who thinks staff are lying they should speak up and explain why but that isn't going to happen because no one thinks that!

Second, and I can only speak for myself here, I believe the most likely outcome of the vote that we are requesting is unionisation. I don't support it "in a desperate bid to make this stressful situation go away," I support it because a secret ballot election is clean and easy and the right way to do things. Why the union folks want to cut short the process I don't fully know - if they are confident, and all evidence is that they should be, then we should just get moving on it. There's absolutely no reason for us to have all this toxic and clearly false rhetoric about staff lying or whatever else. There's going to be an election and that's the right thing to do.

Look - in good democratic countries we don't look at poll numbers and decide 'oh, Trump is likely to win, let's not have an election'. We don't look at our WMF board elections in advance and see "oh, this person has huge support, the WMF should just appoint them and not have an election". Indeed, in either of those cases people would quite rightly be outraged.

Assume good faith. If someone says that employees are lying, then call them out on it. Don't make up wild accusations that muddy the water. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to regret getting drawn into this, but when you say things, like the election will be "clean", that implies that you feel the previous process was not clean. Its hard to interpret that in any other way then you believe staff are lying or some sort of misconduct took place. In real democratic countries, we generally only have one election. We have two elections if some sort of misconduct took place in the first one. Its hard to read WMF's insistence on a fresh election as anything other than a belief that some misconduct took place during the first. Bawolff (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales it is encouraging to hear a direct statement that you believe staff, when they say a majority of staff signed union cards. The Foundation statement says [staff] ...hold a wide range of views on unionization which states that it is unknown what the majority of staff want and that only a government supervised union-election could reveal this deep unknown. The statement further makes arguments to insinuate that a CWA bargaining unit would isolate the US staff (excluding managers) from the 309 global staff, without even acknowledging the UK-majority of staff similarly unionizing in the 2nd largest location or the broader global nature of Wiki Workers United. It also implies that staff do not want to unionize with Foundation leadership respects the right of staff to unionize, if they choose to do so....as if staff have not indicated any preference by signing union cards. What in your generous take is the point of signing union-cards or requesting voluntary recognition then? ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The point of signing union cards is to initiate the election process. I support that. I support the right of staff to organize and I welcome the upcoming vote. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Is it possible that this discussion is a big misunderstanding? The union card is publicly available. Which statement in there would make staff believe that the point of signing union cards is to initiate a secondary process? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:05, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not feel the previous process was not clean. Please don't read between the lines to discover things you think I might believe that I don't! Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Respectfully, its difficult to reconcile your statements together. You claim that you support it because a secret ballot election is clean and easy. You are also claiming the previous process was clean. I'm not sure what the good faith interpretation of these two statements together is. Are you supporting the new secret ballot election for no reason at all? Why would you support repeating the process if you believe the original process was conducted cleanly and accurately reflects the will of the staff? Bawolff (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Jimmy, I think you may have some misunderstandings about what union cards represent? When an employee signs a union card, it is an expression that they want to be represented by that union. It is not an expression that they want to vote, or that they are maybe-kinda-interested. So with a supermajority of employees having signed union cards, they have already expressed their desires to be represented in this way. That is, the democratic part you desire has already occurred.

The WMF could recognize the union right now, if they wanted to acknowledge that. If the WMF executive are sceptical - because they believe unionizing workers were somehow misled, that the workers were lying, or that the union was lying, they could request third-party validation of the union cards. This is not the step the WMF took. The step they took is to force the union to go through the NLRB secret ballot process. This is a union-busting tactic and is not about democratic values. It is couched in language that sounds like democratic values, but that's not what it is. That kind of misdirection will increase as the date of the vote draws closer. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree. What is couching in language that "sounds like" democratic values is the idea that we should not have a free vote. I don't get it and I don't agree. Let's have a vote! Simple and easy. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

They already had a free vote. Requiring people to vote again because they voted the wrong way, is not what I would call democracy. Bawolff (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Jimmy, if I may, could I suggest that you speak to some of the WWU organizers, to hear their perspective and also to learn about how union recognition works? I can certainly see how it would appear to you to be the simple, easy, and democratic option, because "secret ballot election" sounds both democratic and straightforward. But the NLRB secret ballot process is neither simple nor easy, and the democratic part of the process is already completed. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

We do not rely on polls because they sample a tiny percentage of actual voters. The signing of union cards is open to all eligible staff, and the offer was to have an independent organisation verify the cards to ensure a fair process was followed. A better analogy is the double election, or in Wikipedia parlance WP:FORUMSHOPPING; didn't like the result of the first discussion, maybe you get a different result if you ask in a way that makes participation more difficult? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:20, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

In this case, participation will be easier and not more difficult. So let's get behind it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain how a paper ballot is easier than an online ballot? For instance for staff in the middle of a house move, or staff with mobility issues? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:07, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I second the points made above, but want to start by questioning your claim that absolutely no one believes any staff are lying when they sign their cards. While this hasn't been said in these exact words, the Wikimedia Foundation Statement on US unionization request reads:

We have heard a range of views from staff, including concerns from those who have felt pressured to support union efforts and those who are confused by the unionization process.

Which betrays a very paternalistic view of workers having signed union cards, and casts a similar doubt on their sincerity.

Additionally, an opinion poll is a very bad analogy here, as Femke pointed out. A better one would be two-round elections: in my country, if a candidate gains more than 50% of votes in the first round, there is no point in holding a second round just for the sake of the process. This is especially the case if the two (signing of union cards, and NLRB election) might be separated by months, as is the case here. The question here isn't why the union folks want to cut short the process, but why you would insist on a long, drawn-out process if we already have explicit results.

Hanlon's razor is a great philosophical tool, and we are reminded to assume good faith. Thus, I am working from the base assumption that WMF leadership isn't explicitly trying to union-bust, and is only acting, incidentally, in a manner indistinguishable from garden-variety union-busting. In this case, listening to a majority of both volunteers and employees about the optics of the situation, and the benefits of voluntary recognition, would greatly help improve relations between WMF leaders and the rest of the community, and reassure us that you do not intend to derail unionization efforts. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't read it that way - the staff who raised concerns about being pressured may not have actually signed or if they did sign, I would not view that as "lying". In any event, I think a secret ballot is always a better approach.

I don't see any reason for the process to be long and drawn out. I honestly don't know how long it will take but insofar as I can have any impact on proceedings I will recommend that we move quickly.

I don't agree at all that the WMF management is acting in *any way* that is even *remotely similar* to "union busting". If they were I would gladly and strongly speak out against that. I can tell you that neither the board nor management will do anything to "derail" the process. There is absolutely nothing "union busting" about asking for a proper vote so that everyone on staff has the opportunity to have their say in a formal and confidential way - that's just good governance and I don't see any reason for us to characterize it negatively. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The previous process was also both confidential and formal. I could understand your concern if it was just staff signing some wiki page, but that's not what happened. Bawolff (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree at all that the WMF management is acting in *any way* that is even *remotely similar* to "union busting". I strongly disagree. Everything they're doing looks exactly like that. The news sees it that way, too. :

The Wikimedia Foundation’s statement and its frequently asked questions section is full of very carefully-worded language that is common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization. For example, the FAQ includes a long section about the benefits that Wikimedia Foundation already offers its staff, and the statement suggests that there is a “wide range of views on unionization” among employees. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll note the accurate headline: "Wikimedia Will Not Voluntarily Recognize Union a Supermajority of Its Workers Want". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, there is a wide range of views on unionization among employees. So, you know, that's just an NPOV description of the situation. To characterize wanting to acknowledge that as union busting isn't something I find remotely convincing. We'll have a vote and the result will be solid. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's insulting to pretend that is a neutral stance. The CWA says it best: 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. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The Foundation is taking a totally neutral stance. We will have a vote and the results will determine what happens. The rest of what you say is just... unfair. There's nothing union busting here at all. There are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here and no effort to do anything bad at all. There is no attempt by the WMF to prevent a union from happening. There's no insulting behavior here at all by the WMF. The hostility you are expressing here is not fact based at all. I highly suggest that we all take a deep breath and reach for one of the most important values of Wikipedia: Assume good faith. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

It's not in the least bit unfair, and you're the one who doesn't even care to learn about the underlying situation telling people to stop. I can't assume good faith when it's been completely destroyed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how I can show you more that I care so deeply. This is my life's work. I am talking to as many people as I can, answering as many questons as I can. I am not telling anyone to stop anything. I will continue to assume good faith of you, if you can't extend the same courtesy to me, I'm sad about that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And if you're not anti-union, why are you using all the rhetoric and taking the low road? Why is the Wikimedia Foundation having meetings with 200+ employees where they try to pressure them into thinking unions aren't a good fit for them? Why is Jones Day on the payroll and Bernadette refusing to answer questions about it on her talk page for weeks? I want to assume good faith but it's a two way road and every time I've tried to reach out to you about anything it hasn't worked. You've failed to listen, accused me of misleading people, promised me a meeting you never followed through on, and said that I have no reason to be angry with you! Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I am not anti-union and I am not taking any low road. I'm open to meeting with you anytime you want. The Foundation of course needs to take proper legal advice to do everything in the right way. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Of course, WMF needs to take proper legal advice. However, retaining a law firm that is famous for advising companies on how to frustrate unionization efforts while still staying on the right side of the law is suggestive of WMF's intentions on this matter. Bawolff (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Ok. But that isn't the situation, so don't worry about that. We're going to have a vote and that will result in the path forward. I think that's a good thing all around for good governance and clarity. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Which part isn't "the situation"? Are you disputing that WMF retained the law firm in question? That the law firm is known for advising on how to frustrate union formation? That the facts are suggestive? Something else in my comment? Bawolff (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The WMF has worked with Jones Day for at least a decade. You can find references to them in Form 990s going back years. Example: Andreas JN466 19:48, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. In terms of answering @Bawolff I should clarify - it isn't the situation that WMF is seeking advice on how to frustrate union formation - the WMF is not trying to frustrate the formation of a union. I have not heard anyone in management nor the board suggest anything like that. Big law firms are big law firms and so they represent a lot of people and argue whatever they are paid to argue, etc. I'm not a fan of everything that any of them do, but they are also highly knowledgeable. I've seen nothing problematic in their advice etc. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

If the WMF is not trying to frustrate the formation of a union, then why did it decline to voluntarily recognize WWU? SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Big law firms are big law firms but are you familiar with Jones Day and its reputation? Look:

• Jones Day has become notorious for aggressive anti-union tactics - Columbia Journalism Review
• law firm known for taking hard line with unions - Boston Business Journal
• the anti-worker law firm Jones Day - The Intercept
• New Report Explains That No Matter How Objectionable You Thought Jones Day Was, It’s Worse - Above the Law ("It's not exactly news to point out that Jones Day operates like a cartoonishly evil law firm stereotype.")
• a law firm known for its aggressive anti-union tactics - DCist; and a law firm known for union busting tactic
• Jones Day has been the go-to legal firm for media outlets attempting to thwart union efforts - TruthOut

And more: . Now not all of these are RS or unbiased, but it doesn't even matter if it's true or not, because of the optics of the firm's reputation. If the WMF isn't anti-union, why, of all the big law firms out there, is it hiring the one that is notorious for union busting (among other things)? Levivich (talk) 23:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

The most prominent work Jones Day have done for the WMF concerned trademark and brand services, and that goes back a good number of years. See for the history. So this is not a case of the WMF suddenly striking up a business relationship with Jones Day because Jones Day have a reputation as successful union busters. Indeed, we don't know that it is Jones Day who will handle this matter. So, this is a good question to ask: Will Jones Day be handling this matter, or will it be one of the other law firms the WMF works with? Andreas JN466 23:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Well, now we know the answer to this question, it's Littler (see below at #Confirmed: Union busting law firm).

Fun fact: in 2024 (the most recent year available), the WMF paid Jones Day $1.7 million, up from $1.1 million in 2023. It remains to be seen how much they spent in 2025 and will spend in 2026 on Littler. Levivich (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm reading this from the distance of a country with worker's rights, so the legal jargon of how to build or bust the unions are complex to me. However, I don't really get the point of having proper legal advice... I thought that the WMF had a really good legal team, why should it hire a conservative anti-union firm for advice, instead of using their own legal team? I really don't get the point. Theklan (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

WMF's legal team is good, but they are not experts on labor law. I am not personally an expert on the market for law firms and I was not involved in any particular choices here but one thing I do know is that labor law is complicated and bringing in a specialist firm to advise on it in order to make sure everything is done correctly is something I always want the WMF to do. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your response! As it is always productive to put concrete numbers on plans, what would you consider to be too long and drawn out? Two weeks? A full month? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:14, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I can just say: I don't know enough to say. Personally if we could launch it in a week (or tomorrow!) that'd be great. But I don't personally know yet how it all works. What I want as I said above: "the WMF should be an amazing and joyful place to work, with highest ethical standards, and a hard working staff with a team player mentality who are energized by our mission". Let's do whatever we can to get there, as fast as we can, assuming good faith all around. What I'd like to see is people rejecting the toxicity of some of the rhetoric here in favor of kindness and excitement about our place in the world and what we dream of: a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet, in their own language.

When I see wild accusations that the WMF wanting an election to be "union busting" that assumes that employees are lying... I just don't get it. That's not what I see. That's not what I hear from literally anyone at the WMF, not management, not staff, not the board. Let's have the election as quickly as is practical and get to the next level. And let's absolutely reject bad faith as unhelpful to staff, unhelpful to the community, and unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

The fastest way to get there was the voluntary recognition. It was explained to Bernadette at Wikimania and she also pivoted to not really addressing the point and saying contextless things about the democracy. Unless you have some reason to believe that union card signing was fraudulent (even though former WMF lawyer explains those can be verified), resorting to NLRB reads like intentionally slowing down the process because it functions that way. Secret ballot is conducted by paper and would take much more time for zero reason if there is no suspicion of impropriety. stjn 21:50, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying but I disagree. I think a secret ballot is a fundamental part of good governance and decision making. We know that some employees felt pressured to sign, and this is a good way to get a clear endorsement of the path forward. Of course it will take a little longer (hopefully as little time as possible) but at the end we will eliminate any question. It's good housekeeping and I support it, and I will support the result. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Unless a quarter or more of the supermajority of the employees can be speculated to have been pressured by someone (?) into signing, for which there is zero evidence, this is still a pointless delay. Secret ballot is not even part of most of Wikimedia movement governance. Not to mention that union card signing in a remote-first environment is also effectively secret to most people. stjn 22:05, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Cool. And still I'm happy that we're having a secret ballot election. It will eliminate any possible confusion and get us to where we want to be. I'm assuming we agree on that, and I'll just repeat it again since it's the main thing I care about: "the WMF should be an amazing and joyful place to work, with highest ethical standards, and a hard working staff with a team player mentality who are energized by our mission". Let's assume good faith and look at how we can build a culture in the community and the foundation that is respectful and kind all around. Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

There has been much confusion over the past two months. The handling of CommTech, UK and US voluntary recognition requests, Board Reforms... Do you think the press releases do a good job of reducing confusion? Will either a successful or unsuccessful NLRB election process foster an energizing workplace? I appreciate you engaging so candidly. I am at loss what the goal or strategy is, if it is genuinely to be a neutral, uplifting workplace. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 23:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

I think it will be a good thing overall to bring together the entire organization with a properly managed secret ballot so we can move forward clearly. I am speaking only for myself here, but I don't like the idea of a process where people's preference is made available to people who are pressuring them to take one side or the other. I think we can easily see how bad it would be if a company were to start asking employees to pledge not to support a union, using their real names and email addresses, and then singling out people who refused to put pressure on them. It just isn't the right way to do things, no matter which direction it goes.

Here's what I think can work: celebrate democracy, celebrate a process that allows everyone to vote their conscience in private, and support the outcome whatever it is. In this case, if we approach it in that spirit, yes I do think it's better overall. It should happen as quickly as it can (I'm trying to find out how long it will take since the question has come up here, and I hope it's quick so we can move on.)

In terms of press releases doing a good job of reducing confusion... which ones do you mean? I think it highly unlikely that the union is going to put out a press release celebrating that "Jimmy Wales strongly supports the right of the staff to choose and seeks to have a joyful workplace".

In terms of the WMF statement here I think it did do a pretty good job of explaining a lot of relevant facts. If there's anything you find confusing there, or additional questions you'd like me to pose to the WMF, do let me know. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Please avoid linking to 'here' per MOS:CLICKHERE + accessibility. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:32, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would love to see this assumption of good faith be extended to employees signing their union cards, namely, that their decision is genuine, not the result of outside pressure, and should be respected. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Except that some employees have reported outside pressure and we know that processes where people can't express their preference in a safe way without people who disagree knowing and potentially harming them in various ways are not great. That goes for both companies and unions in my view. I want people to be able to choose in a proper way. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Are these employees who have reported outside pressure over a quarter of the unit? 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

We should also be clear here that voluntary recognition is not expected to be unconditional. As I understand it from talking to WWU and CWA members, the norm is to have a third-party arbitrator certify the legitimacy of the cards that have been signed. There is also room in that process for deliberation as to who counts, e.g. if there's someone who's signed a card who is actually an independent contractor and thus ineligible. WWU is not asking the WMF to not do its due diligence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:07, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

That's good. As I understand it, the process towards an election has already started though so most of the discussion here is probably academic. The vote will happen and I'm happy about that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is a singular opportunity to use your influence as a Board member to get the organization you founded to back down from a stance that threatens to do more reputational damage than anything since Wikipedia's earliest days. I really hope you give it more consideration than this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:39, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Back down from what stance? I fully support the stance that the WMF should respect the employee's choices, that we should have a proper process with a secret ballot, etc. If WMF were to engage in any kind of "union busting" behavior I'd be the first one on the picket lines. At the same time, I also think that de-escalating extreme rhetoric that we in the community are hearing from some quarters is a good idea. No one is questioning the sincerity of staff, etc.

Look, the WMF is generally a great place to work and could of course be better - such is the nature of human organizations. I want it to be better, and I want all of us to work together in harmony and good faith to make it better. When things get adversarial for no reason, it's a tragedy. We all know this from article editing - when people come in with a battleground mentality it's much harder to build trust and to find common ground and get things done that are better for everyone. So I'm here to say: yeah, let's do things in the right way, let's work together to support each other, and let's ask people who are tossing extreme rhetoric to slow down just a bit as it probably isn't even helping the cause you're in favor of.

I hope this is helpful. Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, there seems to be a real distance from how you see things and how the community sees things. (like the petition here)

It seems that your argument boils down to hundreds of people either misunderstanding, or having impossible standards.

Can you at least entertain the idea that what the WMF is doing is "not good enough", without dismissing it completely? It is frustrating (probably on your end too) that it seems like everyone is talking past each other.

I'll ask clearly, if things are okay, and no union-busting happened, and this is all ordinary, why do you think that there's such upheaval? Genuine question. Egezort (talk) 23:12, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo, you said that [you] don't agree at all that the WMF management is acting in *any way* that is even *remotely similar* to "union busting". (emphasis yours) Now that the WMF management has hired Littler Mendelson, has your opinion on this matter changed? Betseg (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the management's involvement with Littler Mendelson before. Is it okay if I start a new talk page thread specifically on that? 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Most of that discussion has been in the Confirmed: Union busting law firm section slightly down the page. It might be best to start your discussion as a subsection of it? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't noticed that. Thanks! I guess someone beat me to it LMAO 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 14:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

No union-busting

(Hope it's OK I started a new thread about this, the one above was getting long.) I signed the petition mentioned in the thread above asking the BoT to have the WMF voluntarily recognize the union and not require an NLRB secret ballot. But, assuming that's not going to happen, and the NLRB vote will go forward, I'm concerned about whether the WMF will engage in any "union-busting" tactics between now and the vote.

On the petition page, someone posted a link to this Last Week Tonight with John Oliver segment about union busting: . With his usual wit, he spends about 20 minutes describing the various tactics that employers use, prior to NLRB secret ballots, to discourage their employees from voting to unionize. (I hope you'll give it a watch if you haven't seen it already; if nothing else, it's funny.)

Do you think we can get any kind of official assurance/commitment from the WMF that no such union-busting activities have or will take place: no "captive audience" meetings, no anti-union videos, no handouts/messages/signs warning of the "dangers" of unions such as the suggestion that unionization would lead to lower wages etc., no training of managers to monitor and report any pro-union speech or activities of employees, no hiring anti-union consultants or law firms, no anti-union lobbying of employees whatsoever... none of that stuff Oliver describes?

I wish I could just assume that the WMF would not do this, but after what the CEO said at Wikimania, I just don't have that faith, and I'd like to see the WMF give some kind of public reassurance that while other employers might do this kind of stuff, the WMF does not, would not, and will not. This union drive is, in a way, a test, to see if the WMF will put its own stated mission and principles first, even ahead of its own near-term financial interests. I hope it will. I hope you'll consider talking to the powers that be about the WMF publicly making that commitment. Levivich (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

They've been having anti-union meetings since March (including one with 200+ employees after Brooke was terminated) so it's clear that the WMF is committed to following the whole unionbusting playbook. There's been a lot of anti-union rhetoric internally by management. When you consider the latest response from the board regarding the petition, that only adds further fuel to the fire. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

FYI the response CM mentions is at m:2026 recognize Wiki Workers United petition#Response from the Board of Trustees. Levivich (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

It's fine and dandy to ask the BoT to try and stop union-busting, but how would they even do that? Should they hire their own anti-union-busting law firm to make a list of things management ought to do or not to do? Sounds tricky, after a quick look at resources like Anatomy of a union-busting campaign and Spotlight on Union-Busters: Recommendations to the Department of Labor and Federal Trade Commission. The legal framework is heavily stacked against workers. I guess they could direct the C-suite to come up with some kind of labor relations policy to be written in consultation with a national union or research center, unless there is some template already available somewhere. Not sure how that would work though. Nemo 13:25, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

They pass a Board resolution requiring some things (e.g. providing time/space for employees to meet and discuss without interference, monitoring, or repercussion) and prohibiting others (captive audience meetings, anti-union messaging). I'm not sure what the exact do's/don'ts should be but I'm sure the Board could find that out, and yeah that might mean hiring an anti-union-busting consultant or law firm. Also they might provide oversight about the choice of outside consultants that management hires, to ensure the WMF isn't hiring any with a reputation for union busting. This should be in the form of a policy outlining what the WMF will and won't do when its workers in any country pursue a union drive--basically, yeah a labor relations policy like you mentioned. I don't know exactly what it would look like either, but I bet there's best practices for this already know to labor lawyers, organizers, and other experts. Levivich (talk) 13:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Alright. Let's just acknowledge this would be a lot of work, especially for people who have never lived or worked in the USA. It's far easier to just direct the ED to voluntarily recognise the union, after which you can just let the AFL-CIO install their own people to do the work. But they didn't summon the courage to do even that... Nemo 13:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Acknowledged! :-) Not just easier but probably less expensive and better for morale. Levivich (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with what took courage here. What took courage is insisting that we follow a proper process with a voluntary secret ballot. That's what's happening now and insulting people isn't a great look. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

With this wording you deny that the proposed option is proper process. You make yourself party to the concept that unions are somehow evil and bully their members. But you don't say it. No one ever does. Because it's an obvious lie and makes everyone laugh or look at you incredulous, especially outside the USA. Instead they imply. They imply that the strong need protection from the weak. That the wolf is best suited to care for sheep. That the sheep can not trust other sheep. That there might be downsides where there are none. Around here were call that weasle words. Courage?? In Wales they say "There is no courage behind castle walls". Quite fitting. Echosmoke (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

That's hardly the point. Levivich outlined a process to get an anti-union busting consultant, to ensure no connections with union busters, or at least some other kind of labor relations firm. Nemo outlined another method, which would be easier and act as a "bare minimum" of sorts, and said that the WMF management didn't even have the courage for that.

Essentially, the entire point of the last few comments (and the thread as a whole), is that the WMF using services from Littler Mendelson, a known union-busting firm, is even less than a bare minimum and, in my opinion and those of many others, counts as a moral transgression. Please direct your reply at the point of the discussion at hand. Say something regarding Littler Mendelson. 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Jimbo, you made Levivich of all people write a post endorsing and spearheading the popular sentiment. Now if that isn't a wake-up call, I don't know what is. I'm being tongue in cheek here, but also I'm really not. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:55, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo hasn't had a good night's sleep since he realized he lost Levivich. ;-) Levivich (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich: Regarding the commitment you're seeking here, you might be interested in how things went at the just-hired new CPO's former workplace, the International Rescue Committee, according to labor organizer Nora Rizvi:

Even before our first bargaining session [in February 2024], when we first gave our notice that we wanted to unionize in Dallas, they had like, 15 plus meetings to dissuade us from creating the union. We had multiple higher ups from New York, HQ, come to Dallas, talk to us about what a union is. Very like, “This is what a union is. Are you sure you want that?” Or, “This is what IRC is going to do. We’re in the process of doing this. So, you know, you don’t really need a union.” Honestly, I’m so proud of our Dallas office because we sat in those meetings that were also required meetings. We sat in those meetings and we talked back, and were like, “You will not tell us that this is what a union is,” like repeatedly.

To be clear, I have no idea how much the new CPO, Rena Kokalari, was involved in any of that, but she was in her fourth year as the Head of People & Culture at the time that Rizvi mentions, and while the IRC did eventually recognize the union, that came four months after she left, if I'm reading her LinkedIn right. So I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a commitment from the WMF that they don't intend to do anything here like her exec team did there. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. If there was any doubt, though, we now know that at the time I asked those questions, the WMF had already engaged in those very tactics, e.g. m:WWUEMAIL on Feb 27, and the captive audience meeting held at the same time, and I now believe that the firm Littler was hired before then, since these actions are straight out of their playbook. And that's just what I found out about yesterday, I'm guessing that is tip of the iceberg and there's more. No wonder nobody answered my question... Jimbo couldn't promise the WMF wouldn't do what it was already doing.

Since that email was sent by the outgoing CPO (I assume that is unrelated to her departure announced in April), I wonder whether "union response" experience was a relevant factor in this hiring decision, i.e. did they hire Kokalari because of her union experience at her prior employer. My guess is yes. I'm wondering whether the same thing is true for the CEO hire as well. The WMF obviously knew they'd have a union fight on their hands before February, possibly even last year? Levivich (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Since you mention CEO hire ...

Quiz question: How many of Hillary Clinton's former travel directors have taken on influential positions in the Wikimedia movement?

Answer: 2. Bernadette Meehan (the current CEO) and Whitney Williams (who oversaw the 2017 Wikimedia Movement Strategy Process).

(I always preferred Sanders.) Andreas JN466 20:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed: Union busting law firm

It is publicly confirmed that WMF contracted the notorious union-busting law firm Littler Mendelson to fight Wiki Workers United. I will assume that the Board of Trustees did not know this beforehand, but in light of this new information, I would strongly urge the Board to recognize the WWU/CWA USA union immediately before the CEO and Littler Mendelson do any more damage to WMF's reputation. This Union busting law firm was explicitly hired to advise WMF and is notorious for union busting at Apple, Google among other places. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll note that that sounds like a hard thing to do accidentally. Just like the captive audience meetings and the rhetoric and the doubts cast on the legitimacy of the union cards and the refusal to even acknowledge that third party verification is an option are also hard to accomplish accidentally. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm honestly furious that you'd dare to email me to say that I'm making you sad. I don't care if you have a problem with the fact that I have ethics and principles and don't trust you. If I was in your shoes, I'd want people to be angry if I had failed to notice or stop any of this and I would've understood if people questioned whether or not I was complicit. Values mean nothing if actions don't show them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

As Clovermoss says, difficult not to see a pattern emerging. As I said to Bernadette Meehan during the fireside chat, your actions are not matching your words on supporting labour rights, only agreeing to unionization when the law tells you to is not supporting labour rights. Hiring a law firm known for union-busting shows what values you hold more than any words could. Trust is being lost in the community, trust that could have been regained if WMF had just voluntarily recognized the union. And trust will continue to be lost if the BoT doesn't change its ways. Abzeronow (talk) 23:58, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

This is embarrassing and will badly damage the Foundation's image. What excuse will there be now? Nemoralis (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

The large majority of Wikipedia users (readers and editors) probably don't know that all of this is happening. I do wonder, though, if there are donors who'll want a refund after learning about the alleged union-busting; this user , for example, signed the WP:SOLIDARITY petition and said he might ask for his million dollar donation back. Some1 (talk) 04:25, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Fuck, if this busting affects reading experience, there will be a revolt against the law firm. And both the WMF, and the law firm will have no teeth to defend themselves. I expect a banner to force readers to fight for WWU, not just on Wikipedia but also all Wikimedia wikis. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

If the reader experience is affected in any way, it will turn people against Wikipedia more than against the WMF and law firm, both of which most people have never heard of. The law firm will also be fine, it's hardly going to be hurt by internet backlash. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

A blackout will annoy readers (and editors), but a Main Page banner could work. Some1 (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The SOPA blackout worked well and I just hope non-Wikimedia wikis will join the Wikimedia blackout in the future. Ahri Boy (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Now an RfC: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions. Some1 (talk) 02:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

did the wmf even read the company's wikipedia article before hiring it? ltbdl (talk) 05:22, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Ltbdl: What's Wikipedia? Never heard of it. Boud (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SARCASM. Ahri Boy (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Littler Mendleson?! lol that's even worse than Jones Day! They are like the #1 union busting law firm. That's wild. I can't believe they'd even considered hiring this firm. Somebody please tell me this isn't right, that it's not true? Because otherwise I think we're getting very close to a vote of no confidence in the new CEO and maybe the entire Board of Trustees. Jimmy, please tell us you're not on board with this? You can't seriously still think this is "courage"? Chutzpah maybe, but not courage. Levivich (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich: Because otherwise I think we're getting close to a vote of no confidence, well... I didn't expect to see Sohom Datta leading the call for her to resign, but he is. See m:User talk:BMeehan-WMF#On unionization and misleading the movement. If we've already reached that point, things are about to get real bad real fast. Sohom defends the WMF when it comes to basically everything. You can't say I didn't try to warn you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:39, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Yep, Sohom's been single-handedly trying to build a bridge between the WMF and the communities via m:PTAC, but PTAC gets cut out of most of the decision-making (not even consulted), and AFAIK Selena is being 'strategically ambiguous' re whether she'll allow community elections to PTAC (instead of hand-picking favourable people), and ofc the Community Wishlist is still floundering. Sohom should be revered by management if they had any sense, instead he seems to get satisficed and ignored like the rest of us. Driving him to become 'hardline' is a catastrophic mistake. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 10:19, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here […] The hostility you are expressing here is not fact based at all.

Sounds like it was fact-based. Wanna clarify this or anything? Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:10, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Reposting my comment here from m:User talk:BMeehan-WMF#On unionization and misleading the movement, because I want to make sure Jimmy sees it too.

  I would strongly echo Sohom's sentiments here, including that I had hoped that WMF would make the right choice here (after its various platitudes about supporting workers' rights to unionize, etc.) and then found myself incredibly disappointed with the refusal to voluntarily recognize the union, the vague (and as yet unsupported) allusions to employees being pressured to support the union effort and some supposed group of (as yet silent) employees whose opposition to the initiative apparently outweighs the supermajority, and now this choice to hire Littler Mendelson.

  I am also deeply annoyed at the various attempts by the WMF, its staff, and various other affiliated people to gaslight employees and community members alike by claiming that their decisions and statements are not anti-union, that punting to the NLRB is the "fairest" way forward, that "there are no 'union-avoidance law firms' involved here", etc. We are not so naive as to think that only a statement along the lines of "The WMF will never recognize a union and we think unions are bad" is the only circumstance in which we can fairly say the WMF is opposing union efforts. I think we have all heard enough endlessly PR team–workshopped statements out of the WMF to know that this is the WMF's usual way of trying to wave off concerns about unpopular decisions; my only surprise is that the WMF and various employees have not yet learned that the community (and general public — see "full of very carefully-worded language that is common among companies and organizations that have fought against unionization") can read between the lines perfectly capably.

  There is still an opportunity for the WMF to reverse course on this huge mistake, although the damage is certainly done as far as (yet further) erosion of trust in the WMF. I would urge you to reverse course regardless. The alternative is a protracted fight with employees who overwhelmingly support a union, and a community that has their backs — a fight that I do not believe the WMF will win. The collateral damage from this fight will be to the Wikimedia projects that we are all here to support and improve. Why you think that opposing unionization efforts in a project like Wikimedia, for goodness sake, is not only the right path forward but a path that is liable to succeed, is completely beyond me, and it makes me question how people with that mindset found themselves in decisionmaking rooms at the WMF.

• GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I haven't commented much on the matter so far but I agree with Molly's well-put statement—even regardless of merits, this is not a fight the WMF is likely to win, and the fight is only going to be the detriment of the movement and its goals. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:13, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  To that point specifically, Jimmy actually said he expects the union vote to succeed, but we'll get to "come together to celebrate the outcome.". I'm not sure it makes sense for a company to use a union vote as a team-building exercise, but it's one way to view things, I guess. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 06:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The union-busting will continue until morale improves, etc... In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  As I wrote elsewhere, I also would like to push back on this idea that because the WWU is likely to ultimately succeed in unionization, we should not be worried about the WMF's approach here (a sentiment I also keep seeing Jimmy repeat). Just because the WMF is ultimately dragged kicking and screaming into allowing its workers to unionize does not mean we should all drop our concerns about the WMF's tactics, which have thus far included discouraging its employees from unionizing, misrepresenting its stance to the community and public, and hiring a union-busting law firm. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Indeed. By now I am no longer disappointed, but thoroughly disgusted by the actions of the WMF C-suite and the inaction of the board. If the WMF ends up recognising the union after delaying as much as possible, I will be relieved for the staff, but my disgust will not be diminished. —Kusma (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• What upsets me the most about this whole scenario is not simply the fact that the Foundation is union busting; it's that they've lied to the community and to the general public about it. That's a betrayal of our shared values and of the community's trust, and that's not okay. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm thoroughly in the "a pox on both your houses" camp, but the arrogance and tone-deafness of WMF's execs are making that position pretty untenable for me. Carrite (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Two questions for Wales

Two questions:

• When was Littler Mendelson first retained by the Foundation?
• When you said that no anti-union law firms were retained, were you aware of the decision to retain Little Mendelson?

In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:29, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

In 2022, Vice reported how Apple approached a union campaign by its retail staff. Apple did not publicly say that it opposed unionization, but hired Littler Mendelson and emailed a script with talking points to managers.

Managers then told staff things like "An outside union that doesn't know Apple or our culture would make things more complex and rigid". Or that with a union, "employees with the most seniority" would get all the best treatment and there would be "less attention to merit ... The quality of your work may not even be a factor". Or that "a rigid union contract" would make it "very difficult" for managers "to give employees some time off" or "to excuse an absence or late start if someone has something going on at home". It makes an interesting read (the inserted document doesn't load for me on vice.com, but is present in the archive.today copy).

Other Littler Mendelson customers like Amazon and Starbucks used similar talking points, according to Vice. Is the WMF now following a similar strategy, with talking points circulated to WMF managers and conveyed to staff in talks and meetings? Andreas JN466 07:15, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Look at all the people cancelling their donations. It'll only get worse from here. You're a board member and you have a responsibility to do something if you want Wikipedia to survive long-term. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Surely the Wikimedia Foundation keeps track of these things, especially because a fundraising campaign mentioned that donations were down after the dissolution of CommTech. How much money has the foundation lost from regular donations the past few months? I'm betting it's a substantial amount of money in its own right. I'm also going to remind you of what duties a board has during a crisis since it seems like you're forgetting.

  I'll quote a particularly important part:

  "How would this look in the paper? Could we explain it? Could we defend it?" The answer to both those questions is an obvious no. These are questions that could apply to valid and perfectly legal strategies that could nevertheless give rise to political, regulatory or reputational risk. Management should be prepared to answer these questions when asked by the board. In an organization with a strong culture of integrity, consideration of headline risk should be automatic. Have you done that? Clearly not. You've also failed to listen to desperate attempts of people warning you about this, like me. Shame on you. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Further response from CEO

Here . Given that it's a statement that includes The lawyers at this law firm have a lot of expertise in unions and related laws beyond what you may read in the news., when said law firm's commentary includes such statements as [we are] prepared to assist [clients] in regard to all the above union prevention tools it has gone down as well as you might expect. I'm unsure what Ms.Meehan expects from her gaslighting of the community, but unless her next move is to ditch Littler Mendelson, her position is frankly untenable. Black Kite (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2026

• In the media: Union drive, most prolific editor make headlines
  AI's impact on Wikipedia, World Cup editing, and encyclopedia's place in public life.

• News and notes: Foundation rejects voluntary recognition of union, proposed board eligibility rules sharply restrict candidates
  Further: harassment allegations at Wikimania, and new RfC for Abstract Wikipedia.

• WikiConference: "Kurier, Signpost, wikipress: You can be a Wikimedia journalist" - Wikimania presentation by User:Noé Recap
  A recap of Noé Gasparini's Wikimania 2026 presentation on the variety of wikipress outlets

• In focus: Is Larry Sanger the co-founder of Wikipedia?
  A look over the years.

• Arbitration report: Think, and not just about content
  ArbCom continues business.

• News from Diff: Meet the Wikimedians of the Year 2026!
  Wikimedians of the Year 2026 announced at Wikimania 2026 - Paris

• On the bright side: The beautiful game
  2026 Men's FIFA World Cup, Wikimania music, and wikipress.

• Traffic report: Odyssey and Oyarzabal
  To take you in the sun to (Ithaca), to show you the World Cup, it's the time of the season for editing!

• Comix: Well-spotted
  You dasherdly—dash–dash−dash-dash!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Café message distribution

Hello! To continue receiving announcements about the Wikimedia Café on your user talk page, please add your preferred user subscription page(s) to meta:Global message delivery/Targets/Wikimedia Café. This change only affects user talk page deliveries, and hopefully you'll appreciate the customization options. If you don't subscribe a user page then you won't receive further bulk announcements regarding the Café on your user talk page, although you can always subscribe later.

Thanks! ↠Pine (✉) 23:56, 2 August 2026 (UTC)