> There are union-busting law firms? What are they gonna do? Infiltrate your meetups?
Infiltration is just one tactic that a law firm that blares their union-busting credentials on their home page can certainly advise your c-suite on. Worker intimidation, employing informants, exploiting regulation loopholes ...
> [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate.
> [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other.
Counter-argument
> The community response to the WMF statement has mostly been one of dismay, with fears that the Foundation will use the time gap between now and the secret ballot to discourage employees from union involvement, using union busting methods as described humorously in an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot. It should be soon and I'd be fine seeing the union win. Sure Wikipedia can use threats and propaganda in the meantime (so can Wiki Workers United), but that is less coercive than a public ballot.
> Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot.
Mission accomplished for Jimmy Wales then, "aw shucks I like unions but there's this one thing about a process that has worked for literally every other organization effort. Wouldn't want those volunteer organizers intimidating workers!"
C.f. Dario Amodei: "I LOVE open weight models, they just need to pass this little safety test, who doesn't want safety?"
Good. Most tech unions are worthless and only accelerate outsourcing. Unions can be good though, like in construction where the work is inherently dangerous.
I have never understood why it's okay and not wildly illegal for anyone to interfere with unions at any level in the USA
Then again we still don't have universal healthcare and now even more million have lost health insurance due to cost so I guess it's stupid all the way down
People just keep voting against themselves. might be billionaires someday so gotta protect dubious "rights" of the ultra-wealthy just in case
My understanding from trying to read the post is that WF isn’t happy with the process because the vote isn’t closed. It doesn’t sound completely unreasonable to me. And then they are attacked because they are working with a law firm, since a decade or so, with things that has nothing to do with union recognition thing. Apparently that law firm is known as a ”union buster”, but there’s no evidence that the law firm has been involved in the negotiations around the union. To me the argument that WF is evil and hostile to unions is weak.
I’m always careful when I see a post about how bad and evil WF is. They come up quite frequently nowadays. WF have powerful enemies, because you can still read things like climate change is real and vaccines are good for you there.
I don’t think WF is perfect, and I do think their shortcomings should be publicly criticised and discussed. But overall, I still think they are an important force for good, and will continue my monthly donations to them.
You're right that WF is attacked and operates as a public resource which makes it a target. But that means they also need to be held accountable by sympathetic forces because a fortress mentality can easily emerge.
Unions have few friends in power, so we can assume this is not a false flag by WFs enemies. Nobody is forcing Jimmy Wales to put his name to a union-busting sentiment. Let's examine it:
> I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance of pressure.
If he really believes they will vote for unionization then why would he insinuate that there will be some nefarious "pressure" applied by volunteer organizers? Blocking an outcome he claims to expect because he wants workers to be "safe": remember, workers are organizing precisely because they don't feel "safe" with management.
I'm hardly a fan of the WMF, but the headline is clickbait. The WMF has used a law firm called Jones Day for brand and trademark management for over a decade. The firm is one of the largest legal firms in the US and it also does union busting, but a) the WMF does not appear to have engaged them for that, and b) the relationship long predates the current kerfuffle.
Sigh. For me Wikipedia is synonymous with petty bickering and fiefdoms and politics. Why I am not surprised by this? It's like student unions only worse
Have you ever been in a union? A union shop is the only place I have ever experienced a true inversion of the power dynamic between myself and my boss even in small part and it is liberating. It was the only time my boss has ever had to bend to my will outside of their willingness to do so in order to retain me. The only power you have over your boss’s behavior outside of a union is in your willingness to become employed.
Tech workers historically have had it made in terms of compensation and work environment. Additionally good tech workers have historically had more leverage over their employer than an average worker. So it makes sense that many would be reticent to mess with a good thing. But here we are at the dawn of a new era. Nobody has any idea what tech employment will look like in ten or twenty years.
I would happily be in a union in tech. Maybe I wouldn’t if i was making 300k in the Bay Area but I am not.
Some people here think Wikimedia Foundation's mission is to keep Wikipedia up. That's a subset of their mission. I attribute nearly all of the blame to WMF, because their donation ads are quite deceptive.
The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation:
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
As such, WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects, like funding photographers to go to events like Fifa World Cup and Cannes, and take (CC or public domain) portraits for Wikimedia Commons (https://www.wikiportraits.org); etc.
WikiPortraits organizer here. To give a sense of scope of project, at this point more than 1 out of every 50 pageviews on Wikipedia globally is illustrated with a WikiPortraits photo (and maybe more, we are still trying to digest what the surge from World Cup traffic means). Since our project started in January 2024, WikiPortraits photos have been viewed 5.8 billion times (https://sightglass.toolforge.org/results/iAi_KYlZs8ZXW9Xc/wi...). Of those, the ones I’m most proud of is finding a volunteer in Rome to take openly licensed pictures of the new Pope Leo XIV in May 2025 (Since all the commercial agencies and news outlets photos of Habemus Papum moment were not openly licensed, we did not have a “Pope as Pope” photo for Wikipedia, only older meh photos of him as a Bishop in Peru).
Those new Pope photos, which were featured on the front page of many language Wikipedias, were viewed 50+ million times in their first month (nice feeling for a first time photographer!)
WikiPortraits photos are CC-BY-SA, which means other (mostly smaller) media outlets can use with attribution (though we’ve seen them mangle that in all sorts of ways, but they are trying). These are generally orgs that cannot afford Getty or other agencies, though we have seen a WikiPortraits photo pop up at CNN Brasil. Fan Instagram accounts also like us.
Even with the grants, WikiPortraits photographers are all volunteers. It’s what they do in their leisure time. (A number are professional photographers but they are donating their time to this project, or theg donate older photos they took on assignment where they control the rights).
The main FIFA World Cup photographer is a Brooklyn high school teacher by day (also a comedian by night). His World Cup photos have been viewed 500 million times (“what I did l on my summer break”). Wikiphotography, like much of wiki, depends on a base of supercontributors.
Where does the funding go to make educational open content?
WikiPortraits pays for lodging, buying better equipment to lend folks (eg longer lenses so photos are not as grainy), a LOT of parking fee reimbursements, a meal if someone has been shooting for a long day. We also pay honoraria for experienced wiki folks to create Wikidata items or Commons categories behind photogs where necessary (Taking photos fun! Metadata not so fun).
But WikiPortraits travel is generally a mix of people getting there themselves, using airline miles, and external donations (eg not funding from WMF. Some limited exceptions, but we’ve tried to keep that line pretty clear). We used American Airlines miles to get the World Cup photographer to Seattle for that Round of 16 game of US vs Belgium.
Wiki ethos vibe.
It’s easy to emphasize glamorous World Cup coverage (which gave us huge stats!). But a lot of the events photographed are things like AAAS and other academic conference, local book festivals, politicians at an event in Adelaide, Indian artists at a fair in Santa Fe. Volunteers grinding away to fill out wiki coverage in areas they are passionate about.
What’s nice is at a time when new editor registrations are declining precipitously (LLMs?), photography has brought in a lot of new volunteers to the Wikiverse. Also it’s a noticeably different population. We are half female vs 15% female for wiki overall, and a lot more diverse, especially in the US (where Black Wikipedians are only .5-1.5% of the Wiki volunteer community). Photography is a fairly immediate high-impact, low-friction way to improve Wikipedia.
LLMs may be able generate a text article. But they don’t (currently) have th...
> It’s easy to emphasize glamorous World Cup coverage (which gave us huge stats!). But a lot of the events photographed are things like AAAS and other academic conference, local book festivals, politicians at an event in Adelaide, Indian artists at a fair in Santa Fe. Volunteers grinding away to fill out wiki coverage in areas they are passionate about.
How does work for major events? I noticed a bunch of the before-after photos were taken at TIFF 2025, where actors were presumably on the red carpet promoting their debuting movie. Did the volunteer get a press pass to be able to be there? Or were they in the 'fan line'?
I hate unions. I hate lawyers. I hate any consolidation of power in general, so I hate all sides here. And I've never had the "I want a refund" feeling on donating to (what I thought was) a charity, that I now think deeply misrepresented itself when it asked for money.
40 comments
[ 0.26 ms ] story [ 12.6 ms ] threadin 2026? one would think wikipedia people pick up some self-help literature now and then and know how to fake a backbone until you grow one ...
( I have my own share of behaviors that I should have fixed when I was 11 so don't take this the wrong way )
What is this?
Hierarchical pressure? At freaking wikipedia? Fear of getting pressured into eventual compliance? At freaking wikipedia?
How the hell does a foundation select a board like that? And what are they gonna do? Send Napalm, Agent Orange, Sarin Gas?
There are union-busting law firms? What are they gonna do? Infiltrate your meetups?
I'm a bit baffled
Infiltration is just one tactic that a law firm that blares their union-busting credentials on their home page can certainly advise your c-suite on. Worker intimidation, employing informants, exploiting regulation loopholes ...
Just ask wikipedia! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting#Labor_attorneys_...
> [W]e believe a secret-ballot election conducted by the National Labor Relations Board is the appropriate path forward. This process protects individual choice and ensures that any outcome reflects the collective will of those eligible to participate.
> [Jimmy Wales:] One of the problems with the process so far is that it was not secret and we have heard from some staff members that they felt pressured because the organizers would know how they decided. That isn't a great process and it goes against our movement's values quite badly to have people in a situation where they are pressured into something one way or the other.
Counter-argument
> The community response to the WMF statement has mostly been one of dismay, with fears that the Foundation will use the time gap between now and the secret ballot to discourage employees from union involvement, using union busting methods as described humorously in an episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
The episode is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk8dUXRpoy8, a transcript is at https://scrapsfromtheloft.com/tv-series/union-busting-last-w...
---
Honestly, I'm on Wikipedia's side: there should be a true secret ballot. It should be soon and I'd be fine seeing the union win. Sure Wikipedia can use threats and propaganda in the meantime (so can Wiki Workers United), but that is less coercive than a public ballot.
Mission accomplished for Jimmy Wales then, "aw shucks I like unions but there's this one thing about a process that has worked for literally every other organization effort. Wouldn't want those volunteer organizers intimidating workers!"
C.f. Dario Amodei: "I LOVE open weight models, they just need to pass this little safety test, who doesn't want safety?"
Then again we still don't have universal healthcare and now even more million have lost health insurance due to cost so I guess it's stupid all the way down
People just keep voting against themselves. might be billionaires someday so gotta protect dubious "rights" of the ultra-wealthy just in case
I’m always careful when I see a post about how bad and evil WF is. They come up quite frequently nowadays. WF have powerful enemies, because you can still read things like climate change is real and vaccines are good for you there.
I don’t think WF is perfect, and I do think their shortcomings should be publicly criticised and discussed. But overall, I still think they are an important force for good, and will continue my monthly donations to them.
Unions have few friends in power, so we can assume this is not a false flag by WFs enemies. Nobody is forcing Jimmy Wales to put his name to a union-busting sentiment. Let's examine it:
> I want a process where staff are safe to deliberate in the privacy of their own minds and make the decision based on all the available evidence that makes the most sense to them. So I don't think insisting on a proper vote is process for the sake of process and I say that with my own estimate that the staff will vote to support unionization. I think we'll be in a better place if it's really clear - a clean and clear choice with no chance of pressure.
If he really believes they will vote for unionization then why would he insinuate that there will be some nefarious "pressure" applied by volunteer organizers? Blocking an outcome he claims to expect because he wants workers to be "safe": remember, workers are organizing precisely because they don't feel "safe" with management.
I guess except the game developers but the most realistic threat vector for them is the studio shutting down, so a union wouldn't really help.
Tech workers historically have had it made in terms of compensation and work environment. Additionally good tech workers have historically had more leverage over their employer than an average worker. So it makes sense that many would be reticent to mess with a good thing. But here we are at the dawn of a new era. Nobody has any idea what tech employment will look like in ten or twenty years.
I would happily be in a union in tech. Maybe I wouldn’t if i was making 300k in the Bay Area but I am not.
The actual, public mission of Wikimedia Foundation:
> The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
As such, WMF spends a lot money (combined) on a splatter of projects, like funding photographers to go to events like Fifa World Cup and Cannes, and take (CC or public domain) portraits for Wikimedia Commons (https://www.wikiportraits.org); etc.
Those new Pope photos, which were featured on the front page of many language Wikipedias, were viewed 50+ million times in their first month (nice feeling for a first time photographer!)
WikiPortraits photos are CC-BY-SA, which means other (mostly smaller) media outlets can use with attribution (though we’ve seen them mangle that in all sorts of ways, but they are trying). These are generally orgs that cannot afford Getty or other agencies, though we have seen a WikiPortraits photo pop up at CNN Brasil. Fan Instagram accounts also like us.
I personally think it makes the wiki experience more pleasant to have better photos. Here are some before/after: https://commons.gallery/@quirky/beforeafter
Even with the grants, WikiPortraits photographers are all volunteers. It’s what they do in their leisure time. (A number are professional photographers but they are donating their time to this project, or theg donate older photos they took on assignment where they control the rights).
The main FIFA World Cup photographer is a Brooklyn high school teacher by day (also a comedian by night). His World Cup photos have been viewed 500 million times (“what I did l on my summer break”). Wikiphotography, like much of wiki, depends on a base of supercontributors.
Where does the funding go to make educational open content?
WikiPortraits pays for lodging, buying better equipment to lend folks (eg longer lenses so photos are not as grainy), a LOT of parking fee reimbursements, a meal if someone has been shooting for a long day. We also pay honoraria for experienced wiki folks to create Wikidata items or Commons categories behind photogs where necessary (Taking photos fun! Metadata not so fun).
But WikiPortraits travel is generally a mix of people getting there themselves, using airline miles, and external donations (eg not funding from WMF. Some limited exceptions, but we’ve tried to keep that line pretty clear). We used American Airlines miles to get the World Cup photographer to Seattle for that Round of 16 game of US vs Belgium. Wiki ethos vibe.
It’s easy to emphasize glamorous World Cup coverage (which gave us huge stats!). But a lot of the events photographed are things like AAAS and other academic conference, local book festivals, politicians at an event in Adelaide, Indian artists at a fair in Santa Fe. Volunteers grinding away to fill out wiki coverage in areas they are passionate about.
What’s nice is at a time when new editor registrations are declining precipitously (LLMs?), photography has brought in a lot of new volunteers to the Wikiverse. Also it’s a noticeably different population. We are half female vs 15% female for wiki overall, and a lot more diverse, especially in the US (where Black Wikipedians are only .5-1.5% of the Wiki volunteer community). Photography is a fairly immediate high-impact, low-friction way to improve Wikipedia.
LLMs may be able generate a text article. But they don’t (currently) have th...
How does work for major events? I noticed a bunch of the before-after photos were taken at TIFF 2025, where actors were presumably on the red carpet promoting their debuting movie. Did the volunteer get a press pass to be able to be there? Or were they in the 'fan line'?