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)

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)

I don't say it because I don't believe it. If you're going to be mad at me about things I didn't say and don't believe, that's not really a good idea. What I do think is that we are going to have a vote, by secret ballot, and that is a healthy way forward when people have said that they felt pressured by a process that meant that union organizers would know their views. As I understand it, it's going to be fast (the timeline has been announced I think) and that's a good thing. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:21, 9 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)

Regarding Littler Mendelson: I think hiring this firm was a terrible decision and as soon as I heard about it I recommended to the WMF that they be fired immediately. Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you confirm that you didn't know until August 1st (or another specific date)?

This would mean that when you said There are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here, that you had no prior knowledge. I still think that this warrants an apology, for stating something like this as a fact without knowing, but it's a lot better than blatant lying.

An apology on this point, as well as some clarification, would go a long way in alleviating the tensions. Egezort (talk) 14:13, 9 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)

User:Newslinger has put up the script from Apple's Littler-guided union-busting campaign that was leaked to Vice here, taken from the archived version of the Vice article:

• https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22007406-apple-talking-points-retail/

The February WMF email to staff is quite consistent in spirit with that.

Transparency on when WMF executives first sought the assistance of Littler Mendelson would be welcome. ("No comment" surely means it was months ago.) Andreas JN466 08:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

And the board is still lying to our faces. Why is so hard to just not destroy the WMF's reputation? It's genuinely easier to just do the right thing and respect your employees. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:03, 6 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)

🦗 In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Femke I was not aware when I said that no union busting law firms had been hired that Littler Mendelson had been hired. When I found out, I immediately emailed the WMF to say that I think it was a mistake and to recommend firing them immediately. As of today (the day after my 60th birthday, which I have been spending on vacation with my extended family) I do not know exactly when they were hired. Obviously I am unhappy about every aspect of that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jimmy, and happy belated. I'd be very interested to know when the WMF first engaged Littler Mendelson, if that's something you're able to find out. The question was posed to Bernadette on her meta talk page, but has as yet gone unanswered. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I can't promise anything of course, and it isn't for me to decide if a date like that is released publicly. But my strong recommendation is for maximum transparency possible and at least at this moment I can't think of any reason why that'd be something to keep private.

Anyone who has known me for a long time will know how sad I am that after I publicly said "The Foundation did not do X" I found out that the Foundation actually did do X. One role that I try to play here is to be a trusted party who people can correctly believe to be trying to be balanced and nuanced and encouraging everyone to be less confrontational and more collaborative. If it looks like I'm just toeing the party line, that role is undermined. To be fair: I should have asked before saying that but based on everything that I knew at the time, it didn't occur to me that they would have hired a firm like that. (I never heard of the firm before this dustup and so maybe that's why I didn't even consider it possible.). Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly to me it's more shocking that a union is genuinely needed at a reasonably well-funded non-profit (assuming it's usually the profit incentive that's corrosive to working conditions). Idk how much you talk w staff, but just the scraps we hear are awful, and there's likely way worse hidden behind NDAs. Maybe some sort of review could be undertaken (possibly producing recommendations for reform)? Idk. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 01:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Wouldn't say it's the profit incentive that's corrosive to working conditions. Whatever the flaws of whatever is currently going on, a union should be considered a normal thing rather than a particular signal about WMF working conditions. CMD (talk) 05:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy birthday and thank you for speaking up. Levivich (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Appreciate the explanation and thank you for your work on this. And of course Happy Birthday. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, and I hope unions will win the fight. Remember, "Cast away illusions, prepare for struggle". Ahri Boy(talk) 02:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happiest of years to you, they say "life begins at 60" is the new "life begins at 40". On this other stuff, assuming good faith towards you seems the way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy birthday! And thanks for speaking up, and being willing to admit when you're wrong, that takes courage. If you were unaware, does that mean the board was not informed before the Foundation made this decision? I don't know how often the board meets or how much you're able to attend all sessions of the board, given you must have quite a few outside engagements. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy birthday Jimmy and thanks for speaking out about this. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy birthday Jimmy! I deeply understand the need to have a trusted party who people can correctly believe to be trying to be balanced and nuanced and encouraging everyone to be less confrontational and more collaborative, and believe you are still the best placed to play that role. Sadly, some users strongly doubted this when hearing their worries be dismissed as unfair, hostility, or wild accusations in bad faith. In retrospect, would you say that these were, at the time, compatible with this approach when working with the limited information you had?

At a deeper level, how much is the Board in general (and you in particular) kept aware of these hiring choices, and how available is that information to them? If you as a Board member were confident enough to say that there are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here even though the converse was true, then the Board is not performing its oversight role accurately, and there is likely a deeper structural issue at play. Do you know how best we could begin to address it? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it would be normal nor very easy to manage for the board to be involved in every single decision at that level. I obviously regret saying 'there are no 'union-avoidance law firms' involved here' since it turns out that the firm is quite famous for that. I only knew about Jones Day which is a firm that we've used for many years for trademark work, etc. Anyway, I don't think there's a failure of oversight from the board. Obviously it was a big deal for me to come out publicly and say "Hey, I think hiring this firm (Littler) was a mistake" - that isn't something I think board members and especially me should do in most cases. But it felt important because not simply and openly acknowledging how I felt meant that people might well think that somehow the board is secretly supporting union-busting and that the WMF is pursuing some kind of scorched-earth policy against unionization. Neither of those is the case of course.

Just one last detail but this is what I hope to work on more next week. I think there have been some wild accusations in bad faith - not from the community as a whole of course - but from some. I think there are some questions/accusations that are still out there that I can't really comment on with great certainty so I won't. Mostly I just hope we can remember that we are a charity with a mission, a highly dedicated and mission driven staff and management, a board that is majority controlled by the community, etc. We'll get through this, and we'll get through it in a lot better shape if we can see each other in that light. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Littler was a poor choice, certainly optically, and that your earlier statement was not well informed. Obviously, it seems the WMF should look for and change law firms at least by after the election when new bargaining begins or any new filings need to be made. You should also probably hire in house counsel with the expertise. I want to point to your later statement, "[it] isn't the situation that WMF is seeking advice on how to frustrate union formation." You then go on to say the client is in control of "big law firm". We have a statement from the union, that the WMF is bargaining in good faith and in support of a speedy election, this occurred even with Littler. The point remains, that even with Littler, as your counsel, the WMF may not be "seeking advice on how to frustrate union formation". It bargained in good faith and in support of a speedy election, according to the union. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes I see it the same way. There are things to regret - and in that I would have to include some of the extreme WMF sentiment that hasn't been fully fact based as well as some communications clunkiness on the part of the WMF and other things as well all around - but broadly I think things are on track. We have a timeline for a secret ballot vote that I strongly support, and I hope that all parties can work to tone down the rhetoric and assumptions of bad faith that aren't helping anything really. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:21, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, I still think you should get rid of Littler, perhaps look beyond the US to a London based firm with U.S. offices. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the response to this.

I think what people are unhappy about is not necessarily that you were wrong, but that you were wrong in the context of shutting down people's concerns as irrational: 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 [...] The hostility you are expressing here is not fact based at all.

Whereas in reality, "the hostility" was indeed "fact-based" -- which makes sense, as the timeline here has not deviated much from the usual cliched union-avoidance events -- and the comment scolding people for it was the thing that was "not fact based at all." One could call it just... unfair.

Even assuming the absolute best faith that you didn't know what law firm was involved, this is the kind of thing that you just shouldn't say to someone unless you are absolutely certain that you're correct on the facts, ideally having them in front of you to double check. Because it looks really, really bad if you turn out to be wrong. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the General Counsel office? I would think they higher outside lawyers and instruct them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:55, 9 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)

1. The CEO should just resign.
2. Unions are necessary even in non-profits because management's interests are in conflict with workers interests. Management does not represent the workers.
3. About 3 years ago I voted to unionize as a graduate student. We succeeded and got a 20% pay raise, better benefits, and better working conditions. Of course the WMF workers should unionize because it's in their interest to do so. WMF should not be in the business of gaslighting its workers or anybody else. Jehochman ^Talk 01:33, 10 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)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for creating nupedia in the early 2000's!

LSPARK (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Request that you resign from the board

At meta:User talk:BMeehan-WMF, during the discussions asking her (and others) to resign), I have also raised the issues around your statements and sudden silence when they were shown to be false here, and asked for you to resign as well, as you can not be trusted to be truthful and supportive when you deal with community concerns. . Fram (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Having been on the board, I would not be surprised if the entire board was unaware of the law firm the WMF had hired. While Jimmy and I have disagreed at times, he is a strong advocate for our communities and him remaining on the board I believe is in the best interest of our movement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if this was true, then he still hasn´t been honest with us before this became known, and very conspicuously silent afterwards. All he did here was blame people for not trusting the WMF and acting as if what we said wasn´t true, instead of saying that he and the board don´t know such things but that he would find out for us. And this isn´t the first such issue either... Fram (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I was 100% honest with you before this became known. And as soon as I heard about it, I registered my dismay with the WMF. I am back at my desk Monday afternoon (but jetlagged) and intend to spend a lot of time next week digging into all of this and seeing what I can do to make things better.Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Then you have been deliberately misled by the WMF, just like everyone else was (e.g. at Wikimania). I guess you will be joining the calls for the CE (and perhaps others) to resign then? Before or after you have apologized to the people you insulted and patronized in the above sections, that choice is up to you of course. I'll go back to my stay-of-this-page policy again, as nothing productive comes from trying to talk reason here. Fram (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

First edit day!

Also, thank you for everything you have done for Wikipedia! I hope you have an amazing day full of good things! Auoaiajoi (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Birthday Cookies!

☘︎☘︎☘︎ALEXHammeke (talk | guestbook | sandbox) 20:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Happy birthday!

Why yes, Jimmy Wales is a gigachad.

How could you tell?

Happy birthday, Mr. Wales! 🎂

I was inspired by this template. CarlFilip19 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Join the September campaign about Organized Labour

For everyone reading this, please join us for the Organized Labour editing campaign this September. In solidarity with meta:Wiki Workers United, we're organising a month-long cross-language campaign to improve Wikipedia's coverage of labour unions and the labour movement. Want to take part?

• Register: meta-page for the Online Campaign
• Choose something to work on: English Wikipedia task list, or suggest new topics

There are plenty of gaps to fill, so pick a topic that interests you and join us this September! ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Brooke Vibber

I started a draft on this former Wikimedia Technology Officer who had a leading role in developing Wikimedia software and in the recent union organizing effort. I was trying to understand events and the history of events. They appear to be a key player.

I am always happy to have help with working up drafts and sourcing content. If there is not substantial coverage in reliable independent sources perhaps a section in another entry would work, but the current redirect to mentions and a quote in a related article on MediaWiki doesn't seem sufficient to me.

Take care and have a great year. One side note is that it's gone from very difficult for me to have drafts on notable subjects accepted into mainspace to almost impossible. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

You've been a WP-editor for a long time. So at a glance at your draft, it's surprising to see in-text WP:EL, WP:BAREURL refs and a WP:BLPSPS ref (that's one of the 2 there, and the other barely mentions Vibber, which the blog doesn't) in a WP:BLP. This is not stuff a Wikipedian with your tenure should leave to others to "fix", and per the existing refs, WP:N is not shown at all. If this a WP:N draft in your opinion, you should include the sources that show that.

That's not to say you can't get lucky with a post like this, these things happen and someone with a bit of passion may find and use WP:N-good sources you haven't, but it seems to me you've so far done none of the heavy lifting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång thanks for your feedback on the draft I started. What is meant by your statement "If this a WP:N draft in your opinion, you should include the sources that show that."? FloridaArmy (talk) 22:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

This draft currently cites two sources, one of which does not mention the article's subject (and doesn't seem like a reliable source), and the other only gives her one sentence of coverage. How does that establish notability, especially for a BLP? To put it another way, if there aren't sources for notability, why would you make the draft? and if there are, why aren't they in the article? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I answered your question above where I stated, "I started a draft on this former Wikimedia Technology Officer who had a leading role in developing Wikimedia software and in the recent union organizing effort. I was trying to understand events and the history of events. They appear to be a key player." Those were the first three sentences of my comment. Did you miss them? I also stated "a section in another entry would work, but the current redirect to mentions and a quote in a related article on MediaWiki doesn't seem sufficient to me." FloridaArmy (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

By this point, you should understand how our notability guidelines work, yet you created an article that has no sources establishing notability, and are now acting confused when asked to provide sources that do establish notability. I’m not sure what gives. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create an article I created a draft. There is a BIG difference. If you're going to criticize someone please try to be accurate and refrain from misleading misrepresentations. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That if you mean that the article subject meets the requirements of WP:N, afaict none of the 2 refs you used supports that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fwiw, writing talkpage comments in the draft is also weird IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I write comments in draftspace pages I am working up all the time as do many other prolific editors. Have you tried it? It can be very helpful and it's easy to move any leftover ones to the talkpage before a page is moved to mainspace. What do you think of maintenance templates that sit atop pages for years and years, often for more than a decade? FloridaArmy (talk) 23:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I never do that in draft-space, though I might consider it if it was a draft I kept in my user space. IMO, questions on sources etc is what the talkpage is for, and discussions there will remain for others to see and consider in the future, Template:Refideas can be useful. Comments etc in the actual draft-space, while kept in the edit-history, will be more obscure. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Mr. Wales, what is a good source to find Wikimedia's explanation of its disbanding the Community Tech team and for staff changes?

Wikipedia has always been a fascinating social enterprise (experiment) and community developed encyclopedia with various hierarchies and a foundation behind it plus your role. Now there is also AI to contend with.

It will be interesting to see what the future holds. I have always been a marginalized contributor, hanging in there and following along with fascination as the site's politics and culture have morphed in various ways over the years.

Take care and thanks for all your work and leadership to advance the site's interests and expand human knowledge. Definitely an amazing legacy that is among the wonders of the world. Hundreds of languages? Many many millions of pages? Pretty staggering. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Please don't do this. Brooke is well-respected in the Wikimedia world, and has done lots of important things within that narrow world. But there simply are not the requisite independent third party sources that are primarily about Brooke, nor do even the narrow group of sources you identify demonstrate notability outside of our community. If you want to write a page in your user space about the history of the last several months, including the unionization drive and Brooke's role in it, I'm supportive of that; I have pages in my user space that deal with various segments of Wikimedia history, too. We should be very conservative in creating even draft BLP articles about people whom we already know are (at best) marginally notable; it does them a disservice. Perhaps pour your energy into improving some of our existing BLPs, some of which are in dire shape and haven't even been properly reviewed in 10+ years. Risker (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Update on Littler Mendelson

Hi everyone just a quick update. As I have mentioned I will be back at my desk tomorrow afternoon UK time (jetlagged) and have cleared a lot of time next week.

My initial instinct based on reading public material is much like yours. I have looked into it and spoken further with the Foundation leadership team to try to learn more about where things stand.

I am satisfied with the specific work the Foundation has asked Littler to do. My concern is with the optics of working with this firm, but I do think what matters most are our actions, and I want to be clear that I think there has been no bad faith here. I am confident the team will conduct this process according to our values.

In terms of details, the work the WMF has asked Littler to do includes understanding our global footprint - not every firm has the global expertise that we need as a global movement - and to look at the best, fairest, and most equitable pathways that will work for our global organization. We are choosing the pathways that allowed to get swiftly to a fair vote, and to bargain in good faith.

It is important to note that the WMF has made a clear commitment, to me and to all of us, to do the right things here.

As I say I will be spending the next week on this and I very much hope we can bring down the heat in the conversations. I particular I ask people to take a breather from petitions, RFCs and the like for the moment. I'd like to take the time I need to try to help everyone get on the same page. Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I'm mostly taking a breather from editing Wikipedia entirely. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Even if what the Foundation is asking Littler is innocuous, a company whose culture is so drenched in union busting will likely accidently continue this. Will they for instance have said that it's unusual to voluntary recognise union, despite this being 3x more common than elections last time it was surveyed? Three questions in particular:

• Could you still share if the board was informed, including of reputation, before Littler was retained?
• Can you help us figure out if Littler helped prepare the three large anti-union meetings that the foundation organised earlier this year, as well as the leaked anti-union email? If not, was any other company involved in those talking points?
• We have corrected the record, e.g. in no longer claiming that the Foundation misled us when they said no captive audience meetings had been held (e.g. in in the factcheck). Can you ask the board to do the same, and strike its assertion that no interference has taken place, given that we have records of this interference? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"I am satisfied with the specific work the Foundation has asked Littler to do. My concern is with the optics of working with this firm, but I do think what matters most are our actions, and I want to be clear that I think there has been no bad faith here. I am confident the team will conduct this process according to our values." So that's why they kept it secret from you, and that's why they didn't want to reveal this at Wikimania. Because they want to do the right thing, are acting in good faith, and every piece of evidence of union-busting was all false, misinterpreted, twisted, and none of it was actually an attempt by the WMF to stop the formation of the recognition of a union.

I agree that "I do think what matters most are our actions", and the actions, from the WMF leadership and from the board, has eroded whatever faith was left in either of them. Fram (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think anyone kept anything secret from me. And I think the rest of your interpretation is aggressively interpreting things incorrectly. You're also wrong about the board, so I don't think there's much that anyone can say which would ever change your mind. Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Chiming back in anyway, as this is too problematic. You e.g. said

"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. "

just days before the evidence of the Littler Mendelson involvement was revealed. If no one kept anything secret from you, then either

• you knew about it then, but lied to us about it
• you didn't knew about it because you didn't actually talk to the people at the WMF, you just posted all kinds of posts about how good the WMF was dealing with this and how badly we all interpreted things without actually bothering to check anything
• you were informed about Littler Mendelson but had no idea of their extremely bad reputation until people here pointed it out, despite "union-avoidance law firms" being the actual topic of dispute and your reply
• The decision to hire Littler Mendelson was made extremely rapidly, against community concerns (and apparently your own concerns), over the Wikimania weekend

But it's very hard to see how you can at the same time have been asking about this (to give us an informed reply), have been told (because they kept nothing secret from you), and have been truthful to us. So please, indicate which scenario is actually correct. Who did you talk to, by who and when were you assured that "there are no "union-avoidance law firms" involved here", when was the decision made to hire LM and by whom? As it stands, your words and the timeline seem incompatible, but feel free to show that it all fits. Fram (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't ask specifically what law firm was being hired. So going through your 4 scenarios one at a time, assuming good faith in a way that you're completely failing to do with me: I had seen mention of Jones Day, our usual law firm. So - I didn't know, I didn't lie. I did talk to people at the WMF but I didn't ask specifics about what law firm. If anyone did mention Littler Mendelson to me (not that I know of) I would not have known anything about them. I don't yet know exactly when Littler was hired, but I don't think it was the weekend of Wikimania.

To quote Doc James above: "Having been on the board, I would not be surprised if the entire board was unaware of the law firm the WMF had hired." - That's right. That's the level of detail that is generally not important (though in this case it turns out to have been very important). I regret not having asked more details about which law firms we had hired or might have hired, but it just didn't occur to me that we would hire a firm like this, so I didn't ask.

I don't expect you to accept any of this, so I'm answering for the benefit of people who are prepared to have sensible conversations. Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That seems like a clear breach of the duty of candour towards the BoT, not raising this as a major risk. Did the C-suite inform the BoT about the anti-union meetings that were held with staff? Or was that information also new to you? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:17, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

so you made absolute statements about what the WMF was and wasn´t doing, while you were in reality woefully uninformed about what they were actually doing. "That's the level of detail that is generally not important". Then you should just have stated here that you didn´t know this, not that you knew this and people here were wrong. Basically, scenario 2 from my previous post. Thank you for confirming this! Fram (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Nothing in this actually describes the work that the WMF is having L-M do. "look at the best, fairest, and most equitable pathways that will work for our global organization" could mean literally anything. Maybe some concrete descriptions would be helpful, because it sounds like you're just avoiding describing the "union avoidance" activities that they were clearly hired to do. Parabolist (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find out about more specific details, but it's already wrong to me to describe any of it as any kind of inappropriate union avoidance activities "that they were clearly hired to do". Jumping from "I don't know the details" to "clearly it was inappropriate" isn't fair.

WMF operates across many jurisdictions globally. In many jurisdictions (the UK is one example) there's a separate employer of record who is the actual employer and I understand that this introduces extra complications. We have already always had complicated discussions about pay equity around the world - US salaries tend to be much higher than other places around the world, and European benefits tend to be much higher than other places around the world, etc.

Adding in unionization across many districts raises all kinds of new questions but in addition, legal advice is needed in order to make 100% sure that the Foundation is acting scrupulously correctly in all matters here.

I'm on record at expressing that I'm not happy with the choice of a firm with a reputation like this, but I also note that lawyers work for us, they aren't actually activists or ideologues, they are... lawyers. They'll do whatever the client wants.

I'm also more focussed on what happens next - where can we get on the same page together, everyone? The first thing I hope can happen is acknowledging that things have been far from great so far, and for the Foundation to do whatever is needed to restore trust, and for community members who have been upset (either rightly or wrongly - in addition to accurate information, there has also been a lot of misinformation and innuendo floating around, I'm sure we can all agree) to drop the stick and work together positively to reinforce and reward good behavior and decisions going forward. One of the first thing to do is stop a thinking pattern that looks something like this "I don't have all the details about this, therefore I will assume the worst." Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

One step in restoring trust is striking or otherwise correcting the record. You did so on Littler. You haven't done so on other comments. When you talk about misinformation, is there any remaining from vocal union supporters that you would like to see corrected (feel free to email me if you do not believe this is a safe space to express that)? And will you commit further correcting the record from the BoT (who claims no interference), and yourself (e.g. the claim that the foundation has stayed neutral, as Fram highlighted above). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

re for the Foundation to do whatever is needed to restore trust, an idea Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

So, we're expected to believe that the WMF hired the largest "union prevention" firm in the US, directly after employees began the unionization process, but to not do the thing they're most notable for doing? You understand how ridiculous this sounds, right? Are we supposed to believe that there are no firms with labor expertise that would've been more appropriate than this? It's not that we don't have all the details for this, it's that we're being expected to believe something farcical. Parabolist (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Words cannot fix this. Levivich (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here, exactly, but maybe I agree? As I said "what matters most are our actions" - so we agree about that. But at the same time I think words are really important - we're in a situation that has been so heated that as far as I can see, at least some people aren't actually listening to each other very well. Let's turn down the temperature and try more productive ways of engaging? And that means words... lots of words. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What I mean is: the WMF didn't just say wrong words, it also took wrong actions. Examples of the wrong words and actions include:

• Hiring a disreputable law firm
• Holding we-promise-you're-not-a-captive-audience meetings and sending employees statements saying management thinks unionizing is a bad idea (and repeating common anti-union talking points)
• The Board and C-Suite repeatedly stating in public that the WMF is neutral on unions, and that no union-busting was happening, while failing to disclose the two bullet points above
• The CEO refusing to answer questions about unionization at Wikimania
• The CEO falsely claiming at Wikimania that no decision had been made about voluntary recognition because the C-Suite was so focused on Wikimania
• Refusing to voluntarily recognize the union despite two secret-ballot card checks with supermajority support
• The Board publicly implying that unionization was part of day-to-day operations that the Board does not have input into or control over
• No apologies for any of the above
• No disciplinary actions for any of the above
• Not even an acknowledgement that the WMF did anything wrong at any point (except from you, about the law firm choice, for which I'm grateful, but it's not enough)

This list is not exhaustive. These things cannot be fixed by words alone. Examples of actions that might help fix things:

• Replacing the law firm
• Replacing the CEO
• Voluntarily recognizing unions that are still asking for it (in UK?)
• Setting a new policy about union recognition that prohibits all those mistakes listed above from happening again -- no disreputable law firms, no anti-union messaging, no public misrepresentations (including by omission)
• Making a public apology and correcting the record (including striking past statements that were incorrect or not fully accurate)
• Taking disciplinary actions against executives who failed to abide by WMF values

That list is also not exhaustive.I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't plan on dropping any sticks until I see actions correcting the mistakes that were made. No amount of words -- no "trust us" or "assume good faith" -- are enough. I did trust the WMF leadership, and they proved not to be worthy of that trust, because they lied to us. And I use the word "lied" because they intentionally misrepresented the truth (including by omission) in order to make the WMF look better than it would look if they had told the truth. I want to see actions because I want to go back to a reality where there is no need to misrepresent anything because the truth makes the WMF look good. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

One of the things I'm looking into this week are these allegations about "we-promise-you're-not-a-captive-audience". I haven't seen anything so far to persuade me that anything untoward happened.

As for the other things you're asking for, well, some I would agree with and some I wouldn't.

Let's take the easy one first: I don't like processes that aren't secret ballots. I've heard from employees who say they felt intimidated and bullied into signing. I'm sure you'll agree with me that employees should feel safe to express their genuine preferences - this is about basic decency. I have little doubt what the outcome of the proper voting process will be and yet I'm glad we're doing it as it will be good for all employees. I'd say the same about any future process in any other country, subject of course to local laws which I know nothing about personally right now.

As to "hiring a disreputable law firm" - well, sure. But other than just saying that, I don't know how to operationalize it in a firm rule going forward since pretty much any law firm, particularly the big ones who have global capacity are going to be... well, people joke about lawyers for a reason. If you have a specific suggestion of a law firm who could represent the WMF in labour matters which you would approve of, I'm happy to pass along the suggestion. I'm ready to endorse the idea in a general way but just want to note that there will always be something that people will raise as a concern.

As to "The CEO falsely claiming at Wikimania that no decision had been made about voluntary recognition because the C-Suite was so focused on Wikimania" and "The CEO refusing to answer questions about unionization at Wikimania" neither of those are correct. It is absolutely true that no decision had been made at Wikimania - the formal request came in on Monday and we were already in Paris. It was perfectly reasonable and correct to not come to a final decision without discussion with the board, advisors, etc. And the CEO did answer questions about unionization - perhaps not the answers you wanted. She was pressured in front of the audience to instantly recognize the union right there on stage, which would have been a very bad idea.

Finally, if the definition of "union busting" is so broad that any degree of expression of concern counts, well, that's not a very helpful definition.

This is what I mean about not extending good faith. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

In terms of untoward behaviour vis-a-vis the staff meetings:

• Were unions given an equal opportunity to speak? If the Foundation used its privileged access to employees to convene a meeting about unions without giving unions equal space in the meeting, I assume you would agree to me that would be untoward?
• What was the timing? Can you confirm whether any of these meetings took place shortly after Brooke's dismissal? If so, that matters because employees could reasonably have perceived a connection between what was being said about unions and their own job security, regardless of whether that was the intention.
• If the Foundation did take a stance, will you correct the record of the BoT board and others who claimed no interference took place?

While you say we should de-escalate, your language has become more loaded. What started as employees feeling uncomfortable has become bullying, and you now describe it as intimidation. That is a particularly serious characterisation. Does the evidence support such an extreme term? In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are the words used by others who felt that way. I agree with you that they are particularly serious words to use, hence why I supported and still support the secret ballot. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As I explained above, I am not extending good faith to the WMF leadership anymore, because they broke that, by their bad faith. This is so long I'm going to use fake section headings.

Not-Captive Audience Meetings

I wasn't there, but I think it's safe to assume, and people who were there have reported, that what WMF leadership said at meetings in February, March, and April, are similar to what WMF leadership said in a Feb email, and include statements that I think are untoward such as:

• we don't believe that a union would effectively address the concerns being raised or meet the Foundation's needs at this moment - an anti-union statement
• no one union can legally represent our global staff as if international unions and international federations of unions don't exist, as if the Communications Workers of America isn't affiliated with UNI Global Union. This is a technically-true-but-not-actually-true statement (int'l unions can't legally represent global staff but almost all workers in every country can be legally represented by a union, and those unions can be, and pretty much already are, federated or otherwise affiliated with each other).
• We don't believe that a union representing only a subset of U.S.-based individual contributors is the best way to resolve the concerns we're hearing. - same half-truth as above, as if the idea was for a union to only represent a subset of US-based individual contributors, and not everybody (cf. the pending union request in UK) - this is especially false given that WWU has explicitly put itself out as a global union
• We are concerned that even a well-intentioned and effective union for some U.S. staff could create new equity challenges for non-U.S. staff, since it could establish policies or benefits that don't apply across locations. Instead, we want to focus on solutions that can include and benefit all staff. - the famous crabs-in-a-bucket union-busting talking point that unionization would mean some workers getting more than others
• Unions are not structured to represent non-union members or formally negotiate issues on behalf of non-union groups. - another famous union-busting talking point

There are actually additional common union-busting talking points in that email, beyond the five I quoted above. Seriously: click that link, read that page, and then compare it to m:WWUEMAIL, and tell me you don't see the overlap. That's untoward.

Secret ballots

My understanding, based on statements made by union folks, is that the two card checks were both secret ballots, in the sense that no one knows how anyone voted, except for the people tallying the votes, who did not share that information with anyone. When you say "I've heard from employees who say they felt intimidated and bullied into signing," it's very easy to say that I've heard from employees who say they felt intimidated and bullied into not signing, including by the WMF, because of their anti-union messaging, such as what I quoted above. Let's assume for the sake of argument that yes, some people felt intimidated into signing. And that it wasn't just one or two people, but some significant portion. And, further, that it wasn't just the first or the second card check, but both. Let's assume all that is true.

What's going to stop the same thing from happening at the NLRB vote?

Social pressure is a thing. We can't eliminate it. It doesn't mean the votes violate basic decency. Unless you have some specific reasons why the NLRB vote would be more free and fair than the two secret ballots that already happened (and got a supermajority), this "objection" seems pretty empty, because the same objection applies to literally any vote for anything anywhere. In the US, there's a lot of pressure to vote, or not vote, for Trump, including intimidation and bullying up to storming the Capitol, yet we still have elections and honor their outcomes. I've yet to see any explanation as to why the third secret vote is better than the first two.

Law firm

As for a better law firm, I wouldn't know without doing significant amounts of research into the reputations of the big int'l management-side labor firms. This is something I'd expect WMF Legal to do. It's true that all management-side labor firms have, to varying degrees, an anti-union reputation -- that's unavoidable, they in fact are anti-union, because "management" is, virtually universally, anti-union. But it's a question of degrees. Littler has a terrible reputation, even amongst its peers, especially lately, because of some high-profile scandals like the famous Amazon union-busting debacle. That's why, after that broke, Littler removed the phrase "union avoidance" from its website. But there are other firms to choose from: here's a list from Chambers and Partners. Do the research, pick a better firm.

One reason for a behemoth like WMF to do that, by the way, is so that those large law firms maybe will learn that not every potential marquee client wants the most-anti-union law firm, that being, to some extent, pro-union or at least able-to-work-with-unions-without-pissing-everyone-off, is a selling point. This is an example of where the WMF, via its selection of vendors, can help promote change for the better in the world.

CEO at Wikimania

As to "The CEO falsely claiming at Wikimania that no decision had been made about voluntary recognition because the C-Suite was so focused on Wikimania" and "The CEO refusing to answer questions about unionization at Wikimania" neither of those are correct. It is absolutely true that no decision had been made at Wikimania - the formal request came in on Monday and we were already in Paris.

Come on, man, please, don't lie to me, not even a little bit. Please, 100%, absolute candor, please.

You know what you just wrote isn't true. It's on video!

The CEO falsely claiming at Wikimania that no decision had been made about voluntary recognition because the C-Suite was so focused on Wikimania -- this is true. It's on video. Her exact words were:

We've received the request from the union. We, all of us ... are here at Wikimania this week, our focus is on executing ... a great event. We will respond to that particular request when we've had a chance to review it and take a decision. So that's the answer to that.

That was on July 24, a Friday. She said later (same video) that they were committed to responding to the union by Monday.

First of all, it's flatly not true that, having received the formal request on Monday, they had not even had a chance to review it by Friday. They all read that shit by Friday, you know it, I know it, let's not bullshit each other.

Second, they rejected the voluntary recognition request on Monday. On Tuesday, Littler Mendelson's appearance on behalf of NLRB was filed.

Don't, for a second, expect anyone to believe that (1) reviewing the request, (2) discussing the request, (3) deciding to reject the request, (4) hiring a law firm, and (5) the law firm filing an appearance.... all happened in like 72 hours over a weekend. That's bullshit also.

There is zero doubt that at the time the CEO said they hadn't reviewed or decided on the request, they had already hired Littler, and already knew that they were going to reject voluntary recognition, and force the NLRB vote. Because it would be the height of fiduciary irresponsibility for the entire C-suite to not review the request for 5 days because they were at a conference, and then to make such a monumental decision over the course of one weekend

And even though the formal request came on Monday, everyone knew that this request was coming. The "not-captive audience" meetings happened months prior. The WMF knew for months that a voluntary request was coming, it's a normal part of the procedure. This is why I have no assumption of good faith left in me. You seriously expect me to believe that the WMF didn't even think about it or decide it, until the weekend before the deadline, and then all decisions were made in a couple of days? I say bullshit. Obvious bullshit.

The CEO refusing to answer questions about unionization at Wikimania is also true. She gave politican-style non-responses. Again, it's on video. The 2nd question was "why not voluntarily recognize?" She did not answer that. She said some words, but didn't answer that question. The 3rd question was, again, "will you commit to voluntarily recognize." She did not answer that. She said, I'm not going to litigate it in this room, which is another way of saying "I'm not going to answer specific questions here." She even at one point tried to dodge by saying "there's a process," but when the questioner pointed out that voluntary recognition is part of that process, she never answered why the WMF wasn't voluntarily recognizing.

I'm still waiting for the answer to the question: given that voluntary recognition was requested after two secret ballots with supermajority support, why didn't the WMF voluntarily recognize? What good is the NLRB vote doing that the prior two secret ballots didn't do?

You want to know why it's important when the WMF hired Littler? Because Littler is who advised the CEO how to respond to questions at Wikimania. And Littler is who helped draft m:WWUEMAIL and prep the C-Suite for the "not-captive-audience" meetings, including, no doubt, drafting the not-captive-audience disclaimer. I don't know this is true, but I'll bet you a start-class article on a topic of your choice that Littler was hired before Wikimania, and even before February. And it matters because if that's true, the WMF was following the Littler anti-union playbooks while simultaneously saying false things like that they hadn't yet decided what to do. Levivich (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm just going to respond to one piece of this because I'm researching other aspects and I want to be clear with you. I think you have misunderstood me and I want to try to say this again more clearly.

"The CEO falsely claiming at Wikimania that no decision had been made about voluntary recognition because the C-Suite was so focused on Wikimania" - you said this, and I said it is incorrect.

You then accuse me of lying (wow!) to you because she did say no decision had been made about voluntary recognition. It should already be obvious to you what's wrong with that.

She did say no decision had been made about voluntary recognition. And the reason she said that is that it was true. You were mistaken to say that she "falsely claimed" it.

Does that clarify things for you? As I've just written elsewhere on the page, the board met informally after the final photo at Wikimania and discussed it. Even at that time, the decision had not been made about voluntary recognition. I'm only at liberty to discuss what my own view was at that time: if the board wanted to pursue voluntary recognition I could be ok with that, but I would be more comfortable given the discomfort we heard from some staff about the earlier process if we requested a secret ballot. To be clear the board did not vote, this was not a formal meeting but an informal one, and the purpose was to help advise and get the sense of everyone about the decision which Bernadette truthly reported had not yet been made.

Is that clear? Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

And to be fair, since I'm accusing people of lying and such, here is what I would have wanted the CEO to say, either of these two answers would have been, in my view, truthful:

1. We decided not to voluntarily recognize the union. [pause for groans and boos] I know, this is not the decision many, if not most, of our community wanted us to make, but let me explain our reasoning. We understand that there have been two secret ballot card checks that received supermajority support. But, we have heard from some employees that they felt pressured into signing. We could enter into an arbitration process to verify the integrity of those card checks. The other alternative open to us is the NLRB vote. We believe, after consulting with our attorneys, that the arbitration process would take much longer -- many more months, maybe a year or more -- than an NLRB vote, which we understand could happen within a month or two. So, we think, rather than investigate the complaints through arbitration, the faster and easier path forward is to have an NLRB vote.
   Now, I know many companies push for an NLRB vote and then use the time before the vote for anti-union lobbying of its own employees. I can confirm that the WMF will do no such thing. I know, in the past, we expressed our reservations about unionization, and, in retrospect, that was a mistake, we should have kept those reservations to ourselves. But I can pledge on behalf of the WMF that even though we are declining voluntary recognition and asking for an NLRB vote, we will, first of all, agree to the earliest date for that vote that is agreeable to the union, and secondly, do absolutely nothing to try and influence anyone's decision between now and the vote: no meetings, no emails, no messages from management whatsoever. We will support whatever choice our workers make, we will support their ability to make a free choice without delay, and we will not interfere or try to convince anyone to vote one way or the other. I hope you can all understand that we cannot ignore the reports from employees of their concerns with the card checks, and that an NLRB vote is faster way to resolve this issue than arbitration.
2. We are not going to announce our decision here, today, because we're concerned doing so will overshadow the remainder of Wikimania. Of course, we've known for some time that this request was coming, and we've spent a lot of time discussing and debating it. We haven't yet made a final decision, and plan to meet immediately after Wikimania to finalize our decision, which we will announce on Monday. [Then, on Monday, say #1.]

Either of those would have been more honest than claiming they haven't "had a chance to review it." Levivich (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If you "assume for the sake of argument that yes, some people felt intimidated [or confused] in[] signing. And that it wasn't just one or two people, but some significant portion. And, further, that it wasn't just the first or the second card check, but both," you don't go to collective bargaining on the employment contract, you go to arbitration, or the NLRB vote.

Arbitration is not inexpensive both as to money and time of all involved. I think to go to arbitration, you need to negotiate an arbitration agreement (which may or may not involve defining the bargaining unit or you can leave that to arbitration later), you have to agree on an arbitrator and higher the arbitrator (in August in California summer holiday - not cheap or likely fast). The arbitrator then controls the schedule and how issues are processed, and may involve going back to the workers to testify. (Compare possible, quick NLRB filing, quick agreement, and vote, and done.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Levivich's commentary on how executives should've approached this question, if this is the actual reason they didn't decide to do this instead of just a pretense. Instead, the CEO doesn't have the "luxury" of ignoring the process, is what I remember hearing at the time. No one has said anything about arbitration beyond ignoring it every time we bring it up and acting like voluntary recognition is inherently improper and the only way to legal union recognition is the path they chose. :( Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 09:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Levivich - but at the time it was asked, they literally hadn't had time to review it and formulate that response in a formal way. The board had an informal meeting outside the conference center after the group photo at the end of the conference and discussed it there - our first chance to do so at the event. I'm sorry if you think that wasn't fast enough but really, I don't see that it mattered and there was certainly nothing dishonest about what Bernadette said: it was factual. Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the timeline you and she would have us believe is this:

1. on July 20, a formal request for voluntary recognition was made, with a response deadline of July 24
2. by July 24, the CEO of a $250M/yr, 700-employee int'l org, and the rest of the c-suite and board, had not yet reviewed the request
3. on July 25-26, having finally reviewed the request for the first time, a decision was made
4. on July 27, the decision was announced
5. on July 28, Littler appeared at the NLRB on behalf of the WMF

I know #1, #4, and #5, are true because those steps are documented. I don't believe #2 and #3 are true. If it were true, you should fire that CEO right away, because not even reviewing the request by the deadline would be sheer incompetence and a breach of fiduciary duty.

But I think it's not credible that the CEO of such a large int'l org would be stupid enough not to read the request because she's busy attending a conference. Such a suggestion is absolutely not credible. People who go to conferences don't stop reading their emails, especially not CEOs overseeing hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of employees, especially when the email is a request for voluntary recognition of union employees that you knew was coming. And they don't spend only two days deciding what to do. I know this because I wasn't born yesterday. People in these positions don't make these kinds of decisions in a day or two, it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to do spend so little time on such an important decision. One or two days isn't enough time to find a lawyer, hire a lawyer, confer with the lawyer, get the lawyer's legal advice, make a decision, and write a press release announcing it. That takes more than a day or two. Especially over a weekend. You don't really expect us to believe all of this was done in one weekend, do you? Levivich (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

And you know what, I was holding back a card for later, but I'm not even gonna do the cross-examination thing, I'm going to show you the next card now:

If it were true that they hadn't reviewed the request for voluntary recognition by July 24, and made the entire decision on July 25-26, that means only two days were spent:

1. investigating complaints of undue pressure by card signatories
2. hiring counsel and conferring with counsel about those complaints, and about whether to go to voluntarily reconcile, go to arbitration, or have an NLRB vote as a result
3. internally discussing counsel's advice
4. deciding to go the NLRB route

I don't believe all of that happened in two days. At least some of this had already happened before July 24, and very likely before the formal request was even received on July 20. Because, again, if the WMF only spent 2 days looking into the complaints of undue pressure, hiring and conferring with counsel about it, and deciding what to do, that would massive incompetence and breach of fiduciary duties all around. Call it the reverse Hanlon's razor, but I just don't believe that the entire WMF leadership is so incompetent that they only spent 2 days on all of this. No way. By July 24, it is obvious, WMF knew about the complaints, had looked into them to some extent, had hired lawyers, had conferred with lawyers, and had multiple internal discussions about whether to voluntarily recognize, arbitrate, or go to NLRB vote. Nobody on earth could get all that done in just one weekend. This isn't like picking a restaurant for dinner. Levivich (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Let me quote something you said to me earlier: "Please, 100%, absolute candor, please." What do you mean "holding back a card"? I don't think that's a good faith sign of engaging with me in a collaborative fashion that assumes good faith.

But let me go through this just to show how absurd the argument you are making here is. You're assuming a bizarre and frankly silly binary - either the WMF absolutely had made their final decision and chose for no really good reason to lie about it *OR* they had done absolutely none of the items on your list and then did them all in two days.

That's... not how the real world works, ever. First, people had been hearing concerns and complaints about undue pressure by card signatories for some time. That was one factor weighing on our minds. Second, although I don't yet know exactly when Littler was hired, we obviously have had outside counsel (Jones Day) for some time, and the WMF absolutely conferred with them about the issues. Third, the internal discussion is the piece that I would argue wasn't fully completed and as I've said to you, we on the board had an informal meeting outside after the group photo and discussed the options at that time, reviewing and ruminating on the pros and cons. And then on the Monday, exactly as promised, they reviewed everything and made a final decision.

Why you choose to have this very strange characterization of the process I don't really know.

It seems like you would be ok (you wrote this) if she had said "We haven't yet made a final decision, and plan to meet immediately after Wikimania to finalize our decision, which we will announce on Monday" but since she said "We will respond to that particular request when we've had a chance to review it and take a decision" you're going ballistic and calling her a liar.

Really? I recommend that you have a think and consider retracting that allegation now that you know more from me about what happened. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm totally down with absolute candor. I think it's a sign of respect to be absolutely candid with another person. That's why I think the CEO was disrespectful to the community when she was less than absolutely candid at Wikimania.

By "holding back a card," I meant that I initially wasn't going to ask you about the when-did-they-investigate-complaints bit until after you had responded to my first message today. But then I thought about it and realized that was potentially setting up a "trap" of sorts, so I decided not to wait, and to follow up with the second message, "putting all my cards on the table," as the expression goes. That is an example of my practicing absolute candor with you. I'm not trying to play semantic games or set you up or trap you (neither are you), I'm just trying to communicate forthrightly.

I didn't set up that binary, the CEO did. She didn't say, "we've been discussing this for a long time internally and with our outside counsel, but we haven't made a final decision yet." She said that they were too busy with Wikimania to have even reviewed the request yet. When someone says "I haven't reviewed the request yet," that means they haven't discussed it internally yet, haven't deliberated about it yet, haven't consulted with outside lawyers about it yet... "haven't had a chance to review it" means haven't even looked into it. It does not mean "have been reviewing it for a long time now but haven't made a final decision." That's the lie. She tried to make it sound like, as of July 24, the request hadn't even been reviewed yet, and so no decision could possibly have been made, and she didn't know what decision it was going to be, it could be anything, they hadn't reviewed it. That wasn't true. They already reviewed it. They already received legal advice about it. They already looked into the complaints of undue pressure. They already discussed internally how they would respond. All of those things, obviously, had already happened. Maybe, it's true, they hadn't made a final decision yet... but they had reviewed it already. She lied. She said something she knew wasn't true (haven't had a chance to review it because so busy at Wikimania). That's what a lie is: saying something that's not true, when you know it isn't true. She knew she had already reviewed that request. She knew others in the c-suite had already reviewed that request. She knew they had already discussed it, consulted with lawyers, investigated, deliberated, etc.

Yes, I would have been fine with her saying "discussions are ongoing and no final decision has been made yet." But she didn't say that. She said something she knew wasn't true, and that's why I take objection to it. That's a major fuck-up, in my book, for the CEO to publicly say something she knows isn't true, at Wikimania, about such a high-profile scandal. And I think she did it solely because she didn't want to have to answer questions about it, which makes it doubly-bad.

BTW, I am not going ballistic. This is me very calm, patiently outlining the reasons why I'm saying the CEO lied to us at Wikimania, with quotes and links and so forth. Accusing someone of lying isn't "going ballistic," especially when she publicly said something that demonstrably isn't true (that she hadn't reviewed the request after 5 days because so busy at Wikimania). I did, a couple weeks ago, go a little ballistic when I learned about the Littler hire, but that's because that was the moment that I realized that we had been totally lied to. If they had hired Littler by July 28, that meant they had already reviewed the request by July 24, and therefore she lied when she said she hadn't reviewed the request yet because so busy at Wikimania. Not too busy to hire Littler, obviously. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

As I say, I don't agree with you "When someone says "I haven't reviewed the request yet," that means they haven't discussed it internally yet, haven't deliberated about it yet, haven't consulted with outside lawyers about it yet... "haven't had a chance to review it" means haven't even looked into it."

What she meant, and what's consistent with what she said and what was going on at the time, is that they didn't have time at Wikimania to conduct the sort of review that respect demands, and that they would respond on Monday. That was 100% true, and for you to keep insisting that she meant something else considering that I'm telling you exactly what was going on and what everyone on the board and who had talked to her all week understood, is not really right. But I think we've both said all that we can say on this. Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

they didn't have time at Wikimania to conduct the sort of review that respect demands by July 24, but they had time to conduct that sort of review over the weekend of July 25-26? Not credible. This is what I meant by "words won't fix this." There is no amount of explanation that will make it true that they hadn't even reviewed the request by July 24. You seem to be trying to say that when she said they hadn't had a chance to review it, she meant they hadn't had a chance to complete their review. But that's not what she said, and "haven't had a chance to review" does not mean "have begun but haven't completed the review." And no disrespect intended, but by your own admission, you don't know exactly what was going on. None of us do, because the CEO has been less than 100% truthful. For example, we still don't know when Littler was hired... and that would be strong evidence of when they had begun doing the kind of serious review that we all agree the situation demanded. The answer, no doubt, is at least weeks and probably months before July 24. Levivich (talk) 16:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If I agree that it would have been better to have said "haven't had a chance to complete our review" rather than "haven't had a chance to review" can we move on to something more substantive? This strikes me as a silly wordsmithing of a remark that has been fully explained to you already. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

If I am reading the above correctly, the CEO did not say just "review." She said 'review and decide', which suggests a process. Her words also suggest a process which needs to be completed in the future. Moreover, she represented it, as not something she was or would do alone (nor something she was doing, which makes sense, for someone who is close to the last person to be involved in any hierarchically stepped review) but something multiple people are and would be involved in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes to all of that. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hold on, let me check this horse's pulse...

...yup, thoroughly dead. We can move on... on your talk page, but I'm still not dropping any sticks until the CEO (and, frankly, the Board) address the unaddressed. That's not a matter for your talk page, though. It's not something you have control over, I acknowledge.

BTW I do appreciate you taking the time to engage so thoroughly here with me and everyone else. And for doing that for 25+ years. It may not seem like it, but I think your engagement is have a sponge-like effect of soaking up a lot of the discord and thereby calming down other pages like VPWMF and on meta. You're providing us with an outlet, and that is a valuable service to the cause.

But in terms of the overall request to "drop the stick," the CEO still has not even acknowledged any of this, and that's a big deal to me. There are still unanswered questions, like:

1. Why not voluntarily recognize? (I answered the question above, but still no answer from the CEO.) If the answer is about the pressure concerns, then that leads to unanswered question #2:
2. What is the difference between the secret NLRB vote and the two secret card checks, such that the secret NLRB vote is going to assuage our collective concerns about pressure?
3. When did they hire Littler? (Which is another way of asking: when did the WMF start following Littler's advice? Was it before February?)
4. Will the WMF change lawyers?
5. When will the CEO and the Board acknowledge or address the various items at m:WWUFACTCHECK?

The CEO said she's not going to "litigate" the issue at Wikimania. Fair enough, but when is she going to litigate the issue, that is, when is she going to answer our questions, when is the Q&A happening? The CEO's answers at Wikimania are not a big deal on their own, in isolation, but in the context of all the other half-truths and such listed at m:WWUFACTCHECK, and in the context of there still being unanswered questions weeks after the fact (the 5 listed above, plus I'm sure others have more), the whole thing remains "a big deal" to me. And it will remain a big deal regardless of the outcome of the NLRB vote. Until and unless the CEO and Board answer the unanswered questions, and acknowledge/correct/apologize-for (as appropriate) the various misstatements in the past, this remains an unresolved problem. But yes, I will move on from discussing the Wikimania answers here on your talk page :-) Levivich (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I asked @LLosa (WMF) on Meta a week ago:

1. When did the WMF first seek the assistance of Littler Mendelson?
2. When did you and other board members learn that Littler Mendelson had been contracted to work on this?
3. And which outside law firm, if any, provided advice for the February WMF message to employees?

I mentioned this was for The Signpost.

A board member should reasonably be able to find the answers to these questions out within a day or two. The fact that no answer has been received to date makes me lean towards the assumption that there is no great desire to respond to these questions, because the answers would be more damaging than the perception that the WMF is, once again, stonewalling.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong and would point out that the idea that stonewalling would be less harmful than telling the truth is short-term thinking. These stonewalling incidents build up over time; they lead to profound resentment. Andreas JN466 14:46, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately as we've seen many times over the years (Framgate, VE, Superprotect, James Heilman), we get "statements" from WMF staffers, but when the questions that result from those statements get too difficult, the result is usually radio silence. Looks like the same thing here. Black Kite (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

These stonewalling incidents build up over time; they lead to profound resentment.

This is the crux of the issue.

I do appreciate the (relative?) directness that we've gotten here. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

That explanation doesn't make a lot of sense with regards to the timeline. The foundation were already dealing with international issues due to earlier UK unionisation effort which they received notice on on 24th of June. So either at that point they were winging it (which would be an interesting choice) or their existing legal resources were sufficient for such matters. The move to ACAS on 7 July suggests a reasonable familiarity with UK law in this area even if the move on the 6 August by the WWU UK Branch and UTAW to start the statutory recognition process suggests they had no faith in the WMF and Safeguard Global to go beyond the absolute legal minimum.©Geni (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand what timeline you mean? I am not following. I don't think I've said anything very specific about any timelines mostly because I don't know. What I have said is that I didn't personally know about what specific law firm was hired, nor when, because that level of detail isn't something that normally rises to board-level attention and because it didn't occur to me (which I regret now) to ask because I hadn't foreseen hiring a firm with such a reputation. But maybe I misunderstand what you're saying or asking? Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:55, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The timeline being "dates I can actually nail down". The foundation was officially dealing with international union issues from the 24th of June and had taken public action with regards to international union issues by 7 July. So unless you are suggesting Littler Mendelson was hired before that point it doesn't make a lot of sense.©Geni (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't suggested anything about when Littler was hired - I actually don't know when they were hired and so I've avoided saying or suggesting anything about it at all. For all I know it could have been January or it could have been much later. I just don't know and I also am totally unclear on why it's important - although I will try to find out. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

"I actually don't know when they were hired". Really... Why don't you have that information? And, oh, btw, when you do have it?, do share it with the rest of the class. - Shearonink (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The point is, why would I have that information, at least in general. When I have my next meeting with WMF I'll ask if they can release it. But maybe you can let me know why it's important.

As for me I am hoping they hired them several months ago. Even though I disagree with hiring that particular firm, I definitely hope a firm (I wish they had chosen differently) was hired as soon as it became obvious that this would be moving from a stage of "a few people are talking about this" to "this is something real" because getting good advice to make sure that everything is done in the right way is important. I get the feeling that for some people there's going to be a "gotcha" no matter when they hired them. If it was early, A HA this proves they were planning to union-bust. (No, it doesn't.) If it was late, A HA this proves they were winging it without proper advice (No, it doesn't.)

But sure I'll ask. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Well. I guess if you say so, that settles it. - Shearonink (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

That's a false dichotomy. Assuming that Littler or winging it are your only options is problematic. But hiring them several months ago would be a much worse answer than winging it, as far as I'm concerned, and I strongly suspect that this is what happened. As for the rest of your comments here, they're deeply disappointing. We deserve so much better than that. But I doubt we'll ever see it the way things currently are. If you want to actually change:

• Stop telling us to assume good faith when we have no reason to assume good faith.
• Actually listen instead of telling people you're listening. This aggravates people when they are clearly not being listened to. This is something that happens a lot and not just from you and it's incredibly frustrating to be gaslit like that. I should not be able to say that the one time I talked to someone from OpenAI was a refreshing experience in comparison. But it was. Because she didn't gaslight me and actually agreed with me about the issues their organization had. Obviously, that didn't fix the actual issues I was concerned about, but at least I didn't feel like I was questioning my sanity. The WMF should be able to do both: talk the talk and walk the walk.
• More communication with people on-wiki. The board in general is terrible at this. You're the main exception in the sense that at least people can generally get a response. I can't leave a single talk page message on Meta without a warning. Y'all need to not just be willing to accept the slightest level of direct commentary but engage with the source of people's anger instead of directly dismissing it every time it happens. The patterns that keep happening do not need to happen and yet they do.
• Apologize to everyone. I don't know if you sent anyone else the emails you sent me, but if you did, apologize to them too. Apologize to everyone you were patronizing and dismissive to on-wiki as well.

These should not be difficult tasks. Please don't give me the large scale organizations spiel. Don't say that I'm asking the impossible. Don't say that this is just my opinion because it's not. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Good God, those threads on your TP and at Meta-RFH are terrible. If that patronising nonsense is typical of the general standard of admins at Meta it seems that the fish definitely does rot from the head down. Black Kite (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi Hannah, I'm really happy to say that I'm very sorry if I've done anything to upset you or anyone else, but I also have to push back firmly on a lot of this.

• "Actually listen to people instead of telling people you're listening" - I actually am listening and discussing, and I show it by responding coherently to things people are saying, sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing. Unless you can be more specific about something you think I haven't heard, I don't know how to respond further.
• I don't really have any control over how other board members respond to you. I'm more patient than most and I enjoy getting engaged and talking to people. I'd say in general most of the board feels they'd like to engage more but it's not easy.
• I didn't send any emails from you or to you to anyone else. I don't do that kind of thing. If I have a private conversation it stays private.
• I have not been patronizing or dismissive to anyone on-wiki but if you have a specific example I'd love to hear about it. Note well: not agreeing with everything that everyone ever says is neither patronizing nor dismissive.
• I don't know what you mean by "the large scale organizations spiel". I'm speaking to you and everyone else one-on-one.

Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

So for the record, are you denying that you send an email to User: Clovermoss on July 31, 2026 at 11:43 a.m EDT that said "I just wanted to remind you of this. I'm sad about the way you're treating me "? Abzeronow (talk) 12:26, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Abzeronow

What Jimmy meant was "I didn't send any emails we exchanged (from you or to you), to anyone else.". So he's not denying that. Egezort (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

That's right. I am sad about the way she's treating me, and I don't understand it and think it's unkind. I have always been a big supporter of Clovermoss and continue to be to this day, and I feel hopeful that in the future we'll be ok. I didn't and wouldn't share a private conversation without permission (except with some quite normal caveats) but since she has I can say that the "this" I was reminding her of was an email (from October 2025) that commended her and which ended with "You should be on the board!" Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The clear message was that Clovermoss expects an apology (rightly so), expects one to anyone else you might have sent such emails to (obviously not forwarded your message to Clovermoss, but other people who may have been treated the same by you), and one for all people you treated badly in this thread (or other related conversations), e.g. when you gave absolute, very dismissive statements about claims or concerns from people here, only to afterwards have to backpedal because in reality you didn't know anything and were kept out of the loop.

If you were a tiny bit honest about all your comments here, none of this would need spelling out. But again, and again, and again, all you are interested in is stalling, misunderstanding, dismissing, rewriting, and feigning being oh so hurt by everyone who dares to otherwise react to the words and actions of you, the board, and the WMF leadership. Meanwhile, you can't be bothered to spontaneously present a somewhat coherent timeline, and feign surprise that anyone would be e.g. interested in when Littler was actually hired.

if you really don't understand where these questions come from, why people are angry, upset, disbelieving, questioning, ... then perhaps you aren't really a good fit to be on the Board. If you on the other hand do understand all these things but play the victim instead of actually, really listening and answering (and no, you haven't done either, throughout this whole process), then you certainly aren't a good fit to be a trustee. Either way, you continue to erode the trust some people may have had in you. Fram (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with your analysis. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Woe to democracy is the day when I send an inquiry about some government matter to my elected representatives in Washington, D.C., and their response is to accuse me of harassing them. The bottom line here is, do these board members represent the community or do they only represent the Foundation. You know, the Foundation is a very exclusive club, and none of the volunteers or donors are in it. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The board are all volunteers, and the majority are volunteers from the community. I agree with you of course that merely asking a question shouldn't be considered harassment and I also note that the incident of someone saying that Clovermoss was harassing someone didn't come from anyone on the board but another volunteer. I'm sure you'll agree that one user complaining to another user about their behavior isn't really the fault of the board or the WMF. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

The board are all volunteers, fair enough, my bad. Administrators on Meta, of all the many projects, should be held to the highest standards. Too often discussions become a TL;DR wall of text; I just waded into that and found the effective response. Again, seems problematic that I might not be welcome to consult with individual senators, but only with the "speaker" – how would I be able to know which deserved reelection and who did not? – wbm1058 (talk) 18:13, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales

At least some members of the board have definitely heard of that incident (Through the Telegram group). They haven't made any comments saying "Us being reached out to on our talk page is not harassment, please resolve this issue and recant your warning".

The link is Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Disputing_a_user_warning if you want to say so. Egezort (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Too much of the discourse around Clover is just thinly-veiled misogyny where she gets dismissed as too emotional or whatever, she seems to get misunderstood, AFAICT she seeks to represent community views, and she speaks and listens to loads of people (it's how she became Wikimedian of the Year fgs) and is very well-connected AFAIK (obv the community is pluralistic but she does it the best anyone could). If she's angry at you, you can safely assume it's most likely for good reason, and while some of her rhetoric here might be a bit too strong, it's functional. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm really happy to say that I'm very sorry if I've done anything to upset you or anyone else. I'm sure this was unintentional, but an ifpology is not an apology, as you're expressing regret about someone else's reaction rather than taking responsibility for behaviour that you might regret. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 16:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough and you're right that it was unintentional. I intended it as an invitation to explain to me what I've done wrong. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

This "I'm sad to see how she's treating me" thing is getting pretty old, Jimmy. Clover has been making very reasonable and well-supported comments here and elsewhere about the WMF's disastrous handling of the unionization push, and instead of addressing the substance of them you often jump to talking about how she's hurt your feelings or how you feel she is treating you poorly — comments I don't tend to see you making towards others in the same conversations who are being quite a bit more hostile with you than Clover. You frequently act bewildered about what she's talking about ("Unless you can be more specific about something you think I haven't heard, I don't know how to respond further"), despite it being pretty clear to those of us watching the conversations from the sidelines. As for the emails, I'm not sure if you intentionally or unintentionally misread her, but she was suggesting you apologize to other people you've sent emails along the lines of the ones you've sent to her — not accusing you of sharing private email conversations between the two of you.

There is an unfortunately common trend I've seen from you and others when it comes to Clovermoss, where you treat her as though she is either a child or on the brink of some sort of hysteria. It tends to come with patronizing suggestions about her health or implications that she should remove herself from these conversations for her own good, as though she can't evaluate for herself whether or not to do so, and it often seems like an attempt to shut down someone who is (rightfully) being a thorn in your/the WMF's side. Clovermoss is an adult and should be treated like one, and she has a considerably better view into her own emotional and mental state than people who read her comments and decide it's appropriate to share their unsolicited opinions on her emotional and mental wellbeing.

Frankly, if anyone here is acting as though they need to be treated with kid gloves, it's you. As a member of the board, people are going to speak frankly and not always gently to you. While it is of course unacceptable for people to harass board members, they should not have to couch all of their comments in acknowledgements of how you're listening or praise for your patience in order to avoid complaints that they're hurting your feelings or making you feel sad. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're reading a lot of things incorrectly into what I've said. I didn't bring up anything publicly about my feelings until it was presented to me here. And the reason Clovermoss treating me badly makes me sad is precisely that I respect her and listen to her and have tried really hard to answer. If Fram is mean to me (for example) that's... just Fram. It doesn't bother me.

And please do not conflate how other people act or what they say with anything that I have done or said! I don't treat her as a child, I don't treat her as if she's on the brink of hysteria, and I have never said or insinuated anything about her health. I agree with you that people should not share unsolicited opinions about her emotional and mental wellbeing.

As to your last paragraph, yes of course, I am sure you've noticed that I've been doing this for a long time. I'm very patient and calm and when people are upset my best strategy is always to try to engage with them, answer questions clearly and simply. Again, don't confuse what other people may be saying or doing with me.

If there is anything of substance that Clovermoss thinks I haven't answered then please point it out to me and I'll dig in. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, I think there's a general trend of miscommunication which is mostly on you. You have a general attitude of dismissing opinions that you don't agree with, instead of engaging with them.

For example, you may not agree that the WMF is anti-union. You may think that people who think that are misguided, but actually engaging with those opinions would have been much much more productive than acting like those people are all speaking non-sense.

If you want to repair your communication with @Clovermoss, you should be engaging properly with what she's trying to say, without treating her opinions as %100 unfounded.

I'd be happy to try to facilitate that sort of communication (even though I'm much more on her "side" on this, so I wouldn't be a neutral mediator), if you intend to repair that relationship. With her position among "the community", this would also mean partially building back the bridges that were burnt during this controversy.

I believe the "ifpology" statement above, and the "there are no union-busting law firms in this situation" debacle, have shown that even when you have the best of intentions (I'm doing AGF here), that you can come of dismissive.

I'm afraid if you don't attempt this, @Clovermoss will be "that's... just Hannah" in a few months. That's a state of affairs, both of you would rather avoid, I think. Egezort (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to learn that ifpology is a blue link (as of about six weeks ago).

About the law firms: I wonder whether there are any US law firms:

1. large enough to handle an employer with staff in many states (each of which has its own specific and sometimes contradictory union laws),
2. with significant experience representing employers (i.e., not unions or employees), and
3. that are generally considered pro-union.

I see a lot of dislike for the two law firms mentioned on this page, but I've seen nobody suggest a credible alternative. Could that be because there actually are no pro-union law firms available for employers to hire? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Well we lack the millions of dollars the WMF has for this exact purpose, so it's not really shocking that the posters here aren't familiar with multinational labor-focused law firms. Maybe you could do some research and get back to us? Parabolist (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I am more worried about the anti-union meetings organized by the CEO and lying about the law firms advising WMF, but yes what is the alternative. I can unfortunately name more evil law firms that take pride in union-busting, cheating the little guy and shielding corporations from accountability. I can however name some large law firms like

Seyfarth Shaw has 1,000 lawyers, representing both employer and employees in offices around the world including US and UK.

Most worker organising groups will not have a law firm getting paid the same hefty fees like Littler if any. It was only in June that WWU got support from CWA. Meanwhile WMF was publicly making anti-union statements back in March. Whether it was pure anti-union beliefs of the CEO or advice from a corporate union-buster I don’t know.

I am a trade-union and works-council exclusive advisor in Germany. The law firms we face in opposing negotiations not only want to make their clients happy, but also promote their own ideological agendas of minimizing worker rights. It would be deeply naive to believe Littler Mendelson is simply trying to help WMF be an excellent and respectful employer who cares about following the law. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

ICYMI:

It's true that all management-side labor firms have, to varying degrees, an anti-union reputation -- that's unavoidable, they in fact are anti-union, because "management" is, virtually universally, anti-union. But it's a question of degrees ... there are other firms to choose from: here's a list from Chambers and Partners.

Levivich (talk) 06:45, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Could you please find answers to the questions mentioned above:

1. When did the WMF first seek the assistance of Littler Mendelson?
2. When did you and other board members learn that Littler Mendelson had been contracted to work on this?
3. Which outside law firm, if any, provided advice for the February WMF message to employees?

If the WMF board and management are working on these questions, or have made a decision not to respond to them, then of course that would be good to know as well. Andreas JN466 07:23, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Larry Sanger made a new thing

He calls it WikiCritic, "Independent reviews of Wikipedia articles".

It's a beta, and afaict, it has 3 "items" on it atm:

• Acupuncture
• Jacob G. Hornberger
• Peter Schiff, starting with a review by Peter Schiff.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I was curious about this, so I checked out the very first entries on Acupuncture (linked above). Top three reviews are apparently accredited ... and it's not clear that any of them actually exist. There's someone listed as faculty for KCL and ORCID verified who doesn't appear anywhere on the KCL website or the ORCID registry... or anywhere Google has indexed. There's a substack article from a substack that doesn't exist. There's a tweet from a biostatistician, whose account doesn't exist. I suppose it's possible some technical error has changed some names or links, but this feels closer to sloppy hallucination. The really strange thing is there isn't actually a shortage of alternative medicine practitioners who have complained about this very article in some high-profile places over the years. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Huh. Maybe he just made the comments up to have something to put in the beta. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

With that much hallucination, I'd bet it's Grok. Levivich (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it saves the bother of having to get actual independent reviews. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

At least Grok's UI isn't probably vibe-coded... (WikiCritic seems vibe-coded, it just has that same generic feed that you get with most vibe coders.) In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:52, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I took a quick look at Schiff's complaints and most don't seem to be reflective of the actual current Wikipedia article. For instance

• Issue 3—Misquote from the New York Times: Wikipedia includes what it claims to be a quote from me, but the quote was actually taken from a biased New York Times article by Matt Goldstein, in which he deliberately misquoted me. Wikipedia won't allow the error to be corrected. There are no quotes cited to Goldstein's article, so it's unclear what this could even be, much less how we would fix it.
• Issue 4—Gold predictions cherry-picked Wikipedia has a section on my gold predictions that starts in 2012 with gold at $1,700. This is deliberately unfavorable, as there is no mention that I first began recommending gold to clients in 1999 when it was below $300. Those accurate forecasts are favorable, and they are omitted. -There is no such section, and no mention of a 2012 prediction

I guess this is because the AI has summarized complaints from Schiff as far back as 2014. The content of the article has been relatively stable for at least several months, so that's no excuse for the inaccuracy. It's actually an interesting premise, but too flawed at the moment to be of any use (not surprising given some of Sanger's post-Wiki 'projects'). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:56, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, the site does say all is LLM-generated dummy data, not sure that this is blowing anything open

This page suggests that it's Claude. Gnomingstuff (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Jimbotalk is a mirror universe where Levivich defends unions^[1] and Gnomingstuff says AI slop is nbd.^[2] 😂 [1] The right to choose a union, to be clear. [2] On another website, to be clear. Levivich (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, at least it's not Replit. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 07:43, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

This is too funny. What a self-own. Carlstak (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2026 (UTC)