Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

 Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous 

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• Jump to bottom
• New topic
• All village pumps

"WP:PROPOSE" redirects here. For proposing article deletion, see Wikipedia:Proposed deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion process.

The proposals section of the village pump is used to offer specific changes for discussion. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
• This page is for concrete, actionable proposals. Consider developing earlier-stage proposals at Village pump (idea lab).
• This is a high-visibility page intended for proposals with significant impact. Proposals that affect only a single page or small group of pages should be held at a corresponding talk page.
• Proposed policy changes belong at Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new articles belong at Wikipedia:Requested articles.
• Discussions or proposals which warrant the attention or involvement of the Wikimedia Foundation belong at Village pump (WMF).
• Software changes which have consensus should be filed at Phabricator.

Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for 7 days.

« Archives, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230

Request for comment on adding this week's article for improvement to the main page

Moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adding this week's article for improvement to the Main page

 – The Village pump showed an automatic warning that said "This page is currently too big. Please temporarily speed up the page archiving rate or split large discussions to separate subpages." FaviFake (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions?

 – VPR is too big. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:CheeseAndJamSamdwich (and anyone else reading this) – does the 'Subscribe' function still work on the subpage, or does the discussion there need to be placed under it's own level 2 section heading? I've subscribed to the page Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Should we disallow opening parallel RM and AfD discussions? but my understanding is that I would only get an alert if someone adds a new level 2 section. I would like to continue getting alerts when new additions are made to this discussion, including in the event of a formal close, which has been requested. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I've put a level 2 heading over it. First time doing one of these moves/splits, so sorry about that. CheeseAndJamSamdwich (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for addressing this. I'm not sure I would have thought of this if I had done the move myself. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to require independent sourcing for all political endorsements

I propose removing the provision in Wikipedia:Political endorsements that allows local consensus to overrule our general policy that facts be sourced to independent reliable sources for organizational endorsements. Specifically, I propose striking the following sentence from the guideline: Local consensus can determine whether a specific list requires independent sources or sources connected to the organization itself, such as its website or official social media accounts.

WP:RFCBEFORE discussion here. Prior RFC here. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey (endorsements)

• Support: With the amount of horserace coverage every campaign gets, if no independent sources are covering an endorsement, it lacks WP:WEIGHT. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support I didn't think the carve-out was a good idea seven years ago when I proposed that RfC. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:25, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support per WP:VNOT and WP:DUE, as other editors have pointed out. A social media post or other statement endorsing a candidate is a primary source for the endorsement. It might be verifiable, but that doesn't make it due for inclusion. Inclusion of endorsements should require secondary sources. It should also require independent sources, because, e.g., a list of endorsements published by a campaign might be secondary and verifiable, but it doesn't establish WP:DUE. We should only include endorsements when reliable, secondary, independent sources (like history books and newspaper articles) establish that inclusion of the endorsement is due. Levivich (talk) 00:19, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is not meant to be a put-down: from what I know, WP:VNOT necessitates consensus but not necessarily "sources need to be this type", and WP:DUE does not necessitate source secondariness or independence. DUE only needs sources to be "reliable", and WP:RSPRIMARY separates secondariness and reliability by saying "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" and even saying primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Needless to say, these issues of VNOT and DUE are quite annoying. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC) (edited 02:47, 30 July 2026 (UTC))

  I don't read the current guidance as suggesting an exception to DUE or VNOT. And it doesn't allow for citing a source from the campaign, only sources from the endorsing organization itself. DUE is contextual and can be assessed in a number of ways. For example, only including organizations with blue links to articles would be a reasonable bar to set in national and other high profile races. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  ...and WP:BESTSOURCES if we're going to nitpick over various parts of WP:NPOV (emphasis added): In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When writing about a topic, basing content on the best respected and most authoritative reliable sources helps to prevent bias, undue weight, and other NPOV issues.

  Wikipedia policies aren't laws. They're not well-written. Just because the words "independent" or "secondary" don't appear in the specific section WP:DUE doesn't mean that one can make a determination about what content should be included in an article from non-independent or primary sources. But in case there was any doubt about this, there's the WP:BESTSOURCES section of NPOV.

  Bottom line: to determine if content should be included in Wikipedia, we must look to the highest-quality, most-reliable, most recent, secondary, independent, published sources. That's what our core content policies and guidelines say when you put them together, even if it's spread out across a bunch of different pages and sections, like WP:VNOT, WP:DUE, WP:BALANCE, WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:REPUTABLE, WP:AGEMATTERS, and a bunch of other places. Levivich (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can certainly make an argument that that is the case. It is certainly not what is written in the policies and guidelines. I think we should go by what is written in the policies and guidelines, not what words editors wish were in the policies and guidelines.

  That section of WP:BESTSOURCES does not have the 20-year consensus you claim below - it was added relatively recently (a few years ago, if I'm remembering right). It's certainly a good thing, but it's a goal to aspire to, not the end-all of every discussion and certainly not a license to excise every non-secondary non-independent source from discussion altogether.

  WP:BESTSOURCES, despite your allusion to the other WP:UPPERCASE in WP:NPOV, is the only place in the NPOV policy where the word "independent" is contained. WP:AGEMATTERS has nothing to do with independent sources, so it's curious why it's being cited here.

  However, both WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES say that articles should be based on "reliable, independent, published sources". That is certainly not the same thing as saying that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned. I completely agree with the WP:BESTSOURCES statement that articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources. I do not agree that non-independent sources should be banned, which is probably why that is supported by none of the policies and guidelines you've cited. Katzrockso (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's a lot to cover: what I quoted from our PAGs is in fact written in our PAGs. I claim no 20-year consensus below. (There's no plausible way to understand the words "20-year veteran" as referring to the age of consensus rather than the age of an account.) Nobody is trying to excise or ban every non-secondary non-independent source. NPOV isn't the only policy that talks about having independent sources, another example is WP:RS. WP:AGEMATTERS was being cited here because the prior sentence said most recent. Based on ... is certainly not the same thing as saying that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned, so it's a good thing that nobody is arguing that any use of a non-independent source to supplement particular information is not permissible or should be completely banned. I do not agree that non-independent sources should be banned either, and so I'm glad that's not required by any PAGs.

  And yet I believe endorsements are the type of content that should be cited to the reliable, independent, secondary sources that our PAGs say articles should be based on.

  I don't know why you wrote that long series of fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said, requiring me to write this long correction, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that to me again. Levivich (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Policy does not support looking to the "we must look to the highest-quality, most-reliable, most recent, secondary, independent, published sources" to establish what is WP:DUE, not only because these are often contradictory and exclusive. We don't look to sources that don't exist, but evaluate those that actually exist and see which ones are the best to base our articles on (which is different than the inclusionary criteria for particular elements of content). Moreover, the policy that determines whether or not we include things remains WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, which once again do not mention the independence of sources. I once again think that editors should read the words that in a policy, not the words that they wish were in a policy.

  For example, WP:AGEMATTERS explicitly points out that the "most recent" source is certainly not always the most reliable source, so we should not simply look for the "most recent" source, but the WP:BESTSOURCE when evaluated holistically. There are numerous reasons why we might prefer an older source to a newer one. "Most recent" is certainly not a good summarization of WP:AGEMATTERS.

  Adding in auxiliary information like endorsements is certainly not the same as writing the bulk of our articles. Indeed, WP:SELFSOURCE states the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources. I don't find any conflict whatsoever between WP:RS, WP:NPOV (specifically WP:REPUTABLE and WP:BESTSOURCES) and using a non-independent source to verify an endorsement, because using a source is not the same as basing an article on a source.

  The argument presented here is effectively one that non-independent sources should be banned - you present no distinctive argument that wouldn't apply to every single use of a non-independent source. Indeed, there is no particularity to the argument here specific to the context in question - political endorsements. That suggests, or rather proves, that the issue is not specific to political endorsements, but with the use of non-independent sources altogether. Whether or not you take your argument to its logical conclusion is no import to me, you can call it fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said or whatever you like.

  If we are talking about fabrications, misinterpretations, strawman arguments, and putting words in my mouth I never said, we can start with this:

  what I quoted from our PAGs is in fact written in our PAGs

  I never stated or suggested that the quotes you provided were in any way made up. What I suggested was the the accompanying commentary misrepresents existing PAG, which is a charge I still contend is true. Katzrockso (talk) 02:34, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  You said It is certainly not what is written in the policies and guidelines, but what I'm saying is in our PAGs, is in our PAGs. I'll show you in a moment. But first my Bernie impression: I am once again asking that you not put words in my mouth. Nobody is calling for banning all non-independent sources. Just because someone thinks non-independent sources shouldn't be used to source political endorsements doesn't mean they think non-independent sources shouldn't be used for anything. You can call that the argument's "logical conclusion," but it's actually a strawman argument: you're arguing against something (a total ban) that nobody is arguing in favor of.

  Now, the first sentence of WP:BALANCE, key words bolded:

  An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.

  If no independent RS is writing about an endorsement, if the only people writing about an endorsement are the endorser and endorsee (both non-independent), then that is, indisputably, a low proportion of coverage in RS, it's like 1 or 2 sources out of all sources when only non-independent sources are writing about it and no independent sources are writing about it. Because of this low proportion of RS covering the endorsement, it's a "minor aspect" to which we should not give "undue weight."

  WP:WEIGHT aka WP:DUE analysis is the same:

  Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "See also" to an article about those specific views.

  If an endorsement is only published by the endorser and/or endorsee (who are non-independent), and no other RS are writing about it (so no independent RS), then it's a "tiny minority" (1 or 2 sources out of all sources) and so that view should not be included at all.

  In sum: if the only place an endorsement is published is in non-independent sources, such as a social media post by an endorser, or a campaign website, then that means the endorsement is a tiny proportion of RS, a tiny minority of RS, and therefore the endorsement should not be included, per WP:BALANCE and WP:DUE, even though those sections don't have the word "independent" in them. Levivich (talk) 04:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support It's time that the local tolerance for this be deprecated per VNOT and DUE. Generally concur with the above comments. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support Why even would we allow local consensus to override higher level authority? That's stupid. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 00:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Mildly oppose Just to give some background information to others here, I'd have to imagine that this discussion is coming from the 'discussion' that we had here? I would like to point out that the provision regarding organization endorsements explicitly says that there isn't a consensus regarding sourcing, so I don't exactly agree that local consensus is overruling the rule. I very much do prefer independent sourcing when available, but there are definitely places where it just won't be. If an endorsement isn't mentioned in an independent article, I don't think it inherently means that they aren't notable, especially in elections like state legislatures that do get far less media coverage than national or statewide ones. These types of endorsements are also helpful in things like nonpartisan elections and help readers get a better idea of the candidates that were or did run. I would go along with the rule if the carve-out does get removed, but I do think that it could remove some important information for a lot of elections that just don't get as much media attention as they deserve.ABlitzz (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, that's helpful. I was about to ask for links to articles that were viewed as including problematic examples and/or to prior discussions about this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Support I do believe that independent sourcing is necessary. --Enos733 (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. If reliable and independent secondary sources can't be bothered to cover an endorsement, neither should we.Cortador (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose on principle. I'm not fond of the way some people increasingly like to claim that every individual fact (that they dislike) in an article has to pass WP:N-level sourcing to be included, rather than using editorial judgement and consensus to determine what is relevant to the topic. As Myceteae noted below, the opening statement of this RFC itself is already erroneously biased in that direction. Anomie⚔ 14:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  What is important to a topic is ultimately determined by reliable and independent sources. Once we as editors start determining that based on primary sources, it's just original research. Cortador (talk) 16:02, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that's exactly the kind of bogus argument I'm talking about. Thanks for the example. Anomie⚔ 18:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your clear, policy-based argument. Cortador (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  You're welcome. It's nice when someone appreciates what the policies actually say rather than fictions like "OR requires multiple independent sources, not just reliable ones". Anomie⚔ 19:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Whom are you citing? Cortador (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anomie, did you seriously just call our core content policies WP:V and WP:OR "bogus"? That's wild from a 20-year veteran. WP:BESTSOURCES literally says: In principle, all articles should be based on reliable, independent, secondary published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. So arguing that endorsements shouldn't be included unless they're in reliable, independent, secondary published sources is ... very much in line with very old and very widely accepted core Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure how you can characterize that as "bogus." Levivich (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, and I think I'll not engage with your falsehoods. Anomie⚔ 19:09, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  "Bogus"? "Falsehoods"? Suggesting I'm a troll? In response to people saying "we should have independent sources"? What's with this ridiculously-unwarranted hostility? What the heck has gotten into you today? Levivich (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  You can have an article that is WP:Based upon reliable independent sources without every single line in the article being cited to an independent source. It would, in fact, be quite "wild" to suggest that only reliable, independent, secondary sources are permitted by policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  What is the material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable source has ever been published in question here? Katzrockso (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose per AnomieX. This is just an extension of the primary sourcing paranoia - WP:DUE says precisely nothing about the independence of a source or whether it is primary, secondary or tertiary. Editors often attribute to particular policies meaning that is contained nowhere within them, and unfortunately DUE is in the club. From the original RfC, the point that I find most pertinent is that newspaper endorsements are organizational endorsements that could be of relevance to our articles, but tend to receive less coverage than other types of endorsements. When mandating secondary, independent sourcing, editors must consider whether these secondary, independent sources will tend to produce a bias in their coverage that will tend to affect our coverage. In this case, I don't think this bar has been met.
  As for WP:VNOT, this is of tangential relevance to this guideline, as it is silent on the independence of sources or whether they are PTS. Indeed, it simply says that consensus can decide that a verifiable fact does not improve an article. This applies to everything, including content sourced to independent, reliable, secondary sources.Katzrockso (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'd be curious if anyone could find even one newspaper endorsement that should be in an article that is not mentioned by any independent source. In practice, the bit we're debating here has nothing to do with newspaper endorsements and everything to do with, say, a barely notable advocacy group that issues two hundred endorsements that nobody reports on but make it into two hundred separate Wikipedia lists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  When you define "should be in the article" as "has independent sourcing" and then find that every example that should be in the article has independent sourcing, it's hardly surprising. Katzrockso (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how that responds to what I said. To rephrase: what's an example of a newspaper endorsement that was not covered by an independent source? (because there are an awful lot of the other kind, where we cite social media posts of local advocacy groups to add them en masse). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:46, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Any newspaper from a small region covering an endorsement from another newspaper from that region is, from a certain POV, not an independent source (given that they're business rivals and whatnot). So I'm going to guess... the vast majority of newspaper endorsements can't be covered by an independent RS? GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure I've ever seen the "it's not independent if the subject is a competitor/rival of the source" argument, but certainly haven't seen consensus for that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:53, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  WP:IIS states that an independent source lacks conflicts of interest (i.e., there is no potential for personal, financial, or political gain to be made from the existence of the publication). Katzrockso (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is now a tangent. If someone would like to make the case that e.g. we can't use CNN or NBC to report on FOX because they're not independent, or that relationship is somehow radically different at a different geographic scale, that's probably a discussion for another place. I'm happy to be pinged there, but cannot imagine any real consensus for it beyond a "yeah, I sorta guess you could say there's technically a COI, but no that's not a reason to decide they lose their independence". I could be wrong, but again we're getting away from the point here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Nobody's arguing that strawman; I hope I'm not putting words in Katzrockso's mouth, but I like to think we've been pretty clear than independence is not the be all and end all when it comes to newspapers reporting on each other. (Though the potential COI is something I do take into consideration when I'm sourcing and writing articles; I hope you're not asking me not to?)GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  The mistake here is thinking that non-independent sources are some "bad" category of sources that we need to completely eschew. They certainly need to be used more carefully, but they aren't supposed to be some verboten evil that needs to be excised from every article, despite the increasing tendency to characterize anything that isn't an SIRS as such.

  I don't see how by the definition of independent sources used by Wikipedia, they are independent. If you'd like to propose a change to the WP:IIS essay or WP:ORGIND guideline, I wouldn't be necessarily opposed. For what it's worth, WP:ORGIND also specifies that competitors are not independent;

  Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose.

  Katzrockso (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a good thing, but I also don't think the only remedy to the problem is this proposal. Katzrockso (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  +1. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 22:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would say that this is probably where I'm at as well. I can see the concerns that people have and are bringing up, but I think that, for the most part, the guidelines are fine as they are currently. ABlitzz (talk) 23:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thinking about some of the past conversations, I don't think this is a case of primary sourcing paranoia. I think it's sometimes a case of promotionalism paranoia (Molly Ivins once told about a Texas politician she despised: "I think the meanest thing I ever said about one of them was that he ran on all fours, sucked eggs and had no sense of humor," she said. "And I swear I saw him in the Capitol the next day and all he said was, 'Baby, you put my name in your paper!'" – only here, it's the fear that some minor political club will say "Baby, you put our name in your Wikipedia!"). Mostly, though, I think it's a case of people thinking that the articles in Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements just don't belong in Wikipedia, and if we can't avoid them, then we should have them be as short and incomplete as possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have no opinion on whether those lists should exist, but if people are wanting to change a guideline to make articles as short and incomplete as possible because they don't like that type of article, it seems very much like Wikipedia: Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point Katzrockso (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  We prefer to use other words for that, like "defending Wikipedia" and "having high standards". ;-)

  Seriously, where to draw the line is something different people can have different opinions about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Lists of endorsements seem to be a blatant violation of WP:SOAP which is policy and states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox...or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. The proposal raises the bar and so is a move in the right direction. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:01, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support, this is how we decide whether something is worth mentioning. Things that are not worth mentioning probably aren't worth mentioning. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose (Just to be up front, my opposition stems from my opposition to the rigid applications of criteria #2 generally, eventhough I agree with the principles behind it) Endorsements are, by definition exercises of expression of bias, of advocacy of a subjective opinion. Lists are means to comprehensively present relevant factual information in an organized manner for ease of consumption. Lists of endorsements therefore would by definition conflict with various basic WP principles, but their continual existence are tolerated/accepted/even desired by some of us because they comprehensively enumerate relevant factual information in a succinct, organized manner, allowing reader to draw insights and informed assessment.
  If we accept that premise, then rejecting an undisputed entry that meets criteria 1 & 3 by rigidly enforcing the independent aspect of criteria 2 without any consideration of weighing of other facts (such as the reliability aspect of criteria 2, local context, scale of the contest, substantive relevance or significance of a particular entry to the particular context) is to me quite illogical. 1) Given endorsement is an expression of bias, an unindependent source, such as the endorser themselves, actually is the ultimate reliable source. 2) Existence of independent source is generally an strong indicator of notability but only an reasonably good indicator of relevance. Some inconsequential endorsement get attention because they are unique or interesting or even entertaining, while some clearly consequential endorsement get no little media play because they were expected or boring but nonetheless impactful. For example, endorsements of politicians by celebraties like actors or singers often get covered in the news for their entertainment value, because they are interesting and unusual, but they rarely have meaningful impact on electoral outcome. An endorsement from a former office holder that retired long ago may general little press interest while having huge impact (especially in internal contests like primaries or nomination fights where older voters, and long time party activists are have greater presence.)
  Ultimately, the purpose of this policy is to ensure entries included in such lists are realiable, notable, relevant and consequential. Exisitence of independent sources would be decent indicators for those things but not conclusive proof, and the absence of independent sources certainly does not conclusively disprove any of those things. If the notability of the endorser, the factual reliability of the endorsement, and its relevance to the the subject election are not in dispute, exclusion would arguably amount to censorship. JacobW2 (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  An endorsement from a former office holder that retired long ago may general little press interest while having huge impact (especially in internal contests like primaries or nomination fights where older voters, and long time party activists are have greater presence.) This isn't really germane to this proposal since the current exclusion currently only affects organizational endorsements, not individuals. For what it's worth, I don't think be opposed to a very narrow exception for current (and former) officeholders who represent(/ed) part of the constituency being contested. If anything, the fact that a former elected's endorsement is excluded unless covered by independent media but an endorsement by an organization, however irrelevant, can be included cited to only their website highlights how odd the status quo is. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 19:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per my reasoning at Talk:2026 New Democratic Party leadership election (archive link) and the preceding discussion in that archive page. Goes against multiple P&Gs otherwise, including WP:DUE, WP:PROMO and WP:ABOUTSELF ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 21:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Note for closer - I have changed my username since !voting in this discussion ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 16:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above. There's a reason local consensus can't overrule global consensus, especially on notability. FaviFake (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Notability has to do with whether an article should exist for a topic, it has nothing to do with whether content should be included in an article. Katzrockso (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - What to do about noteworthy endorsements by media outlets that are covered by the outlet's competitors is an excellent point. (Plus, there's the issue of organizations and independent sources potentially disagreeing that I brought up below.) WP:DUE would apply regardless and seems orthogonal to this issue. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Still hoping for even one (and preferably more) example of noteworthy endorsements by media outlets that are covered by the outlet's competitors, but this is the last time I'll mention it. It's a big flood gate to leave open for a hypothetical. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

    I can't find any independent coverage of The Detroit Metro Times endorsement of Abdul El-Sayed as an example. According to our article, it's the largest circulating newspaper in the Detroit Metro area, which is the largest city in Michigan. I think that's pretty noteworthy. Katzrockso (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

    • Well, largest circulating weekly :) but regardless we have an article about it and I, too, cannot find independent coverage. Thanks for digging up an example. I'm more inclined to support an exception for certain kinds of companies/organizations (like notable media outlets), but still not quite convinced it's in our best interest to include every endorsement by every organization or company, regardless of what they are or how much they're written about. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      Who said we have to include every endorsement by every organization or company, with or without independent sources? Anomie⚔ 01:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      I completely agree that we shouldn't be including every endorsement by every organization or company. The status quo of guideline doesn't require this, and if that is what happens in practice, I would support any effort to trim non-notable and non-noteworthy organizations. Katzrockso (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      As the person who has added a lot of the endorsements to the Michigan Senate race's article, which is the article that kind of seems to have started all of this, I'm just wanting to give some of my own thoughts here. There have definitely been a lot of endorsements listed in articles that I haven't added simply because the endorsers don't have a Wikipedia page. If they have a Wikipedia page, I'll usually add them because that's a symbol, in my mind, that they're notable enough to be added. If they have no Wikipedia page, then I'll typically avoid adding them to articles unless there's another reason that would make sense (i.e. a local or House election where a candidate is endorsed by a notable person in the city/district but the endorser doesn't have a Wikipedia page). Personally, my opinion is that if there is a source that follows the guidelines and the endorser is notable enough due to having a page here or some other reason, then there's no reason not to add in the endorsement ABlitzz (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      Joe Celebrity might be notable for his movie career… but that does not mean his political opinions are worth noting. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      I can understand the point you're making there, but wouldn't editors be interfering with the neutrality of the page if we're able to just decide who is relevant and who isn't? As long as the endorser has a good source and page, I really don't see a reason why they shouldn't be included. Under your example, it could also show the start of Joe Celebrity getting more involved in the political scene and becoming prominent in both movies and politics. ABlitzz (talk) 15:23, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

      plus Joe Celebrity would probably be covered by outside media anyway by dint of being a celebrity; the WP:DUE concerns would remain unchanged Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

      The status quo requires independent sources for individual persons endorsing a candidate, so that isn't a question at the moment. Katzrockso (talk) 20:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  By this interpretation, most articles about news orgs would fail notability guidelines since almost other source would be considered a competitor and therefore not independent. This seems to be something to address within that guideline (stipulate that media outlets that are competitors of each other are independent) rather than this one. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Notable news organizations tend to get at least some coverage in journals, books, and other newspapers not operating in the same market; for an example, the Weekend Times, a Malawian tabloid that operated for only about 6 years, is primarily based upon such sources. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:10, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  In practice, though, I would also like to note that the community treats newspapers and academic journals very differently than commercial organizations in general. (You can argue that a newspaper as an actual isn't technically a corporation, but that's splitting hairs in most cases). WP:NJOURNAL and WP:NNEWS are essays, but they do emphasize impact/influence as a pathway to notability that we'd never allow under a typical application of NCORP. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 18:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that we treat articles about publishers differently from articles about other businesses, but I think it's practical of us. Sometimes we need that information as editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The inclusion/exclusion of a particular endorsement that lacks independent sourcing can always be debated on the article's talk page, just like with any other disputed content. Some1 (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm just not seeing any evidence of an actual problem here that needs solving. At 2026 United States Senate election in Michigan § Endorsements, there are far fewer organizations listed than individuals. As others have noted, celebrity and other "big name" endorsements are prone to garnering at least some media coverage even when their encyclopedic value is questionable. PACs and political organizations, whose endorsements may be less newsworthy, may be a more meaningful reflection of a candidate's ideology and support base. Looking at other articles that were shared at Talk:2026 United States Senate election in Michigan#Organizational endorsements, most have much shorter endorsement lists. Weighting these lists towards celebrities and other individuals is of no value to these articles. The current guidance is in no way an exception to WP:DUE or any other broadly applicable policy or guideline. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - current system functions quite well, and WP:DUE doesn't appear to be violated because of it - I don't see a reason to prevent endorsements being sourced to verifiable primary sources. Jishara (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Rhode and TBUACzarking0 (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support I agree that generally primary sources may be used for a wide variety of information. But this provision is so poorly written, it should go. The first glaring mistake was its mention of largely discredited local consensus, when it could of just used "editors may", but even worse it then suggests that verifiability is all you need for content additions, and that is plainly untrue, see WP:VNOT. No editors at any article can vote to ignore the other content policies, and no guideline can either. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, I would also oppose a rule that said only secondary sources count. That's not what DUE requires, in every case, we may use primary sources. I think the rule should still go because of its poor wording. Go back to the drawing board, get ride of "local consensus" and make clear the all content policies not just V matter. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This would create a more stringent sourcing requirement than that of most other content where the concern here isn't the veracity of the endorsements, but whether they are DUE. Jessintime (talk) 15:21, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  More stringent sourcing requirements for content having to do with BLPs is never a bad thing. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 17:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it results in a violation of the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, then artificially higher sourcing standards can be a bad thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  "All significant points of view" has never included content limited to primary sources. Cortador (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Where in the policy does it say that? Katzrockso (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's under verifiability. Cortador (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  What part of the Wikipedia:Verifability policy states that significant points of view excludes content limited to primary sources? As far as I am aware, "significant points of view" is a term of art specific to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and isn't explicitly defined anywhere. Katzrockso (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  More to the point, what do considerations about "primary sources" have to do with a proposal for "independent sources"? Wikipedia:Secondary does not mean independent.

  @Cortador, a simple example of when a primary-only viewpoint is needed is when someone is accused of a crime, and they deny it. We rarely have secondary source material for that (that would mean a source that analyzes, evaluates, interprets, etc. their denial, rather than merely repeating the fact that the accused person denied the accusation), and it is the near-universal practice of the community to mention the existence of such denials, even if they have to be sourced to the subject's social media (which is both primary and non-independent). We can't meet the goals of either the BLP policy or the NPOV policy by removing the accused's POV about his innocence from a Wikipedia article just because there isn't a high-quality secondary source. We need a source that is strong enough to support the claim in the article (the usual claim being "He denied the accusations"), but a fairly weak source is strong enough for that.

  (Undefined words have their dictionary definitions, so "points of view" in the policy is the same as Point of view (philosophy).) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  News articles include responses from accused people all the time. I don't know where you get the idea that this "rarely" happens. Cortador (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Cortador, most news articles are primary sources. See WP:PRIMARYNEWS. A typical newspaper article is a:

  • non-self-published,
  • independent, and
  • primary source.

  (Also short. The longer it is, the more likely it is to be a secondary source.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, they absolutely are not. You are confusing how e.g. academics use that term with how it is used on Wikipedia, and so is that essay. Cortador (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  The policy WP:PRIMARY itself says "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles...". It specifically calls out breaking news: "For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  This sort of mess is why I still think WP:PSTS should be moved into an essay, rather than being part of the WP:No original research policy. It's a heuristic that people like to give far too much weight to. Anomie⚔ 23:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it should be moved into an essay, but I do think it should be in a separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support As if RS do not care, why should we (see wp:undue). Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC
• Oppose - this is a case where one size doesn't fit all. While with US presidential elections and nominations there are always numerous published sources listing endorsements this is often not the case for smaller contests, particularly with the decline of the media. The recent 2026 New Democratic Party leadership election for example was not closely covered by the media until the last few weeks so even though there were prominent endorsements by current and former politicians these were often only reported on the candidate websites and press releases and did not receive "independent" coverage until very late, if at all. This gave an unbalanced and misreprestarive impressio of the relative support candidates had. Major political parties such as the NDP have strict campaign rules and a leadership candidate who falsely claimed endorsements would have been fined or expelled - but even so we had editors insisting these endorsements could not be listed, even though under the circumstances they were reliable (due to the consequences for candidates for making false claims), due to global wikipedia rules. Some sort of flexibility is required and if there are other reasons why a self-reported endorsement can be considered reliable, then that should be sufficient. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: many of the others gave good reasoning. Especially for the smaller cases, not every endorsement is going to be covered by a secondary one. I also believe that wikipedia should in general consider being more open to primary sources though that would probably warrant a separate discussion.
  Also, WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD explicitly states "Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source", so there should be no good reason to support removing this section. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Media coverage varies wildly depending local market and perceived importance of the position. One size fits all fails when most English-language local print media in Canada is owned by a small number of conglomerates that have eliminated local coverage outside major markets. American markets may get horserace coverage; we're lucky to get any mention of equines. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  That's a failure of the Canadian media ecosystem, not of Wikipedia's policies. Our job is not to provide original reporting or comprehensive lists of data, but encyclopedic content that reflects what reliable, independent sources say. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 02:46, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Our job is not to ignore valid information when no "reliable, independent sources" are available. One could argue that Canadian English-language media has almost no reliable, independent sources left outside a few major urban markets. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Endorsement cruft takes up a huge amount of space on election articles, to the point that 5 of the top 50 longest articles are about state-level elections. Requiring third-party coverage would be a great way to cut down on this. I would even propose going one step further and applying the MOS:CULTURALREFS standard of secondary/tertiary sources that discuss the endorsement in depth, not just a brief mention. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 21:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  In the first 50 entries in Special:LongPages, I see:

  • US elections for federal office: Statewide opinion polling for the 2008 United States presidential election, Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election, 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas, and 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas
  • US elections for state office: 2021 California gubernatorial recall election
  • UK: Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the 2024 United Kingdom general election,
  • Other: Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election, Opinion polling for the 2025 Canadian federal election

  and because Ballotpedia is an independent source that reports all endorsements for all US elections (both state and national), I don't see any effect of this rule on most of these election-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  That, and, Texas and California are really big and have a lot of districts. I'm not surprised that their election articles are prone to being very long. These articles vary somewhat in the number of endorsements listed per candidate and in the promotion of individual vs. organizational endorsements but it doesn't appear to me that organizational endorsements are driving this problem—to the extent it is a problem that need solving. Maybe some other approach is needed to trim these articles or maybe the size of these articles is acceptable and unavoidable given the nature of the subjects. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Just a reminder that the United States is not the only country in the world that has elections. Ballotpedia is useless outside the US. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  But the US may be the only country that prompts these complaints. It wouldn't make sense to say we have a problem with long lists of endorsements in (e.g.,) 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in California, so let's adopt a rule that has no effect on that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  +1 —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  We both responded to your similar sentiments about Ballotpedia below. The only examples of 'problematic' articles provided have been US elections articles. (For the record, I don't find the endorsements sections of these articles especially problematic.) I offered an alternative explanation for why California and Texas elections articles are prone to being so large. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not all media in every country is created equally. Certain places are going to cover endorsements more than others, and I think that is in of itself biased, as it will result in certain regions having better coverage than others.-- Earl Andrew - talk 02:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Comprehensive lists of endorsements are inherently promotional and if the media in a certain region don't bother to point them out, that's no one's fault. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 02:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's the media's fault, not no one's fault. We shouldn't be slaves to large corporate media that chooses to ignore most local news. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with the notion that listing endorsements is strictly promotional, or that it has no encyclopedic value. It's supposed to tell readers something about the candidate's support base, affiliations, and affinities, and is often relevant to campaign finance. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  Systemic bias is an issue on Wikipedia, but there's not typically consensus to lower standards to the level of "include it because it exists, regardless of whether anyone has judged it worthy of note". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:20, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree that we wouldn't want to lower standards, but my concern about this problem is:

  • we're talking about requiring higher standards, not the ordinary ones, and
  • the point is to deal with lists of endorsements in US, and this proposal will have no effect on lists of endorsements in the US.

  A proposal that would address the identified problem would sound something like this:

  If there is a reasonably comprehensive list of endorsements at Ballotpedia (or a similar site), then link to that webpage in the Wikipedia:External links. When a comprehensive external list is available, articles should contain only a high-level summary of endorsements in the article, e.g., "The candidate has been endorsed by anti-tax advocacy groups and law enforcement agencies" (when reliable sources directly support such summaries) or information about endorsements that produced significant media attention, e.g., "The Abrasive Activists club announced an unsolicited endorsement and donation, causing the candidate to disclaim the endorsement, return the money, and announce support for raising taxes" or "The candidate was endorsed by the prime minister, and the election result was widely seen as a test of the PM's political influence".

  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. If the endorsement isn't reported on by independent RS, then it's not passing the bar for BALASP (and if the candidacy/election itself has so little sourcing that an endorsement announcement from 1-2 non-independent sources actually is proportionally weighty coverage-wise, then either the subject itself is not notable or there's a pressing case for IAR). By policy, Wikipedia articles about a person, company, or organization are not an extension of their website, press releases, or other social media marketing efforts. Endorsements are inherently promotional, self-serving, and (when sourced from the endorser as an individual person) are SPS with claims about third parties. They should be contextualized, or at the very least noticed, by independent RS.
  I also don't see how a political campaign shouldn't be held to the same standards as Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients, competitors, employees ... equipment, estates, offices, store locations, contact information, patent filings, products, sponsors, subdivisions and tourist attractions. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  One way that political endorsements differ from these other listings to avoid, as I said elsewhere is that they may tell readers something about the candidate's support base, affiliations, and affinities, and is often relevant to campaign finance. There is some superficial similarity between political endorsements and business business alliances or (corporate) sponsors but there are meaningful differences. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  What part of BALASP says that things can't be sourced to non-independent sources? Katzrockso (talk) 21:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (endorsements)

• As was pointed out in the "BEFORE" at WP:RSN, the framing that the current guidance allows local consensus to overrule our general policy that facts be sourced to independent reliable sources is not quite accurate. A "dependent" primary source is often reliable for a statement made by the source itself, such as an explicit endorsement on an official website or social media account. WP:SELCRIT provides some general guidance but more or less allows for local consensus at the level of individual list articles. All that said, I can imagine these lists getting out of hand. WP:WEIGHT, WP:PROMO, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and other general principles apply to endorsement list articles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• Yup… while a selfpub source can reliably verify an endorsement, WP:VNOT and WP:DUE apply. We need independent reliable sources to demonstrate that the endorsement matters enough for us to mention it. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2026 (UTC)
• What happens if an independent source claims Organization A endorsed Candidate B, but Organization A says it isn't an endorsement (and it's not a clear-cut case of either side being wrong)? Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I recently opened a discussion about this sort of thing at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Subject correcting misunderstanding of their own words. There wasn't a clear consensus on what to do, but there was a slight preference for assuming Organization A is dishonest. Make of that what you will. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Has that actually happened to a significant degree? Cortador (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I would think that endorsement lists generally include uncontroversial, uncomplicated entries. Beyond that, this has to be a case by case determination and is not something a general guideline can address. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Given that WP:BALLOTPEDIA is a WP:GREL source and WP:INDEPENDENT of all the candidates, and given that they collect long lists of https://ballotpedia.org/Political_endorsements : What practical effect do we think this will actually have? We're literally going from "you have to have a reliable source" to "you have to have an independent reliable source and BTW https://ballotpedia.org/Political_endorsements is an independent reliable source that includes nearly all of the bona fide endorsements for US candidates", which at least as far as US articles are concerned, means that we're pretty much wasting our time here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Ballotpedia is a great source for US elections, perhaps, not so much for the rest of the world. This looks like a case of making rules suitable for the US based on US conditions and assuming they should apply worldwide. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

    I think you're right. I also think this was probably prompted by the upcoming US elections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

    There is an ongoing debate in Canadian politics articles where some editors argue that self-published social media posts or campaign websites are sufficient for inclusion in endorsement lists, regardless of independent coverage. On local talk pages, this frequently leads to attempts to establish a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for inclusion of these into a "list of endorsements" which closely resembles the tables used in AP2 articles (see 2026 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election#Endorsements for the most recent example of this debate coming up). Requiring independent secondary coverage, even for organizations and at "local" talk pages ensures that Wikipedia endorsement lists reflect encyclopedic WP:WEIGHT. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 18:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

    Ordinary discussions about how to best apply/comply with our policies and guidelines are not LOCALCONSENSUS violations. I suggest reading WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, especially the bit that says:

    • Y Desired outcome: A small number of editors arrive at an agreement about how to best apply sitewide policies and guidelines to a given Wikipedia article.

    If it is not clear enough that this "Desired outcome" (emphasis in the original) is not a LOCALCONSENSUS, then let me know, and I'll see about clarifying that, possibly by adding a sentence that says "Doing this is not a 'local consensus' and does not violate this policy." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

    I would opine that some editors are arguing to be allowed to decide that N relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles, on account of "poor" or "slow" secondary coverage. ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 21:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

    You're right that our guidelines and practices should take a global view. A relatively small number of articles have been provided as examples in this and the other linked discussions to illustrate what exactly the problem is, and all of these have been US elections articles. If we were to adopt the proposed rule and follow the guidance that Ballotpedia is generally reliable, the likely outcome would be that US election articles remain largely unchanged—or expanded, as Ballotpedia likely catalogues endorsements that aren't in some of our articles—while endorsement lists for other countries' elections are trimmed unless there is a similar source that can be used to catalogue endorsements for every either country. Or if we wanted to limit/down-weight Ballotpedia endorsement lists, we'd have to impose an even higher bar that at least two independent sources are required for organizational endorsements. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, I looked at Ballotpedia's Abdul El-Sayed page. I count 58 "organizations" under his endorsements in the 2026 senate race. Our article on the senate race lists just 37 in the primary (8 labor unions, 25 organizations, 1 political party, 2 newspapers). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Could someone look at the notification to this proposal posted at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board? ―"GraveDragon-X" _(hihi) 16:27, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

  I've removed it. That message is non-neutral. Wellington Bay Please review WP:CANVASS. Izno (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

RfC: ITN and sham elections

Should any of the following be added to WP:ITNBLURB:

1. If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, ITN should generally not report or indicate this characterization.
2. If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair and Wikipedia has an article surrounding this, consensus at ITN can develop to report or indicate this characterization.
3. If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, consensus at ITN can develop to report or indicate this characterization.
4. If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, ITN should generally report or indicate this characterization.

Should the following be added to WP:ITN/R:

5. If reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair, consensus at ITN can form against posting the election.

1brianm7 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Background and examples

Background: At In the news, consensus has that the results of general elections are always significant and should be posted if the article is of sufficient quality. There has been an extended disagreement surrounding the posting of what some editors term "sham elections", those that are not free and fair. The most recent extended discussion on this topic is at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Sham elections, prompted by the nomination of the Guinean parliamentary election, and the second-most recent extended discussion is at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 110#Legitimacy of elections, prompted by the nomination of the Russian presidential election.

The following are blurbs that were posted or proposed for ITN that follow each style:

• 1.
  • Vladimir Putin is elected President of Russia for a fifth term.
  • Romuald Wadagni wins the Beninese presidential election.
• 2.
  • Pro-democracy protests intensify in Belarus after the contested reelection of incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko.
  • Yoweri Museveni is re-elected for a seventh term as President of Uganda amid protests over contested results.
• 3 and 4.
  • (All blurbs under 2 are applicable)
  • Vladimir Putin is announced as the winner of the Russian presidential election, securing a fifth term.
  • Romuald Wadagni is declared the winner of the Beninese presidential election.

1brianm7 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Survey (ITN elections)

• Remove elections from ITN/R as the current formulation too often results in insignificant elections in microstates being posted while elections which are actually important such as the Mayor of NYC, the Scottish government or the Indian state legislative assemblies are denied. The nominal RfC question is badly formed because ITN/R doesn't determine the format of blurbs. The fact that such postings are often contentious is a further reason to have open discussion without any ITN/R constraints which lead some to suppose that elections should be posted in a mechanical, monotonous way. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing out the flaw in the RFC question (the first person after 24 days of workshopping...). I have reworked it to hopefully resolve the concern. 1brianm7 (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Your constant prejudice against the politics of small nations is duly noted. Again. However, the course of action you are calling for does not form part of any of the proposals currently under discussion. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

ITN/R is explicit prejudice − an arbitrary list of supposedly important topics regardless of the actual coverage and facts. My position is that we should judge topics on their merits, not by preconceived prejudice. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:05, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Andrew and Masem's allegations of non-NPOV selective posting and WP:RGW on WT:ITN are credible and should be investigated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

I can agree that ITN should be more open to posting sub-national elections; the most recent NYC election was inarguably one of the biggest political news stories in the world last year. But instead of posting it, ITN - as per usual - shot itself in the foot by caring more about strict adherence to its incoherent set of unwritten rules than doing anything resembling what it's supposed to do. But I don't think this would be solved by removing national elections from ITN/R. ITN/R blurbs and RD postings are the only semi-functional parts of ITN precisely because they bypass these debates over what is "significant." We just need to stop making the mistake of acting like anything that's not ITN/R is automatically not blurbworthy at all. That, and nuke ITNSIGNIF, and maybe also replace our whole ITN/C community with different editors who'll be able to form a consensus to fix the broken mess that is ITN, because with every passing year I lose faith that the bunch we have now will ever be able to agree to do that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose instruction creep that doesn't appear to be well-justified by prior discussions. This more or less aligns with options 3/4, but I'm not seeing a reason why we need a separate instruction about this that wouldn't simply be subject to regular workshopping of the ITN hook to reflect RS coverage. Even when blatantly unfair, election results tend to be significant (if nothing else, confirming the intended continuity of the ruling regime), protests resulting from rigged elections can also be quite significant, and judging fairness is itself a gradient, not a binary. That having been said, I think that Andrew D's concerns above could perhaps be resolved by adding a clause that ITN should also run blurbs for elections for cities and dependencies with a population in excess of [2 million? 5 million? 10 million?] _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose instruction creep. I don't see any evidence that the status quo (option 3) is not working. How a blurb should be worded depends on the circumstances of the individual election and every other option is too rigid to account for this. I don't see any benefit in explicitly stating that consensus may be for or against mentioning how free and fair an election is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would be glad if this RfC establishes 3 as a status quo. Some admins have removed any wording not in the fashion of "wins" from the main page, even when it was established at the nomination (link to ERRORS discussion). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose either of the options numbered 1, support any of the others, with a preference for option 3 - I think it's misleading to have a policy against mentioning the unfairness of an election if that unfairness is widely reported in reliable independent sources. I'm less concerned with the exact phrasing of the rule, but I do see the concern about instruction creep. With option 4, although I am in favour of its sentiments, there is the risk that the requirement to include such a reference might lead to such stories not being posted at all, because the nature of the reference cannot be agreed. Options 2 and 3 are both close to my understanding of the status quo, and clarify it. I do not think that we should specifically be avoiding posting elections simply because they are unfair - but I do have a preference for mentioning the unfairness. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  either of the options numbered 1 - I've rerenumbered the second option 1 to #5 to reduce confusion 1brianm7 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove ITN, first choice. Remove elections from ITN/R, second choice. Follow the sources, third choice. If the sources say it's a "sham" election, say that so-and-so won a "sham election." If they say it's a "rigged" election, ITN should say so-and-so won a "rigged election." If they say it's an "election with widely-reported irregularities," then we should say so-and-so won an "election with widely-reported irregularities." Levivich (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Follow the sources on ITN? An interesting idea, but we'd need to set up a sort of crash course at WT:ITN so they understand how sources are used on Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Remove elections from ITN/R. This would solve the current problem and a host of others.Katzrockso (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  It wouldn't really, since all those controversial / sham elections would be nominated under the normal ITN process... Khuft (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Generally oppose, free is not a binary, fair is not a binary. Reporting purported election results without going over the same arguments repeatedly seems the purpose of the ITN/R entry, mandating freeness and fairness assessments will not aid with that goal. CMD (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose cover all in the same way and don't judge. The reader is not stupid and sees bias. Let's not give them more opportunity to see it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  If RS say one thing is an election, and another thing is a sham election, and we call both things an "election," we're misleading the reader. If RS say one thing is "X", and another thing is "called 'X' but not actually X," and we call both things "X", we're lying to the reader. On the main page. Dropping "sham" or "rigged" before "election" would be a lie of omission.

  "Free" and "fair" aren't just adjectives describing some kinds of elections, they're prerequisites for something to even be an "election." We shouldn't use the word "elect" when the reality is "appoint" (or "self-appoint"), even if government propaganda uses the word "elect." Levivich (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Can editors opposing any changes mention whether they think the status quo is along the lines of "ITN participants can propose and gain consensus for blurbs that report or indicate an election not being free or fair" or whether it is "Any blurb that mentions an election not being free and fair is procedurally invalid and will be altered by ITN admins to omit it", and whether that extends to the subtle games with wording Masem mentioned below), even if ITN participants supported such a blurb. Anyhow, Support 3>4, oppose 1 and 2; whether an election was a sham is the second-most important thing after the result, on equal significance with the election happening. Support 5 - the fact that a military dictator decided they needed a fancy new title is not inherently significant. 1brianm7 (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Can editors opposing any changes mention whether they think the status quo is along the lines of "ITN participants can propose and gain consensus for blurbs that report or indicate an election not being free or fair" or whether it is "Any blurb that mentions an election not being free and fair is procedurally invalid and will be altered by ITN admins to omit it" this is a false dichotomy. Editors can reach a consensus to mention that, but if they haven't then it won't be included in the blurb. If admins are altering blurbs against consensus that's a problem that none of the changes proposed here can solve. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm kinda at a loss here. Admins are doing that (see the discussion I linked in my reply to you above). When asked why, they said that's how it has always been done and to start a discussion at WT:ITN if you want it changed. I did, there was no consensus, so I started this RfC. What should I have done? 1brianm7 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  A significant contingent of editors respond to proposals to mention or indicate sham-ness by saying that there is an unwritten rule to never do so. I can't think of a way to prevent that simpler than a written rule saying that it is allowed. 1brianm7 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose change, keep status quo / keep elections in ITN/R – "X is declared the winner of" is just a wordier way of saying "X wins". As mentioned before, the arguments on whether an election is "free or fair" is arbitrary and ITN editors will never agree. If protests are significant enough where they would normally merit a blurb, it would make sense to merge the two blurbs together. If reliable sources are reporting on a specific aspect of an election, such as voter turnout in the 2021 New Caledonia referendum or the recent Hong Kong election (in which the pro-China camp, pro-democracy camp, and international media all focused primarily on turnout), then it would also be appropriate to include that in the blurb when also reflected by the targeted article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 14:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support this initiative in general; agnostic re exact wordings. I never really agreed with the "consensus" that we should use standardised wording when posting election results (sham or not). Our guidance should be what reputable sources say, and if they tend towards questioning the freedom and fairness of certain elections, we should be free to editorialise accordingly. (And: Keep all elections at ITN/R - not sure why that is even being questioned here as irrelevant to this proposal - the Russian "election" will be nominated anyway when it happens, whether as ITN or as ITN/R) Khuft (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  we should be free to editorialise accordingly No! Absolutely not! The personal opinions of ITN editors should not determine how we describe election results. The last thing we need is editors only using the term "sham elections" for regimes they personally disagree with. Warudo (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Follow the sources/target article language above all else. I guess this is an anything except 1 with a preference for 4 !vote? But it really does just depend on what the sources say. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, ITN even less so. It should just be a chain of repetition: ITN should follow what the article says, the article should follow what the sources say, simple as. This should be the only thing that determines whether the language of the blurb can or should suggest that an election is contested, not what us at ITN have to say about it.

As CMD pointed out, it is not possible for us to cleanly and objectively separate "real" elections from "sham" elections because most countries on Earth don't fit neatly into a binary between true democracies and true dictatorships; it's a spectrum and most of the world is somewhere in the middle, and where exactly a country falls on that spectrum will vary from election to election as countries either backslide or democratize over time. This is why it needs to be determined on a case by case basis, based on what the sources say and how much weight article writers assign to those sources, how an election should be described. If the article can say the election was described by international observers as neither free nor fair, then ITN can. If the article can't say it, ITN can't say it. Easy as that, no need to complicate things or debate it at ITN/C. If this is contested, contest it at the article talk page, not ITN/C. The less leeway ITN gives itself, the better. Not just with regard to election blurbs, but all blurb discussions, because this mindset that ITN is somehow separate from the articles it features & gets to act as its own decisionmaking body with minimal objective instructions is really the root of every one of ITN's problems. Oppose removing elections from ITN/R, agree with Khuft that it's not really clear why that's even being discussed.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:41, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not for us to judge elections in such a way; we can note that observers view an election as unfair. Instructions creep, too. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  To be fair to the nom, the options provided are about how/if we should follow the sources, not leaving it up to us to judge elections ourselves. Noting that observers view an election as unfair is roughly options 2-4, but opposing all of them and forming no consensus here would leave us stuck with the current situation where the editors feel they are allowed to judge elections themselves. ITN doesn't have an instruction creep problem, but I wish it did. It has a "there are no instructions" problem.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:16, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Exactly that we have no instructions. I'd note that about half of the oppose votes are doing so because there is no need to spell out the status quo (one) and another half are doing so because there is no need to spell out the status quo (roughly two or three). 1brianm7 (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose / keep status quo Pretty much agree with Nice4What. Readers can always click on the blurb's wikilink to the election page to learn more about the election, including its controversies. If "reliable independent sources generally describe an election as not free and fair", then that would usually be covered in the article's lead. Some1 (talk) 23:24, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  From news style: To "bury the lead" is to begin the article with background information or details of secondary importance to the readers, forcing them to read more deeply into an article than they should have to in order to discover the essential points. - perhaps we should just adopt the format "John Smith is set to continue as president of example.", we wouldn't be deceiving the reader anymore (if they don't click on the link, which most won't) 1brianm7 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose any changes. Any articles we post where they are described as shams should say as much in the articles in question. We don't need to editorialize in the blurbs or in what we post. All election blurbs say anyway are "[person] was elected as [title] of [country]", and that is all that needs being said in most cases. The article is the ideal place for expansion upon the circumstances around the election. DarkSide830 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think that's the whole issue that is being flagged here... "X was elected" implies a democratic process was adhered to, which isn't the case in sham elections. It is editorialising, but in the opposite direction (if that makes any sense) because it doesn't follow what reputable sources would be saying. Khuft (talk) 10:15, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  "X was elected" implies a democratic process was adhered to I don't think that's true. It implies that an election was held and that that X was declared the winner of that election, but it doesn't imply anything about the nature of the election - after all whether a process is "democratic" or not is neither a binary nor objective, whether the defined process (whatever its nature) was followed is frequently not knowable until days or weeks (at least) afterwards and sometimes contentious. For example whether the 2020 United States presidential election was "democratic" and whether the defined process was followed depends on who you ask - e.g. those who believe Donald Trump's claims, those who believe the Electoral college is not democratic, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose change This proposal seems to rely on a biased view that free and fair elections is the control stage and any departure from it needs to be indicated. In the same way we don't characterise elections as 'free and fair', there's no point to do so if they're 'non-free and unfair'. In any case, the reader can view the article for further details. Democracy is a view, not a universal rule. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:08, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (ITN elections)

An issue that I've raised is that the determination of what is or isn't a sham election, or what is or isn't a free-and-fair election, is not an objective meausure. There are election watchdog groups that will review an election and sometime after the election will assess the free-and-fairness but not in time for ITN's purposes; and even if these groups deem an election to be a sham, their statements should be included with attribution as other similar groups (like SPLC for hate groups), to keep it out of wikivoice. Which leaves us with journalism commentators making that assessment at the time of the election, which we should avoid resting too much weight on even if it seems clear they are correct. ITN's blurbs need to stay factual as they are all in wikivoice - we don't have room for attribution or sourcing like article space has, so trying to force in a claim that an election was a sham or not free-and-fair just doesn't work. We can play subtle games with the wording, de-emphaizing "win" and more "selected" or "named" in the cases of such elections like in Russia, though we should also be consist with that across known free-and-fair elections too. Masem (t) 13:37, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that there are times when different observers have different opinions about how free and fair a given election is (although usually only in degree). Thryduulf (talk) 13:58, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The alternative just as problematic - we present an election as-if it were a true election ("Russia elects" or "Putin wins"). "wins" and "elects" have specific implications and invoke particular meaning for a reader, so it is simply not neutrally reporting the facts if in fact we are reporting on a sham election. Instead, we would be misinforming our readers. Katzrockso (talk) 22:09, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

+1 - If there is clearly a dispute over whether an "election" was really an election at all, and there is due weight to note this in an article lead, then presenting the event as an election in Wikivoice with no qualifiers is very much an NPOV vio. NPOV is about giving due weight to relevant perspectives, failing to do this is not neutral. The only sensible solution is to assess the sources and the article content to determine whether there is due weight to present an election as contested. Writing "Vladimir Putin wins the Russian presidential election" with no asterisks as though it were a totally normal and legitimate election is just as much of a WP:WEIGHT vio as "Joe Biden is declared the winner of the United States presidential election amid allegations of fraud"; both unduly promote a WP:FRINGE perspective.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:11, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem is whether an election is a sham or not , regardless of how many journalists are commenting on it within the days of that election, is subjective and cannot be said in wikivoice. It falls under NPOV that the claims should be attributed and given context which is fine in the article body, but in the short sentence we have at ITN, we have no room for attribution and context. (This is true for all ITN blurbs, they have to be presented in wikivoice so must be demonstrated fact and not subjective assessments). WEIGHT obviously applies in article space as to put the sham aspect up high in the lede, but obviously outside wikivoice, eg: "Putin wins the Russian president election in what many observers consider as a sham election." but that's language that can't work at ITN. Masem (t) 01:12, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That's why there are wording formats we can say that do not imply that the election was a fair one without going there, like "X is elected as president in the 2026 Y election." That applies if the election was fair or not, but we should be using that same format for all elections so that we're clearly not putting our finger down on the marker. Masem (t) 01:07, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Proposing a 24-hour blackout in response to WMF actions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I am making a proposal that, in response to the WMF's recent actions (see also here), English Wikipedia enact a 24-hour blackout. This would be similar to the blackout enacted by Arabic Wikipedia in 2023, or to the 2012 blackout done in the Protests against SOPA and PIPA. I want it to be for 24 hours so that it can be a clear and attention-grabbing warning that does not cause any long-term disruption (for now). I propose that it take place on 11 August 2026, one week from today. Please respond to this RfC indicating whether you support or oppose this proposal. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 01:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support the actions of tge WMF seem to require this, assuming the WWU supports. In solidarity Dafootballguy Want to talk? 01:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support – this is an existential threat to the future of the Wikimedia projects and thus the trade-off seems more than worth it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I would also support a blackout longer than 24 hours. Some1 (talk) 01:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support – per WMF's recent actions in using donor funds for union busting and firing employees. It would definitely help raise awareness on the issue. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 02:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Wait – per other editors, we should wait until we get support from WWU to do this, or see if they decide to take another course of action, in order to remain in solidarity as one group. Chris ☁️^{(talk - contribs)} 02:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose A strike is more practical than a blackout because a strike gets the same, if not more, media attention without disrupting the readership. The reason the previous blackout worked was because the whole internet was striking around the same time, which we won't happen the second time around. What the WMF cares about is their image; if they aren't the "savior of the internet", they can't get as much in donations. If we do a blackout, we will get flash-in-the-pan coverage that will be gone in 72 hours. If we strike, we can get long-term media coverage, dragging the WMF through the mud if they don't meet our demands. Striking is less disruptive on the readers while being the most effective way to punch the WMF where it hurts: their donations. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  There are 250,730 active editors according to Special:Statistics; the vast majority of editors don't know about this WMF/WWU conflict and will continue editing as usual, so I doubt a strike is going to raise much awareness or directly impact donations. Some1 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The point isn't "how much disruption can we cause"; it is "how long can we get the media to cover this". I imagine with a blackout, we will get heavy coverage during the event and the immediate time after it. People will see the coverage, but they will easily forget it and move on to the next thing. With a strike, we can drag it out if we need to. People won't forget about our plea after the initial burst of coverage if it keeps being talked about. The longer the strike is covered, the more people will have their "perfect" image of Wikipedia shattered, thus making more people less likely to donate. I doubt the WMF doesn't already understand this, and they would be more responsive to us potentially dragging them through the mud than a quick protest that will be done in a day and forgotten in a week. The media loves a story, especially one they can talk about during periods where there is less news, and if we give them one, they will bring the people who donate to our movement. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 02:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  how long can we get the media to cover this Your guess is just as good as mine. Some1 (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Can we do both: a blackout for awareness, and a strike for longevity? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 03:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  We only have so much social capital. If we spend it on a blackout, the strike will get less coverage. If our support drops early in the strike because it isn't "newsworthy" because the blackout happened, we lose a lot of negotiating power. Mikeycdiamond (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I am mixed on your reply:

  • A strike can still be newsworthy beside a blackout if we write about it in our blackout message.
  • From my limited experience, more time means less interest no matter what, so the strike will turn un-newsworthy even without a blackout.
  • However, I agree with your sentiment on negotiating power. We are doing this for the WWU, and an editor-initiated blackout can risk their position. However, I also want to put out there the idea of a WWU-initiated blackout. (All this is partly why I have not yet !voted.)

  LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Tentatively oppose and support a strike as per Mikeycdiamond. But I'll defer to the WWU, and am willing to change my position. Something should be done, I'm just unsure which is the best option. In solidarity Iam-py-test (talk, she/her) 02:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Much like how boycotts without a request from the involved union are discouraged because they risk undermining the union's strategy, we should not be doing a blackout, editing strike, or other collective action without a request from the WWU. Per Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity: We, the undersigned, stand in solidarity with Wiki Workers United and affirm our willingness to engage in collective action if called upon by WWU, up to and including staging an editorial strike. ... note that no collective action has yet been called for by Wiki Workers United, and thus none is actively being planned. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's important not to do anything that might worsen their situation, but I also think community organized efforts can coexist with taking actions (or not taking any) that the WWU calls for. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:47, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree. This is fundamentally about the unionizing WMF employees, and we should follow their lead. The community-organized effort was the solidarity petition letting the WWU group know there are more than a thousand of us who have their backs. To have the editing community suddenly go rogue with a blackout/strike without any request or even go-ahead from the WWU would be the opposite of solidarity. Directing our collective frustration (which I certainly share) in a haphazard and disorganized direction would only undermine the powerful message that the editing community is standing behind the WWU and ready to back them up. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it'll leave them worse off, I'll totally strike my vote. I just don't like assuming that "we all have your back and will support you if you want us to do something like strike" and independently taking the stance that we should have a blackout inherently have to be contradictory positions. I could be naive, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose in favour of a strike. A blackout makes little sense here. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Look out it's Jimothy!} 02:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• (edit conflict × 2) Premature RFC. If the goal is to support WWU then the very first question to ask should be whether the WWU think this action will support their cause? The second question should be whether they think now is the best time for that action. Only if the answer to both questions is "yes" is it worth thinking about the practicalities (time (when will it have the greatest impact?), duration, technical prerequistes, etc.) and only once they are sorted should an RFC be held. Has anybody even asked WWU yet? I know there was comment at Wikimania that some actions editors could theoretically take could actually hurt the union's cause, I don't recall if a blackout was one of those actions but it's important to know the answer before organising anything. Thryduulf (talk) 02:23, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per GorillaWarfare. If the intent is to show solidarity with WWU, we should wait for their call before engaging in collective action. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Wait, grudgingly. - I'm open to a blackout if WWU requests it. Going off and cowboy blacking out the site ourselves weakens WWU's negotiating position. I will note that the situation is causing permanent damage and distrust to accumulate between the WMF and the editing community, and I hope WMF will speedily reconsider to avoid exacerbating the damage Tazerdadog (talk) 02:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I worry this might be a catch-22? Like in the they can't have plausible deniability way and that the WMF might try to go after the WWU legally in some way if they endorse this since they clearly have no problems hiring a unionbusting firm. I think it makes sense as a community to do a sort of collective protest against hiring an anti-union law firm (if a consensus forms that this wasn't okay and we want the world to know about it). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: The unions have their strategy and they know they have us; they have WP:1275 of us. Let's not start the Spartacist uprising. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. WWU will probably win the NLRB vote. I don't think it's smart to escalate when the desired outcome will likely be achieved without escalating. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:31, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support if WWU supports it. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 03:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose that seems the route down the path to a hard fork. Andre🚐 03:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I've seen enough back and forth on this issue to know that it will cause some bad blood between editors. People who don't know what is going on, don't care, or just forget out of habit are likely to get some heat for crossing the picket line, regardless of what organizers say. People barely need an excuse to find anonymous targets to pick on as it is. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  There isn't a picket line to cross if the site itself is down. I think you might have misread what is being proposed? Obviously a message would need to be written so people don't just think it's a technical issue. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ah, thought blackout was the same as what happened during the Reddit API controversy where they made a bunch of sub-reddits private in an moderator strike. Not really sure how we could go about a blackout here without imposing some sort of a "strike." The Protests against SOPA and PIPA example made me think they wanted to "temporarily close or interrupt their content and redirect users to a message." Not sure how we could go about that without either high level admin involvement, or volunteers collectively playing along. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 09:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Tentative support if WWU asks for it. --ABx11 (she/they) 04:20, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Does anyone like the idea of taking a step that's less than a full 24hr blackout, like a banner and/or themed main page day? Levivich (talk) 05:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  That might be easier to get consensus for if we're worried it'll be too much of a bang and interfere with what the WWU might eventually want to do. I like the idea of a banner if we aren't doing a blackout and again, only if it won't worsen the WWU's position. I'd like to think raising awareness would be a good thing. I also think potential donors have a right to know where their money might be going. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agree. --ABx11 (she/they) 05:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  We're organising a meta:Event:WikiProject Organized Labour Month Online Campaign, a cross-language effort to improve our coverage of unions, with a focus on the union matters relevant to WWU. The goal is to get it on Mainpages (GAs etc). The big question is how we advertise. Before, I wanted a watchlist notice, and was a bit hesitant to suggest a Central banner (to all logged-in users), and make that banner take a side (instead of just linking to discussions). Or we can simply directly do a site notice (to all readers) now, without mentioning the edit campagin, now that we've passed from implausible deniability to proof that execs have been misleading us. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 07:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose unilateral anything; our actions, if any, must align with WWU's strategies. If they request a blackout, then I'm in favour, also because it would be an effective way to get more attention for the cause. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose unless WWU calls for it, support if that happens. Not sure why August 11 specifically is being proposed either. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose protests should be motivated by a clear demand which is reasonably expected to be yielded as a result of the protest. Czarking0 (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see how this is our fight. For SOPA there was a colorable argument that the law was a direct threat to the operation of the 'pedia, and I was happy that it appeared to work, but I've regretted it because now there's a temptation to engage in similar action whenever there's a political issue that enough editors are on one side of. This is dangerous for at least the perception of our neutrality. You can be as sympathetic to the union as you want and as vocal as you want about it, but don't try to draw the en.wiki community as such onto one side or another. --Trovatore (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Wait per above. If the WWU calls for one, then I will support it, but let's not jump the gun here. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support educating not disrupting readers... we should raise awareness about what is going on, for example inviting them to join the September edit-a-thon, but we should not immediately escalate. This is important, because the build-up potential for escalation needs growing consensus, and we get there by exhausting every other resort, including asking nicely. Till now, editors have asked nicely, but we have not involved readers, beyond what they might find in the press. So this build up gets us there. We can also think of donor centric language like "Donors can support Wikimedia's mission by contacting donate@wikimedia.org and ask that it not be used for hiring expensive union-busting law firms" ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose internal drama. not existential —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:57, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason I always oppose blackouts – it's an inherently non-neutral action, and we profess to be neutral. As TheDJ said above me, it's also internal drama and so should not be foisted upon passing readers. — Czello ^(music) 09:01, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Wait per above. We should be restarting the m:Movement Charter process, instead we seem to have gotten accustomed to learned helplessness amid these regular scandals. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 09:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support some form of [in]action; neutral as to the exact form. The recent response to unions is one symptom of a wider malaise, and I would prefer a broader message: the WMF must return to its original purpose of supporting readers and editors rather than lining its own pockets. Certes (talk) 09:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per TheDJ, Trovatore, and Czello. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• I think shutting down English Wikipedia for all readers and editors based on the support of a small percentage of the community contrasts poorly with the request to voluntarily recognize a union based on it having the support of a majority of eligible employees. It sends the message that a minority of the community can impose its will on the entire community, which may serve to confirm worries about the degree of union support. I think another approach may be more suitable. isaacl (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  For those interested, see Fram's proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Don't run any donation banners until the union-busting is completely ended. Some1 (talk) 11:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you view the two-hundred as the minority over the one, feel free to be wrong. Or do you want to argue that there is a bad-enough sampling bias here? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  @LightNightLights isasscl's comment about minority of the community is not about the 200 vs 1, but about the 200 vs ~251,000 active editors who have not signed in support or opposition. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Don't worry, I know. Are the 251,000-minus-200 editors all against the blackout? Is it that hard to connect the 200-vs-1 sample to the wider 250,000-editor population? LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 11:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Are the 251,000-minus-200 editors all against the blackout? Extremely unlikely (as a side note, there are currently 251,364 active editors so you don't need the -200). Is it that hard to connect the 200-vs-1 sample to the wider 250,000-editor population We have no knowledge how how representative the sample is. It is fair to presume that the significant majority of editors who have the strongest opinions about the matter have contributed to the petition and that there are editors who are aware of and do not support the petition that have chosen not to explicitly oppose it for various reasons (the vast majority of those who have not voted will be unaware it exists, many of them, perhaps most, will be completely unaware of the whole saga). Together this makes it almost certain that if all 251,364 editors were forced to explicitly support or oppose, the support ratio would be less than 200:1, however it is unknowable what the actual figure would be. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  200:1 (99.5 percent!) is beyond the point of recovery, and that is ignoring that other, 1250:0 petition. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The point is that we don't know whether it is or is not beyond the point of recovery. If you ask 200 self-selected supporters of a political party whether that party's policies are good you will get very nearly 100% saying yes, however this tells you nothing about what the wider population thinks about that party's policies. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  You could be right, but I do wish that opposers would make some effort to oppose as publicly as the supporters. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I'm barely following this union stuff. Just let me edit. MediaKyle (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Absolutely not. Blackout is the last resort nuclear option against an existential threat. Shutting down the entire site about an internal matter is the quintessential definition of disruption to make a WP:POINT. The editors who want to support WWU would be wiser to actually listen to what would help them instead of getting carried away with obvious non-starters like this. If and when WWU invites editors supporting them to take action by for example striking, these editors are free to answer the call for action; in the mean time, a blackout is ridiculously out of proportion and accomplishes nothing. And that is even without mentioning how problematic the idea that an external actor should have any say into calling on the community for a blackout at all, but I suspect WWU themselves are wiser than that, at least. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose A blackout is way too severe of a response to what's happening here. There are better ways to handle the wMF's mistakes. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Do not hijack the main page to make a partisan political statement. If you want to fight this battle on meta or on project pages, fine, but keep it out of mainspace. RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  "WMF is spending donor money for a union-busting law firm" is enough reason why readers should be aware of this. Additionally, is it not partisan already to support freedom that you name yourself The Free Encyclopedia? That sounds as partisan as fighting for authoritarianism. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 12:36, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - don't launch the missiles without clear, achievable strategic objectives. -- LWG ^{talk (VOPOV)} 13:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Wait for WWU - per GorrilaWarfare; this could be counterproductive at this stage. for what it's worth, I would happily support a blackout if called for by WWU, and the union editathon seems like a very good idea to me. Rexo (talk | contributions) 13:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I did in 2012. We are not a collective or bargaining group and we should not seek to bind others. Individuals, of course, are free to do as they like.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose I want to see a secret ballot and clearer objectives before supporting this. JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 13:58, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Shame on you and on anyone who proposes hurting the community, let alone the readers, to fight a morally indignant crusade. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 14:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The aim of a blackout would be to stop further hurting of the community. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Don't run any donation banners until the union-busting is completely ended

I don't think it makes sense to allow the WMF to run donation banners, when they then spend a significant part of that money to employ a notorious (and expensive) union-busting law firm (see e.g. here and here and many other places if you don't know what I'm referring to). While discussion about other possible actions can of course continue, I think showing clear disapproval of spending donor money in this way is easy, warranted, doesn't disrupt the readers, and might affect the WMF leadership where it hurts the most. Fram (talk) 10:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support, and maybe the community could run its own banners to let readers know why the donation banners are being put on pause. Some1 (talk) 10:50, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support makes sense. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  PS: I always thought the donation banners were a WMF thing? But if, as per this proposal, we have the power to not run them, then that implies that when they are run that's with our consent. So when users come to the Teahouse etc. to plead us to stop constantly begging for money, and we say "it's not us, guv, it's them WMF", that's not strictly true, then, is it? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:00, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I thought we had the technical ability to not show them if we wanted to (via an interface admin?), but if I'm mistaken, then this is not such a simple proposal as I thought. Fram (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Don't read too much into my comment, I'm utterly clueless about this topic (as well). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the community has the technical ability to not display the fundraising banners, however my understanding that the banners are a WP:CONEXEMPT matter - they don't require the consent of the en.wp community to run banners. They do engage at Wikipedia:Fundraising/Fundraising Hub about the design of banners, but that's a voluntary thing. So it's wrong to say that we "allow" them to run donation banners and we cannot disallow them or prevent them. The most we can do is express our disapproval. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  We can perfectly disallow or prevent them. Banners don't seem to be included in CONEXEMPT, and even if they were, who cares? It's not as if the WMF leadership cares about Wikipedia either. Technically, they can still run them, we just don't display them. Fram (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I would appreciate greater clarification about whether this is something we as a community could even do. Whether or not such banners are subject to community consensus seems like a pretty vital thing to understand before voting on it, and honestly probably should have been nailed down before proposing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure enwiki interface admins do have the technical ability to do everything proposed here - running arbitrary CSS and JavaScript on (almost) all pages on the website is much more powerful than you think it is. I don't think it's possible to answer the question of whether we have a social right to do this; I'm quite sure individual enwiki-ans could concoct an interpretation in which it is and WMF staff could concoct an interpretation in which it isn't pretty much regardless of what the rules actually say so the question can only be answered by seeing what happens if we do. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 15:30, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The way I would put it is that it would create a constitutional crisis. Like in many governmental constitutional crises, it's not that the community clearly can do this or clearly cannot, but that there been a stable state of affairs of both the community and the WMF quietly asserting supremacy in this regard, which has never been tested because both sides have avoided a full-on confrontation. Also like in governmental constitutional crises, the question of who has the better arguments becomes largely academic, secondary to the practical question of who can enforce their claim. In this case, in practical terms, the WMF has technical supremacy (including the ability to disestablish intadmin access entirely), but the community has a (near-)monopoly on the labor required to keep the site running, which would make it very hard for the WMF to enforce that technical supremacy more than briefly, lest they become dictators of a wiki no one wants to edit. If the WMF think they can politically get away with invoking CONEXEMPT in that context they probably will, and if they don't they probably won't, and that's true regardless of who has the better policy-based claim of sovereignty over banners. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:04, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The WMF shutting us down on their end would definitely meet my high standard of when it's appropriate to start considering the collective shutting things down on our end. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The technical ability to remove or modify banners, including adding a second banner, was discussed at WP:FR2022RFC, see specifically the section WP:FR2022RFC#Question for the Wikipedia editors: what now?, and also MediaWiki talk:Common.css/Archive 10#Removal of donation messages (and probably elsewhere). Both CSS and JS approaches were discussed. I think it's fair to summarize those discussions as resulting in "yes, it can technically be done" by editing common.css and also possibly by javascript methods.

  But I think it's also clear the WMF could stop it. It would be a repeat of the WP:FRAM situation (see WP:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Summary#List of significant events for details). In short, WMF blocked an editor, an admin unblocked, WMF re-blocked and desysoped the admin, a crat re-sysoped the admin, and then basically everyone put their weapons down. It was a WP:WHEELWAR with the WP:OFFICE.

  In the case of fundraising banner, WMF could WP:BLACKLOCK MediaWiki:Common.css which would prevent anyone from editing it. They probably have some way of stopping JS methods as well, like disabling JS across the site (not sure what else such a move would break). They could black-lock the main page. If we used a template to put a notice on every page, they could blacklock the template. If we had a bot edit every article page to place a notice manually, they could have a bot undo that. Arguably they could blacklock all of article space, but that would be causing an editor strike that would be more widespread than any volunteer strike (literally preventing all edits to article space).

  I'm sure that, as with WP:FRAM, the wheel war would stop after a few steps and everyone would go to the negotiating table. However, despite the technical impediments to actually, technically, removing all fundraising banners, the threat of trying to do it in WP:FR2022RFC was enough to get the WMF to change their fundraising banners, although that probably had more to do with WP:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 196#Media coverage of this RfC than fear of a wheel war. Which is the whole point: the media will, once again, cover it, if it looks like the community is going to ban the fundraising banners, and the negative media attention matters to the WMF likely more than what rebellious volunteers could technically accomplish. Levivich (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Technical anecdota presented without comment:

  There are several ways iadmins can do this without editing MediaWiki:Common.js

  As currently coded there is no way for anyone regardless of what rights they hold to stop local admins/iadmins from editing a page, other than by desysopping them -- superprotect was removed from the code in 2015.

  Of course, this doesn't actually mean anything because they can change the codebase as is done routinely in the wikitech:Deployments process, and doing so would be technically trivial.

  Several volunteers can do that (change the code) too.

  The WMF did disable sitewide JS for an hour or so in response to the m:2026 user JavaScript incident * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 19:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Note "WP:BLACKLOCK" (i.e. "Office protection") is not a separate level of protection, it's just normal full-protection plus telling admins "don't touch this". If admins are willing to buck that, and other admins/'crats aren't willing to sanction those admins, then it's irrelevant.

  Rather than "black-lock", they'd have to bring back WP:SUPERPROTECT to actually enforce it. From a technical standpoint they could trivially do that; superprotect had no special code behind it, it was just configuration almost identical to templateeditor. Then it'd be a bit of an arms race between intadmins finding different ways to mess with the banners and WMF reverting and super-protecting. Anomie⚔ 00:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Even if they could bring back superprotect, it would likely lead to a lot of negative press coverage, which could harm their donations. If the WMF is openly declaring that it cares about neither employees nor admins, who would give them money? Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 20:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Is using AI to wheel war with the office allowed under WP:NEWLLM? Levivich (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Levivich it depends what you are wheel warring over - as long as you're not touching article content, WP:NEWLLM has nothing to say. Similarly, WP:LLMTALK comes into play only if you're writing comments or nomination statements. WP:G15 applies to pages created by LLMs in any namespace, and so would include banners (WP:AIIMAGES may also be relevant there). However, WP:EDITWAR and WP:WHEELWAR apply regardless of whether the warring party is a human, bot or AI agent. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agentic wheel-warring with the Office would fall under WP:BOTP though. So, y'know, make sure your bot has consensus first. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 11:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support donation money shouldn't be wasted on a civil war, let alone union busting. See this discussion about an alternative banner. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. We should not run donation banners if donations are being used against the community. I also support Rosguill's idea if that proves to be the more popular option. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Drop Littler Mendelson and invest in community as a fundraising demand, where we do continue fundraising banners, but with a clear call to action to donors. Exact wording can be wordshopped but let's find a sweet spot of being critical without completely stopping everything, which will have harder time reaching consensus. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  One possible route to implementing this would be to put up banners that go to a page that briefly explains the current crisis, then presents both a link to continue to making a donation and a link to a petition/email form/etc. supporting WWU and calling for an end to unionbusting practices. I don't really have an estimate of how successful this would be in terms of numbers and ultimate impact, but it seems like a viable route to setting up a stream of "As a donor..." messages to the WMF. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I really like Molly White's counter-FAQ. I think it should be included in such a message. It's at m:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think the full text gets a bit more in the weeds than what I expect the random curious would-be donor would be interested in; but it's definitely worth including as a linked summary, and reusing some of its most central points. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support – if I had donated money to Wikipedia, I would feel betrayed. Previous campaigns mentioned that donations were down this month after the dissolution of CommTech and I'd hate for people to think we're "in need" when that need is paying an unethical organization. I know people are worried about the Wikimedia Foundation using this an excuse to lay off people, but if they decide to prioritize that, that's on them and I'll have much to say about that course of action. I know some people have been trying to encourage people who write about cancelling their donations on social media into maybe making it temporary or giving to an affiliate instead. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Noting that I have a slight preference for Rosguill's proposal, as otherwise people might not notice why we don't have banners and might simply think the WMF has decided to annoy them less often. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Ultimately it's the WMF consulting us on what ads to run on the playground they own and they don't have to so why go there?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Wikipedia community's power structure is deliberately separate from the WMF. We have power to do some things even if they don't like it. 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:27, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support The community wants a union, and WMF seems to be out of touch with the community by hiring a union-busting law firm. Maybe by blocking the donation banners, WMF leadership will finally decide to listen to the community and its workers instead of dismissing the concerns of the community and only pretending to listen. Abzeronow (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I wish I could get a refund on the extensive donations I've made. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 15:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I also Support Rosguill's idea. I have no particular preference between the two. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 17:59, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wait, per Femke below. We should follow the lead of WWU and defer to their wishes. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Question: Given the premise of this proposal is an indefinite implementation "until the union-busting is completely ended", what event, signal, metric, or message is being proposed to mark that end? The hiring of Littler Mendelson sends a pretty clear message about intent, but there are also folks here who believe disbanding Community Tech was definitely union-busting. So who decides what "completely ended" means? Is it just stopping the relationship with Littler Mendelson? Is it that plus a pledge not to do any union-busting? Does it require formal recognition? Whatever it is, say that. "I know it when I see it" doesn't make for good proposals IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:02, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think parting ways with Littler-Mendelson, formally recognizing the WWU, and making a demonstrable effort to rehire the engineers whose firing precipitated the uproar (to my understanding, they've already half-done that last one) are reasonable demands to make. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:24, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I would suggest the objective trigger criteria of the WMF committing to:

  1. End any business relationship with Littler Mendelson
  2. Not engage with Jones Day in any union-related matters
  3. Not replace Littler with any other union-avoidance firm

  There's a lot more I'd like to see happen here, including an independent investigation into which WMF personnel are responsible for the decision to mislead the community about union-busting, but having clear, narrowly-tailored goals is critical if we're going to provoke a constitutional crisis, so I would suggest focusing just on the "donation money going to union-busting firms" problem. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosguill's idea. Directly denying donation streams is easier for the WMF to spin as rogue community malcontents disrupting things, provides less of a reason for them to change, and risks creating a justification for further union-targeting layoffs like the ones that started this crisis. Changing things so that we give potential donors the choice, letting them either agree or disagree with our concerns, donate or not donate, contact donate@wikimedia.org to complain or not contact donate@wikimedia.org to complain, sends a much clearer message, one that can't be dismissed as just a rogue element, and one that importantly will come not just from immediate lost revenue, but from many people writing in threatening to revoke donations if the WMF doesn't disavow its union-busting, which is a lot harder to not engage with. (If there is not consensus for Rosguill's proposal, this should be read as a neutral on Fram's original proposal.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:12, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  This would also be my preferred approach. "We've taken down your donation banners" is one thing, but "we've given visitors a choice, and 4 out of 5 have chosen to pledge solidarity rather than donate" would be much more powerful. (That is, if we get majority going that way... 1 out of 5 could be a bit of an own goal.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you frame it as 1 out of 5 compared to a potential 4 out of 5, then sure. If you frame it as "20% of the visitors are pissed at you", then that's certainly an own goal... for the WMF. (I also like Rosguill's idea or something similar.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 17:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  A 20% drop in donors would have a significant impact on fundraising; I wouldn't write it off. isaacl (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosguill's idea. Tamzin's rationale is spot-on. We may also run campaigns, such as a potential WP:MEETUP/In solidarity. My idea hinges on showing that those in solidarity against the union-busting can prove the most useful contributions and article improvements to Wikipedia. Already, detractors have spun a narrative that editor strikes would be bad, so what if we do the polar opposite of that? 🎆 Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 16:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support perhaps a complete halt to donation requests for a couple of days and then Rosguill's idea, or the latter from the start if that's too harsh. I'm sort of out of the loop, does anyone know where the maintenance of the tools listed at m:Community Tech/Maintenance will be coming from, if at all? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Some of them are being maintained by other teams (mostly moderator tools). See m:Community Wishlist/Updates#July 6, 2026: Services and Ownership Update. Others are effectively abandoned. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 18:15, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  My not particularly informed assumption would be that actually interfering with WMF donation banners would quickly lead to an office action that could prevent us from putting up our own banners later. But maybe there's reason to think that wouldn't be the case? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:54, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Amending to Wait per Femke. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support running our own banners in the sitenotice, per Rosguill (and on the Main Page). —Kusma (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's idea per above, first choice. Support pulling the banners (Fram's OP) as a second choice. I like Rosguill's idea because it lets us let readers know that the community doesn't support the WMF leadership's union busting, gives readers a choice, and reduces the chances of another wheel war with the office, which would be a distraction. Levivich (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  To clarify, I agree that whether or not to have a union is a choice for WMF employees to make, not volunteers or WMF leadership. But when WMF leadership acts contrary to Wikipedia values (like transparency and free knowledge) by trying to prevent unionization while repeatedly lying to the public and its own community about it, I don't think the volunteer community, as a unit, should look the other way and remain silent in order to stay "neutral." I don't think holding WMF leadership accountable to our values is "micromanaging." It is our obligation as a community to ensure the people we entrust with the money are following our values. Complaining loudly is the least we can do. Levivich (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Still support both ideas in principle but I'm ok with waiting. Pulling the banners altogether is def up there in the escalation ladder. I don't think adding a banner (Rosguill's idea) would trigger a constitutional crisis, at least not if the kind that are being workshopped below. But since the NLRB vote is happening in a month, I'm fine with not running any banners now and letting the employees vote in peace, as it were, without increasing attention and without any pro- or anti- pressure from volunteers or management or anyone else. Levivich (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think adding a banner (Rosguill's idea) would trigger a constitutional crisis. I think it would. Rosguill's proposal is basically to add an "are you sure you want to donate to such an evil organization?" page between the banner and the donation page, right? That is, in my opinion, a huge escalation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  The way I understood it (and judging by the workshopping below, many other too) is that we would add our own sitenotice alongside the centralnotice, which would link to page(s) with relevant information. Not hijacking the fundraising banner's link. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosguill's idea, and weak support the other idea. I don't think readers will make the connection between donation banners going away and the WWU stuff; either they just won't notice at all, or they'll think it's some kind of browser cookie thing or that the fundraiser is over or something. Shit, I don't even know what triggers when banners go away or reappear. I also think that should a wheel war event happen, readers would more easily notice a new banner suddenly going away than a familiar banner suddenly (maybe?) appearing again. Gnomingstuff (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's idea of posting our own banner. The dysfunctionality of the WMF that is revealing itself in this situation is a sufficiently strong threat to Wikipedia that alerting the community via is fully justified. I think that the banner should include a link to the September Labour editathon. Boud (talk) 21:03, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. In many cases where we debate and come up with a consensus of a hundred or two hundred editors, the results only affect those who participate in Wikipedia's internal processes, as opposed to those who "just edit", as a commenter phrased it in a section above. We need a very high standard to do something like a blackout, a donation banner ban, or a political statement visible to all editors, or (even more so) to all readers. I can't see that standard being reached here -- as Thryduulf says in the earlier thread, there are hundreds of thousands of active editors who just don't care about this. Our real power is in our labour, which is appropriate, given that this is about unionization. If those who agree with the proponents of this section were to withhold their edits on a given day, would that lead to a significant dip in edits? If it did, that would be a much more powerful signal than a blackout or a watchlist notice. Those who hold particular political or ethical views are free to do with their labour what they will, but I oppose action that implies the silent mass of editors agree with a given political stance, regardless of whether I agree with the stance myself. (The SOPA blackout was different; that was an existential threat that had no significant political dimension.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:43, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree with the idea that managing fundraising banners inappropriately speaks for the "silent mass of editors" and that doing nothing doesn't. Currently, default WMF donation banners already co-opt all of us by leveraging our volunteer work to solicit money under the guise of "supporting Wikipedia." That usage of us is okay, if the money is all going to supporting Wikipedia and our work. But, these actions have revealed it is not. They showed that some of it is instead going towards supporting the WMF's political actions against unions, through paying for the high retainers for aggressive union-busting law firms.

  You said our true power lies in our labor. Doing nothing allows the WMF to exploit both our labor and the goodwill it generates in the community, for purposes which don't benefit us and damage the reputation of both editors and Wikipedia. If we don't do anything to pause or balance the banners, it means continuing to allow the WMF to abuse the labor and image of the silent editor for their fundraising towards contentious legal tactics unrelated to content creation. The silent editors you mentioned never consented to this. Thus, if we keep things the same, I think that's what will actually co-opt the silent majority.

  I also don't agree SOPA had "no significant political dimension." It was explicitly intended to oppose a particular law and encourage Americans to contact their representatives in congress, which is quite political. By contrast, setting parameters for fundraising banners is an issue of ethical stewardship and donor transparency, if managed appropriately.

  This is why I think Rosguill’s proposal is the ideal compromise. It completely resolves concerns about forcing a unilateral stance on the site. By keeping fundraising active while neutrally presenting both perspectives, we aren't imposing an opinion on readers or silent editors. We are simply upholding NPOV and providing donors with the full context required for informed consent. And we are preventing the WMF from continuing to co-opt the work of the silent editor to fundraise for their dubious legal crusades. Preventing the volunteer workforce from being co-opted in this manner should be a priority for all of us. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:48, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I think this should be listed on WP:CENT as this discussion could have a major impact on the community/ site as a whole. Best, Squawk7700 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  Done so now. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 23:26, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I wonder if an RfC tag should be added too. Some1 (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm also wondering if it might be worth a watchlist notice as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think it would be, banners are a big deal and that's a great way to get the attention of people who don't participate in projectspace discussions as much to see what they think. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Question: If this is to benefit workers, don't you want to ask their rep? (I would think, salaries/benefits is a large funding line.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's proposal 1st choice, and also support Fram's proposal 2nd choice. I believe continuing to run the current one-sided donation banners, which use our work to direct support to the WMF's current political actions against unions, isn't right. The WMF's action to spend lots of donor money on such a law firm to pursue such political causes, is abusing both their existing donors and funds, and our website and work which as of today is used unreservedly to increase those funds through banners and power the WMF's political actions. Therefore, I support both stopping the banners (Fram) or adding both sides (Rosguill). The reason I support Rosguill's as first preference is because I believe it's more fair to the WMF and more neutral as it doesn't completely cut off funding banners for those who are still interested, but ensures that donors have the full context which is deserved and both sides are fairly and neutrally presented. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's proposal, which most effectively communicates the community's position to our readers, who deserve to be informed when their donations to support the community are instead being misappropriated for union busting (without disclosure). I recommend providing links in the banner to adjacent organizations readers can donate to instead of the WMF, such as Wikimedia movement affiliates and the Internet Archive. (As a second choice, I also support Fram's original proposal.) — Newslinger talk 00:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wait for further developments, in light of the progress made as a result of negative community feedback. This can be revisited if the union busting continues or if the upcoming union election is disrupted in any way. — Newslinger talk 12:24, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I am glad the foundation raises lots of money. Engaging in economic warfare with them is cutting off your nose to spite your face. RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not really convinced by this. The WMF holds significant cash reserves and assets, currently at $297 million (and that is excluding the WMF endowment). A temporary pause or additional information on fundraising banners is unlikely to cause any significant economic impact (and impact "our face") in any way. It is more about refusing to endorse their current political actions, and make sure donors are fully informed. In my opinion, money raised through misleading donors into "supporting Wikipedia", which one would infer goes to servers and workers, not massive retainers for law firms so anti-union political actions can be taken, isn't worth it or ethical. I would prefer those who really want to donate do so with informed consent. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 00:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The Foundation spends so little of its money on the wikis that the analogy fails completely. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could you please care to explain how it is economic warfare to not run a donation banner? Also, it's hardly cutting off your nose to spite your face when the proposed change would not make Wikipedia worse, as the WMF barely spends money on wikis anyways. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:28, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  What makes you believe that "the WMF barely spends money on wikis"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well obviously they spend a decent bit of money on wikis, I meant relatively its bound to not be as much as they would for legal fees and hiring firms *cough* littler mendelson *cough* and money for management, etc. Sorry if I came across as a bit ignorant in my last comment, I wasn't trying to make a case that the WMF is frugal when it comes to spending on wikis In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 20:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support either Fram or Rosequill's suggestions. Union busting has no place in a project like this, or anywhere in the world. ⋆˚꩜｡ serilly! (he/him) (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose to Rosguill's idea as a hotheaded and knee-jerk reaction with potentially massive long-term financial consequences. Things like that would have impact on Wikipedia's reputation with the general public that would take years to fix. Public goodwill is hard to build and should not be squandered. I am pro-union, but don't bite the hand that feeds you. I am neutral on not running banners at all. Renata•3 00:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Public goodwill is hard to build and should not be squandered, yeah, and I personally blame the executives and board for not doing anything to prevent such squandering. Refusing to inform people would make a lot of the backlash worse, I think. A lot of donors finding out about this through other means have mentioned feeling betrayed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  "don't bite the hand that feeds you" – sorry, is WMF meant to be the one 'feeding' us in this scenario? We, the community, create the content, administer the site, and many of us also donate money on top of that. If anything, I would have said we're the hand that feeds here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Hotheaded" and "knee jerk" seems to be a more apt description of the rhetoric in your comment than it is of most of the discussion here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosguill's idea first, Fram's original idea second. Rosguill's idea is more effective at informing readers/editors and, by extension, discouraging donations. Fram's idea only does the latter. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Like others, I am also OK with waiting. Part of my motivation was that WWU was unlikely to call a strike, and whatever the case is on that now, WWU kind of weakened that motivation with an FAQ update. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 08:33, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose taking any official position whatsoever, as a community, on the WMF labor dispute. It's not our fight, and it compromises our neutrality. --Trovatore (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Donation banners have never been neutral. Calls to action such as "please donate $2.75 right now—or consider a monthly gift to help all year long" only represent the WMF's point of view, and certainly do not follow WP:NPOV or many of our other policies (which obviously do not apply to donation banners, but I am only mentioning because you invoked neutrality in your comment). Rosguill's proposal would present the community's point of view alongside the WMF's point of view, which would make this year's fundraising messaging more neutral than any other donation banners in Wikipedia's history. — Newslinger talk 04:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  My view is that the community should not have a point of view on this. Members of the community, of course, are free to. But the community per se should not. It's not within the scope of what the community does. --Trovatore (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Didn't know you spoke for the community. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  A comment that starts "My view is ..." doesn't seem to me to make unwarranted assumptions about whether the speaker's views are the same as the community's. It's a legitimate point of debate here as to whether the proposed action represents something that should be outside the community's usual actions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  
  I am not claiming to speak for the community. I am not making a claim as to what the community's view is, but about the things the community is entitled to have a view on. I do not think this is in the range of things that it is legitimate for the community to have a view on at all. Again, this is the community an sich; obviously it's legitimate for people in the community to hold a view on it. --Trovatore (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The community is not entitled to have a view on the values of the community? On whether the WMF upholds those values? Why not? Levivich (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Because it compromises our neutrality. If the community as such takes a position, for example, that unions are good or union-busting is bad, then who can trust, say, that our article on organized labor is neutral? --Trovatore (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  ...but it's OK for the WMF to say that unions are bad? The people who take and spend donor money -- they don't have to be neutral, just the volunteer community? The volunteer community shouldn't break its values, but when the WMF breaks those same values, the community is not entitled to oppose it? That doesn't make sense. Especially considering one of our values is self-governance, which includes governing the WMF (we elect the Trustees who appoint everyone else). If we turn a blind eye when the WMF breaks our values, then we are breaking our values as well. If we stay quiet when the WMF lies, it's the same as the community lying. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The WMF is in a completely different position than we are. No, they don't have to be neutral. They aren't writing articles that users expect to be written from a neutral point of view. --Trovatore (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I personally don't see how a banner like this would be any different from "Wiki Loves Pride" campaign banners (encouraging people to edit LGBT+ content). Just because something is "political" doesn't mean we can't respect NPOV. And a banner is inherently not article content. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Now that you mention it, I have some issues with those as well, but they're not immediately under discussion. --Trovatore (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think there is a material difference between "edit content about this topic" and "read our opinion about a non-content matter". That's not to say that either type of banner should or should not be run, just that they are not the same and the reason why one is or isn't appropriate doesn't automatically apply to the other. A banner encouraging people to improve content about organised labour (that doesn't mention the dispute) would be the same as a Wiki Loves Pride or similar banner imo, one that mentions the dispute in a non-neutral manner would not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think you said it better than I could. That said, the verb "loves" does appear to take a side, which is why I do have something of an issue with it. But it is not quite as obvious a problem as the current proposal is. --Trovatore (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, that was the comparison I was trying to make. People have perceived the message as advocating for LGBT+ rights, a political stance. Almost anything can be "political" (a lot of my perspective on this was shaped growing up as a Jehovah's Witness, where the act of voting itself is "political"). User:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased. is also an interesting perspective in that direction. In this case, one could say we're "biased" towards factual information regarding how the unionization process works in the US and against people who spend a lot of money to misrepresent it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I feel like you're cutting the distinction pretty fine here. I would agree that it's OK for us to take a position in favor of factual information, even as a community. I do not think it's OK for us to take a position, as a community, in favor of (or against) organized labor. I'm afraid these proposed actions would be perceived, not entirely inaccurately, as more the second than the first. --Trovatore (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hmmm, well we're free to disagree. I do understand to some extent what you're concerned about, but I don't think a banner would quite literally say "go support the WWU". I'd hope it to be informational in nature (this is what the WMF is doing, this is how they've misrepresented the unionization process, this is who the money is going to, and we've come to a consensus that this isn't a responsible use of donor funds?). I think at this point we may just have genuine differences of opinion, though. If you want to debate more, my talk page is always open. Don't want you to feel like I'm pressuring you. I just find that talking through every aspect of things can sometimes lead to one changing their mind. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is not our fight, and joining it, given the political nature of unions, would compromise our neutrality. It would also likely be a violation of WP:P1 and WP:P2; joining a labour dispute would be using Wikipedia as a soapbox and engaging in advocacy.
  In addition, WP:CONEXEMPT applies here; running banner ads clearly falls under acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees. For us to decide to overrule CONEXEMPT would require an overwhelmingly strong consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Both P1 and P2 were repealed. And both SOAP and NOTADVOCACY only apply to articles. Finally, CONEXEMPT says that acts of the WMF Board and its duly appointed designees take precedence over, and preempt, consensus. It does not say that such a consensus cannot be made or executed. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Presumably they mean 5P1 and 5P2. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 14:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I would like to say this to @BilledMammal:

  5P1 and 5P2 don't apply to banners the same way it would in mainspace. The WMF has run donation banners for years that would, if in mainspace, be rollbacked on sight for advocacy, self-promotion, and COI. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 15:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, this is micromanagement of WMF activity we should not be doing, and we need them to get funded.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't want to be misled into donating to a company that hires a union busting firm, thank you very much. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If you don’t like how WMF spends its money… don’t donate. Blueboar (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Stakeholder theory — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 23:06, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Congratulations, you get it.

  Until union-busting ends, there need to be no donations. 🐺 WolfOnABus 🚍 (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Why do we "need" to get them funded? In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. As editors, workplace issues of the WMF are none of our business, since we are not WMF employees, not unionized and unpaid. But as editors, we do have a vested interest in the WMF being funded so that they can in turn fund the operation of Wikipedia. Sandstein 07:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  True: we do have a vested interest in the WMF being funded. The current situation is that WMF is making false statements that damage WMF's reputation and effectively that of the Wikimedia community, broadly construed, which puts donations at risk. Donations depend on Wikimedia's reputation. Rosguill's proposal maximises the probability of protecting Wikimedia's reputation, and thus of protecting our funding. Boud (talk) 07:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  But a conflict between en.wiki and WMF would be even worse. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The English Wikipedia would survive without the WMF. The WMF would not survive without the English Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 08:04, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  But what about the workers at the WMF? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  For me personally, this is no longer about the union, but about the contradiction between the movement's values and the actions of the WMF executives. Involuntary union recognition would do nothing to alleviate my disgust at what has happened. —Kusma (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support either idea that has been brought up. If the WMF is being dishonest, then people shouldn't be misled into giving them money. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support either idea as donor money should not be spent on union-busting. Opm581 ^{(talk | he/him)} 08:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• oppose - I don’t think rushing through with such drastic measures would be a good idea right now. With such uncertain times regarding the future of wikipedia (with Ai leading to less readers and less new editors) we need to preserve the trust/goodwill/whatever we still have. This action will have unforeseen effects that outlast current WMF leadership and the union controversy. And as was said previously the WMF has so much money that if truly want to continue this path they just can and then this action will have as much effect as a declaration by the community will have without causing problems in the future when we won’t need them. Short-term this would unfortunately not make any impact. Squawk7700 (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support either idea. This should be very trivial to implement by any intadmin. sapphaline (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Does anyone have a Wayback Machine snapshot of main page with a donation banner? sapphaline (talk) 11:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nevermind, donation banners are in a div#centralNotice element (see here or here). sapphaline (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  So we'll need the following code in mediawiki:common.css to hide them:

  #centralNotice {
  	display: none !important;
  }
  

  Or the following code in mediawiki:common.js:

  document.getElementById("centralNotice").style = "display: none !important;"
  

  We could combine these approaches so that it's harder to unhide them by modifying skins' HTML or stylesheets. WMF could always enable sitewide safe mode, though, which disables all scripts and stylesheets which aren't included in skins. sapphaline (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  This would be a really bad idea. Note that foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use includes You do not harm our technology infrastructure. RoySmith (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Banner ads aren't WMF's technology infrastructure. sapphaline (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It seems the Wayback Machine doesn't save banners (Maybe they're filtered out by their adblocker or not shown to crawlers?) but File:Wikipedia donation banner 4 December 2025 v1.png is an annotated screenshot of one of the banners run last year. There may be more examples at Wikipedia:Fundraising. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Thryduulf: Fundraising campaigns have an overview of about five examples or so because sometimes we are testing hundreds of variants in a campaign, so it would be complicated to share every individual message, but this helps give an idea of the range of messages we are sharing at any given time across campaigns. So it doesn't seem like this information is kept on-wiki anywhere, either. It's too complicated to share every individual message, supposedly. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Clovermoss I can certainly appreciate that we don't need inline images of every minor variation in wording, and maybe not images of them all either as long as we have a representative sample of each basic design and maybe a copy of the text too, but complexity is not a reason I'd use justify this view. Further discussion of this is probably offtopic for this discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Possibly, maybe we could move it to Talk:Fundraising. I think it makes sense to have both, personally. An overview and then a link where one can read a list of every minor variation for transparency's sake. Given long term conflicts about how fundraising is done, I think it would restore some trust in the process. I'm not entirely confident that my definition of "minor variation" matches the WMF's, although I'm sure there's some overlap between the two. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hyper-technically, each possible variation is by definition "kept on-wiki" somewhere as the CentralNotice extension requires each banner to be loaded from a page on Meta-Wiki. Someone with way too much time and energy on their hands and a load of technical knowhow could skulldig through m:Special:CentralNoticeBanners and find them. * Pppery * _{(alt) in solidarity} 19:07, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• I don’t have a strong opinion on unionization at the WMF - However, if this proposal means I won’t receive endless solicitations for donations, then I support it. Of course, it also means that I would encourage the WMF to oppose unionization for as long as possible. Blueboar (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strongest possible oppose to Rosguill's plan we do not need to be airing out intrawiki drama to the public which has little understanding of the project and will be susceptible to narratives from the WMF or even from malicious actors on-wiki hijacking the narrative. Neutral, leaning oppose to Fram's proposal; while I'm weary of the possible precedent this may set, at least this confines the issue largely into the movement. Furthermore, I agree that any proposal here needs mass-community support from the greater editorbase, not amongst the most active in wiki-politics. — Knightoftheswords 12:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Wouldn't people be more susceptible to the WMF's narrative if we don't do anything to refute it? They already point people to an FAQ that contains blatant lies. I don't think we should assume this proposal wouldn't be supported by the rest of the community. From what I've seen online from people who edit little or mostly just read, they're furious. We can't choose what the WMF does with their donations, but we can decide to do the ethical thing and warn people about it. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  The furious have a tendency to speak out more than the indifferent, though. No one walks down the street angrily demonstrating for the position, "WE DON'T CARE"! And the furious rarely need help to speak for themselves. Wehwalt (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'm just saying that we shouldn't assume that they wouldn't want us to speak up, since almost everyone I'm aware of who has learned about this and donated has been mad about it. Generally speaking, you'd see more "so what?" if this was some internal drama no one really cares about. But it's more than that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is entirely true, of course. The loudest noise tends to come from either ends of the spectrum, not from the middle.

  I've not heard anyone furiously endorsing or cheering for WMF's actions, though? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Well said, my exact thoughts. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:06, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If they were cheering the actions, they would not be on fire to do anything at all. Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosguill's idea — Banners are already speaking for the silent majority by asking for donations on behalf of their behalf. If we accept such banners being run, that endorses the claim that the money is being used on behalf of the community. If we accept such banners being run when the money is used to give fat paychecks to union-busting lawyers then we are endorsing that. I do not see how that could be construed as neutral. On the contrary, the neutral option here is to refuse to allow banners saying that money used for union-busting is being used on behalf of the community. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 19:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not worth the disruption and political capital cost since WWU will probably win the NLRB vote. If WMF launches some kind of delaying litigation after WWU wins the NLRB vote, which can happen sometimes and would be clear union-busting, then revisit then. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's idea – Rosguill's idea certainly has merits, and I am utterly unconvinced by the opposition. To address a few points in brief:
  • NPOV, and by extension 5P2, applies only to encyclopedic content, so does not matter here.
  • WMF actions are absolutely of interest to Wikipedians, especially when they have the potential for long-lasting reputational harm. This became our fight the second a team maintaining vital community tools was uncerimoniously laid off.
  • With regards to 5P1, the proposed banner doesn't have to be a hotheaded and knee-jerk reaction. We are meant to be good at writing neutrally, so let's let the reader decide after seeing the facts. All that matters is that this situation is known, which I would argue is not advocacy, just informing.
• That said, I agree with Novem above that we should wait to see the outcome of the NLRB vote when taking more drastic action, i.e. the initial proposal. If delaying litigation is pursued afterwords, fire away. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Considering that it could take awhile for that to happen and the WMF is going to keep spending a lot of money in the meantime, I don't like waiting. When I talked to someone who had experience in this area, they estimated that the WMF had already spent at least $100,000 in this direction, because that would've been what's normal for a case like this. See this email. I've also heard about "optional" captive audience meetings, one of which included 200+ employees, that sort of thing requires donor money to happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC), edited 21:15, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I still think that an action as drastic as this from us would be better placed as close to a last resort. It might take a while, but what happens if we do this, and then the NLRB vote comes back green and the WMF accept it? That makes us look like the unreasonable ones here, which is playing right into an anti-union narrative. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think it makes the WMF look reasonable, it would just show that all the money they spent trying to prevent that outcome didn't work. It wouldn't remove the moral harm of their actions or make them justifiable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't say it would make the WMF look reasonable, just that it would make us look unreasonable. I certainly don't think there's any sort of moral equivalence here. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, well I disagree that it would make us look unreasonable, especially if we counter the misperceptions the WMF is encouraging about what all this means (m:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses gives a very detailed overview for people who might be inclined to believe that it's just about a proper, democratic vote). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be honest, I was mostly meaning that a complete removal might come across as a bit drastic. As above, I've thought a bit more and now think that Rosguill's idea would be fine as long as the banner is as neutrally worded as possible. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be honest, UpTheOctave!, the WMF staff has repeatedly misled us regarding their approach to the dispute, so I don't think there's much of a need to posture. We don't really get many brownie points for sitting pretty. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 21:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Can't speak for anyone else, but if the NLRB vote comes back green and the WMF accepts it, that won't make me any less angry about the WMF lying to the public, wasting donor money, and trying to stop unionization. Same outcome if the vote comes back red. I don't care if the employees do or do not want a union, I care that they get to make a free choice, and I care about WMF leadership upholding Wikipedia values like transparency and accountability. I care that my volunteer work doesn't help raise donations that are then spent on doing evil in the world, like union busting, and blatant lying. Levivich (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hmm, yeah, I agree with that. I've amended my comments a bit after some more thought: I think Rosguill's idea has merits in the here and now, but I still remain a "wait and see" on a complete removal. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  NPOV per se does not apply to this case, that's true. But it points to why we should not take political stances as a community. If we do, it undermines the readers' trust that we can actually be neutral in presenting encyclopedic content. --Trovatore (talk) 22:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  For me the core of the issue is that inaction is also non-neutral. We, the community, are on-notice that our work is being used to solicit donations that are in turn forwarded toward an effort that many donors would view as unethical and that we were reassured by the WMF was not happening. Not doing anything is taking the stance that we are okay with that, or at least not-not-okay with that. Which is a stance people are entitled to, if that is how they feel; but it's no more or less neutral a stance than Fram or Rosguill's ideas. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  When we submit any edit, we explicitly give up control over how it is used. On the larger point, my view is that acts are different in kind from omissions. --Trovatore (talk) 23:00, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  We give up control over who uses our content (provided they follow the CC BY-SA license terms), but that explicitly does not mean we must endorse the way it is used, and we all retain the right to criticize any entity that uses our work. As to misdeeds of omission versus misdeeds of commission, that's a matter of personal philosophy; personally I am a consequentialist and I do not see a difference between omission and commission in a case where a person is fully aware that inaction will lead to harm, and where the action that would mitigate that harm doesn't itself cause greater harm. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 23:26, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Rosquill's idea (weak oppose on the original proposal). Wait per Femke below. I think the WMF already deserves significant pressure and backlash for being ran by people who do nothing but lie to us about this topic. That is not just a matter of solidarity but also directly connected to editor interests, and regardless of what happens during and after the vote. As for neutrality, apart from what has been said policy-wise, I don't think it's bad to sometimes show how the sausage is made (not talking about article contents of course). Wikipedia isn't made by nobody nowhere at no point in time. I am a bit wary of the original proposal because of the high potential for a wheel war with the WMF – not because I oppose wheel warring with the WMF, but because I think it would be near the last step of escalation, not the first. As has been discussed, the WMF has plenty of opportunities to do more union-busting during and after the vote, so we need to keep our options open in terms of public impact and in terms of not losing technical abilities too early on. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 21:28, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  While I hope this can happen without any wheel war with the WMF, I don't think that would actually be a near-final escalation. There have been multiple such wheel wars in Wikipedia history, most recently during WP:FRAMGATE. All of them had serious impacts on community–WMF relations, but we survived them all. The real nearing-the-end-of-the-road escalations, in my view, would be actually preventing donations, a full-scale editorial strike, a lengthy blackout, or most radically a fork of the wiki—none of which would be appropriate at this time. A technical power struggle between admins and the WMF, while messy, would not do nearly as much damage as any of those. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:05, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be clear, with the wheel warring part I specifically meant Fram's original proposal to actually remove the fundraising banners, i. e. "actually preventing donations". Unless you by that mean something even more radical, like removing all donation links from enwiki? -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Either Fram's idea or Rosguill's could plausibly lead to the WMF invoking WP:CONEXEMPT and trying to override the community, which would presumably lead to what you're calling a wheel war and I described above as a constitutional crisis. Whether that actually would happen is harder to predict. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  If it does happen, then one benefit of Rosguill's implementation is that the new banner would serve as a canary. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  To be honest, I don't see how we could accept a CONEXEMPT argument unless the donation banners are altered so as to not pretend like they are donations to the EnWiki cause. Invoking CONEXEMPT in order to lie to readers about what EnWiki thinks, for the purpose of making money that is going to union-busting law firms, is an intolerable state of affairs. A community that is okay with having their collective voice co-opted for a purpose like that is one that I personally could not in good conscience partake in. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:51, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support per Rosguill above. Axolitl (talk | contribs) 22:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support with a slight preference for Fram' s implementation over Rosguil's. I feel that either version of this is equally a constitutional crisis, and if we're going to do that (which we absolutely should, to be clear) we should go with the much simpler option that also doesn't provide a donation link at all. Loki (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

  Actually, Asilvering below has convinced me that we should instead hold on for now. I'm fine with triggering a constitutional crisis but I'd rather save it for when it's actually necessary. Loki (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Per RoySmith. Besides, if the union does come about (which is increasingly likely), the WMF will probably need additional funding anyways. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Rosguill's idea. It's more likely to get press coverage than a simple lack of donation banners. Buddy Gripple (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support original proposal. No banners during union-busting. Guz13 (talk) 02:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Fram's original proposal: No banner ads until the WMF recognizes the WWU. Weak support Rosguil's idea – it sounds complicated to me. Joe vom Titan (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support I think it's not great that the organization is running these banners. I think these are only a good idea if it ever is close to shutting down, which probably won't happen. Auoaiajoi (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for now: we just have had two major concession from the WMF: they have agreed to the scope of the bargaining unit and they have accepted a fast timeline. I'm a bit worried about escalating in such a circumstance, when the escalation can have two negative consequences: it can make the union seem more extreme or adversarial, even if it's us doing this. Their focus areas (not even demands) are super mild, and I can imagine too much pressure is not going to be the best once they start negotiating in hopefully a month or so and (b) less money to go around often means an upper hand for management in negotiations. There are more concessions we need to get; Tamzin has a few clear ones, I further want leadership to at the very least apologise for misleading the community, but perhaps we can get these concessions without further escalation, as our pressure so far is working. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:48, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Femke Was there some announcement you could link to? RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  https://wikiworkersunited.org/announcements/2026-08-05-us-upcoming-nlrb-election/ Thryduulf (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Concessions are great and all, but the Littler Mendelson issue has made this bigger than whether or not the union forms. The rationale behind my !vote is unaffected by these concessions. Just this morning the BoT stonewalled the community by posting a statement that didn't even mention Littler Mendelson as their response to calls for resignation that were, in large part, triggered by the community finding out about Littler Mendelson. AFAIK the only information we have been given about it is Bernadette saying (paraphrasing PR-speak here) "We have specifically chosen the union-busting law firm because we want their expertise, but we're doing it because we care about our workers" while failing to make any attempt to explain what benefit there was to hiring labor law experts that self-describe as being the people to hire when you need help with "union avoidance" matters instead of ones that don't self-describe as such. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 18:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Or even a direct answer to the questions that have been asked and ignored would be a tangible concession. Any answer whatsoever, including "we can't answer that," would be more than what we have gotten. Gnomingstuff (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  WMF has not, as far as we know, accepted to voluntarily recognise WWU UK in the "few weeks" since 17 July. We're now nearly 3 weeks later. There's mediation by ACAS, but mediators cannot force an agreement. Nor has WMF leadership made any apologies. Rosguill's proposal would help more people become aware of the details, and add more WP:RS information about this specific crisis and the broader context, to everyone's long-term benefit, so that a broader, better informed consensus can emerge. Boud (talk) 22:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  WMF has not, as far as we know, accepted to voluntarily recognise WWU UK in the "few weeks" since 17 July. We're now nearly 3 weeks later. There's mediation by ACAS, but mediators cannot force an agreemen WMF has indeed not chosen to voluntarily recognise the UK union, and I can't think of a situation where voluntarily recognising the UK union but not the US one (or vice versa) would be consistent with the reasons they have given for not going the voluntary recognition route.

  ACAS indeed cannot force agreement, but if agreement cannot be reached within 20 working days (this period can be extended, but only by mutual agreement) then the union can apply for statutory recognition. My understanding is that negotiations are ongoing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I understand WMF is not the "employer", some other org is by UK law, so some other org is negotiating, right? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  The other organisation is Safeguard, the employer of record. I believe they are the ones negotiating regarding union recognition, although the WMF has input I don't know how significant or controlling that is. Assuming the union is recognised, it will be Safeguard and WWU-UK who are the formal parties to the subsequent negotiations about the substantive employer-employee matters. WWU have asked that the WMF also have a seat at the table, to avoid Safeguard just playing telephone with the WMF as it's the WMF who are the decision makers for (almost?) all relevant matters, but obviously this will not happen without both the WMF and Safeguard agreeing. I don't know what, if any, response either Safeguard or the WMF have given to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support original proposal, or at minimum something like Rosguill's. We should be aware that the WMF will use all possible measures to undermine and overrule anything we do that actually affects them, so we need to be firm in our response. Layzner (Talk) 19:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support Rosguill's idea, the recent concessions are great, but this goes beyond the labour dispute tbh. There appears to be a widespread lack of confidence in the CEO and the Foundation's governance as a whole, and leaving that unresolved (i.e. potentially with just a "saving face" statement) could prove very damaging for the movement. Idk if there are further concessions that'd regain that trust, or whether the CEO just needs to resign so someone else can be parachuted in to change tack (very naive ik), but the status quo is untenable, and I doubt it'd change without us applying pressure. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 20:50, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support Yes. Nemoralis (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support and Some1's proposal. also get in contact with other major wikipedias (DE, ES, JA, ZH, UA, etc...) Tankishguy 23:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Femke beat me to most of what I wanted to say, but I'll add some more. The union got some amazing news yesterday - the vote for US staff to unionize will happen basically immediately, and all (or basically all, not 100% sure here) of the employees they wanted to unionize are indeed eligible to do so. This is huge. The WMF could have drawn this process out much longer, and tried much harder to cut workers out of the union. (Once you figure unionization can't be stopped, the next union-busting step is to make it as weak as possible, by insisting certain groups can't be part of the union.) They didn't do either of those things. That's a real victory for those employees. But this is just one of the first steps they have to take on the road to getting recognized and negotiating their first contract. We should hold on to these ideas for when they need some stronger support. We only get to play the "trigger a constitutional crisis" card once. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  the next union-busting step is to make it as weak as possible, by insisting certain groups can't be part of the union, they did do that though, before finally relenting. See this comment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  They tried to do it, but then very quickly turned around, and agreed to WWU's list. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Agreed that this is now less than a "constitutional crisis", but strengthening democratic resilience against the democratic backsliding of WMF leadership of the past five years (if not longer) justifies Rogsuill's proposal (reminder: "democracy" here means broadly construed, not just voting). A proposed factor of bounceback resilience (bouncing back after democracy is already significantly damaged) inspired by real-world country cases includes "unified opposition coalescing with civil society", which in our context, seems roughly equivalent to getting broader, on-wiki coordinated Wikipedia attention to the issue instead of limiting actions to just the few Wikipedians active in trying to interact with WMF leadership. Rosguill's proposal (which includes calling for donations to continue) sounds like strengthening democratic resilience, not raising the stakes to a constitutional crisis. Boud (talk) 07:41, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Democratic resilience is well stated. I would suggest we continue to workshop and strategize in the meantime. Should we implement Rosguill's proposal, we need to figure out exact wording and can use this time to wordsmith several proposals, so we are prepared for different scenarios. I am also focusing my energy in August on preparing Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/2026 Online Campaign and I invite you to join. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Based on asilvering's and Femke's above comments, I'll also oppose for now. Let's wait and see how this turns out. Given that a vote is going to happen shortly, pulling any fundraising banners now could just hurt WWU's cause. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per #New union FAQ: no disruption, and repeating what I wrote above: To have the editing community suddenly go rogue with a blackout/strike without any request or even go-ahead from the WWU would be the opposite of solidarity. Directing our collective frustration (which I certainly share) in a haphazard and disorganized direction would only undermine the powerful message that the editing community is standing behind the WWU and ready to back them up. In solidarity, GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Fair point. However, I believe that Rosequill's idea isn't disruptive. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. The pressure that's been applied so far has resulted in significant concessions, but taking drastic actions that the union has not asked for is likely to put us in a worse position. Assuming that the WWU-US election is successful, we've got a negotiation process that's likely to be long and difficult ahead of us to prepare for. AntiCompositeNumber (they/them) (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as – for now at least – an unhelpful escalatory step, essentially per Asilvering, GW and ACN. --Blablubbs (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per WWU FAQ and above comments by asilvering and GorillaWarfare. I was already sceptical about the original proposal, but if WWU is explicitly asking us not to disrupt Wikimedia's functioning, then I think we should follow their lead. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Femke. Give the process some time to work. The WMF appears to be hearing our feedback. Though of course they are muted in their ability to convey this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support - we shouldn't be forced into a position where editors are contributing, even passively, to union busting by assisting in raising funds for that purpose. Otherwise, the only alternative for wikipedia editors who oppose union busting is to boycott editing in the mainspace until this is resolved. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Grudgingly chill - I want to both respect the wishes of WWU from a strategic position, and give time for developments such as those at jimbotalk and the union elections to go through. I would like to raise 2 additional points though. First, hiring Littler Mendelson is an unacceptable use of donor funds. This is true regardless of the current status of WWU, and something that I'd usually argue we should warn our donors about regardless of WWU's wishes. The reason I am willing to chill is due to productive movement recently on that front. However, should the WMF double down on union busting law firms, please automatically convert this to a support !vote for banners. Secondly, I'd like to take the community's temperature on a "trigger mechanism" we could give to WWU. Basically we have a consensus discussion that says "if WWU calls for it, we will put up banners" so we can shorten the prosess from a 30 day RFC to a quick check/confirmation/update on wording and push them. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
• While I am in favour of a wait to see if the situation resolves after all the processes (e.g. the vote, etc) complete, after reviewing the details so far I do think the WMF communication on the topic so far have been subpar and less than adequate. I hope Foundation management takes steps towards being more proactive in identifying what actions (e.g. hiring Littler Mendelson) might be... potentially controversial with the community and make plans to adress those concerns ahead of time with consultation. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion - WMF Capitulation

The pressure created by this thread, along with several others on Meta, has resulted in a capitulation from the WMF, see . In summary, the WMF will stipulate (according to my research this means to formally make an agreement with the other party, submitted to the Court) that ballots will be mailed out to eligible U.S. workers on August 11 and will be counted on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 2:00pm PDT at the San Francisco Regional NLRB Office.

On one hand, this means that our thread has worked. Therefore, we should preserve our one-use "trump card" of messing with banners and causing a constitutional crisis for later. This is beneficial because it may be needed during the high-stakes negotiations which occur after the election. The political capital needed in order to pull this off is also immense, so if we do it now, it might be harder to form a consensus in future.

However, on the other hand, having an election sooner is mutually beneficial to both parties. For the WMF, it means less time spent in uncertainty about if they'll be a union. A fast-track election also means that those unsure about the union will be pushed towards the No side, as they don't have time to be convinced or look into it all. Therefore, this may just be a standard legal strategy that was going to be used anyway. I'm a bit suspicious the WMF may have just decided to frame it as "giving in" in order to make us think we are being appeased, when this isn't true. I will try to research more into if this "stipulation" is actually a standard strategy.

There's also the issue that Littler (the notorious law firm) is still representing the WMF in this expedited election. So, the underlying problem of misusing donor funds and damaging our reputation isn't resolved. The banners are still using our good-will and work in order to direct to fundraising for actions which don't align with the movement's values.

So this situation is really complex. I'm just honestly really stuck and unsure about what's the right move forward now. That's why I opened this section. Let's discuss. - In solidarity, MolecularPilot (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The scientific evidence shows that having the election without artificial delay (it's likely incorrect to say fast-track) does not push people towards no, at least not as much as having months of anti-union rhetoric and tension would do. For instance, see Logan (2013) who says: One of the most common, and most effective, techniques used by employers and their union avoidance experts is deliberate delay during the official NLRB process, which is designed to give the employer more time to conduct an anti-union campaign and to take the heat out of a union organising campaign. The biggest remaining risk is now coming across as too adversarial, which might push some people away who have already signed union cards. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah but at this point that's not the issue, is it? There is still the fact that we are running banners asking our readers to donate to the our (banners mainly invoke the name of Wikipedia) cause, when we know those donations are being turned into juicy paychecks for Littler Mendelson, without any real explanation for why that is being done other than that the WMF want to pay for expertise in union-busting or that the WMF are spending donor money without knowing what they're spending it on (I've elaborated on that other comments).

I would hope that we can all agree it would be nothing short of cognitive dissonance to have banners running asking for donations to our cause while simultaneously saying we are opposed to the thing those donations are being spent on, so we should ask ourselves: is this a part of our cause? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 07:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I think the cognitive dissonance is the point. Given the long-term conflict in priorities and tension between the board/WMF, I think it makes sense to give a sense of buyer beware. I think the best idea would simply be a banner stating what has happened (we can include information that this pressure has led to a sped-up election, the law firm involved, and all the other things that have caused to be an overall concern for the community). The message doesn't even need to say "don't donate". But putting the information out there lets people make an informed choice and feel less betrayed when they find out later. If we wait for the next constitutional crisis, then we're delaying what might be an even worse explosion, in that sense. These have been issues for years and raising public awareness of that can only be a good thing, in my opinion. A lot of the time the WMF doesn't seem to care about us until the optics are bad. I don't think that having informational banners inherently makes this a constitutional crisis, either. I think that opposition makes sense in the context of a blackout, but not this. There's banners for all sorts of things all the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much all I'm asking for. I'm not asking for banners to be removed, or even for us to encourage readers to not donate. It's just that if we know for a fact that donations might be spent in a way that we cannot in good conscience say is for the benefit of the movement, we have a moral responsibility to our readers to clearly state that. That can be accomplished with a disclaimer that donations are going to the WMF, are not guaranteed to be used in way that helps English Wikipedia, and may even go towards a cause that English Wikipedia is outright opposed to. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 13:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Banners

We should not post this now, but use the time to wordsmith a nuanced and critical call for donations. I post my first stab below ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 12:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The message seems really muddled here. “We ask you to give the WMF your money, even though the WMF will be misusing that money.” You can say that isn’t contradictory, but I imagine readers would receive it that way.

Also creates an unintended message arguably — if I saw a banner like this with no context I would assume that whoever made the banner was externally pressured to include the “don’t stop donating” bit, when to my knowledge there isn’t any such pressure. Gnomingstuff (talk) 13:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Not donating at all would the clearest signal. Do you have an alternate phrasing that can help bridge the seeming contradiction? ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, if the proposal passes, normal fundraising banners will exist, so I don't think we need to have a call to action either way. Don't say please donate and don't say don't donate. Simply inform. I think it also makes sense to add something like "For more information about claims made by the Wikimedia Foundation, see this page". We might also want to briefly mention that the solidarity petition exists (while not making a call to action there either because the goal is awareness) and what led to that? I'm not as good at the phrasing part, but that's the spirit of what I think should be included. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't like the phrase "union-avoidance law firm", as while that might be what they are most-known for it isn't a neutral description and we've already described that issue in the preceding paragraph. I'd suggest something like "spending movement funds in this way reflects...".

I agree with Clovermoss that a banner shouldn't say to either donate or not donate. The goal is to provide information to let readers make up their own minds not to influence that decision one way or another.

I don't think we should link to the petition here as this banner is directed towards readers while the petition is for editors. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

We can stick to Wikipedia articles which are subject to community WP:NPOV Guidelines so wiki linking to Littler Mendelson and Wikimedia and unions (assuming it passes AfD).

Is this banner aimed at readers or donors broadly? Do we intend this message to run on top of existing fundraising banners? If so, it can be 1-2 lines and super factual as others indicated. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Intended to readers, some of whom donate, because that's the same audience as the fundraising campaigns. The fundraising campaigns can be a few paragraphs in themselves, so I'm not sure we nessecarily have to limit ourselves. If there's a way to do it technically, I think ours should exist above any fundraising banners that pop up and not below. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In regards to "union avoidance", isn't that how they advertise themselves? I think the word they actually use is "union prevention" in marketing, but "avoidance" actually sounds like a nicer euphemism. Correct me if there's more nuance to that.

As for the petition, people might try to sign it, you're right. My intent in bringing up the petition was to give some idea of the impact/scale of the community caring about this issue at large and why there's this banner that's different from what one normally sees. Maybe we could provide a brief overview of the statistics could get that across? Hopefully we could do that in a way that wouldn't alienate people who didn't want to sign with a little bit of "Not everyone but" type phrasing? Just to make sure it doesn't sound like it's a completely universal thing? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

In regards to "union avoidance", isn't that how they advertise themselves? not on their homepage. There are a few statements that could be read as dogwhistles to that effect, but that's not enough for a statement in Wikivoice. The closest I've found to them saying words to this effect in public-facing material are two documents from 2007L

• A "Time sensitive newsletter" that states on page 2 The clear benefit of this recommendation is to help defend against unfair labor practice charges under the NLRA and the downside is that it introduces employees to the NLRA which runs counter to a union avoidance program. and it's not immediately clear to me how public this document is.
• A document I'd describe as a blog post lobbying against the then-proposed Employee Free Choice Act (which wasn't passed) that concludes with Littler Mendelson is prepared to assist you in regard to all the above union prevention tools and the Firm is working to help prevent the passage of the EFCA.

There are plenty of other people using these descriptions of them, and it's clear they don't have a problem with them, but it doesn't appear that they publicly use the terms as self-description - at least that I've found, I've not done a deep dive but I would expect to have found anything very prominent aimed at a general audience. I don't know whether my searches would have uncovered things like adverts in the trade press. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, of course, but I think we need evidence of presence to describe them as a "union avoidance law firm". Their website etc does make it clear that their work is not solely related to issues with unions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

They have openly said so in the past, although I think they have stopped describing themselves that way on their website. That's not to say they aren't open about providing employers with union prevention services. One being Littler LaborDrive, about which they say With union activity surging, public sentiment shifting, and an aggressive NLRB advancing its agenda, employers face unprecedented organizing pressure and legal exposure. LaborDrive transforms how employers anticipate, assess, and act on labor risk—delivering the clarity and control needed to stay ahead. and then show a picture of a "Landscape Dashboard" where you can literally see it tracking "wins and "losses", with the clarification Win (No Union) – Loss (Union)). –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If this is to be aimed at readers then the role of the WMF ought to be made clearer, a common misconception is that it owns and runs Wikipedia. Maybe something like Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: readers who donate and provide financial support, a community of volunteer editors who write its content and run its internal processes, and staff at the Wikimedia Foundation who engage in software development and maintain its digital infrastructure. Personally I like the second banner a lot more Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 15:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Banner 2 is very close to perfect. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've added § BannerALT3 below.

What are the goals of the banner? The main proposed goals seem to be: (1) encourage people to email WMF about their opposition to union-busting, since the number of voices counts for WMF leaders; (2) inform people about the specific topic: (2a) positive: WWU + (2b) negative: WMF+Littler; (3) inform people about the broad topic: labour rights; (4) inform people about the even broader vision: how do we organise with high levels of participation + deliberation + transparency, given the complexity of the system?

Two problems with (1)+(2b), directly telling people about WMF's hypocrisy and money-wasting in its retainment of Littler, and hoping that a massive number of readers send emails to a generic WMF email address are that the result will be secret and that many readers will not see much point of writing private emails, in contrast to social-media campaigns that go viral. On the other hand, (2a) will indirectly inform those sufficiently interested about Littler, while primarily being positive and giving public evidence of support for WWU, and (3) and (4) are what readers do want to know about. Moreover, we can blend in one of WMF's "strategic" concerns about needing to continually recruit editors, by encouraging sufficiently interested readers to become editors. I think that (4) is too much to put in the banner, so I've proposed § BannerALT3 below, aiming to do (2a) + (3).

For those feeling angry against Littler Mendelson, the best response against the goals of Littler's misinformation strategies is better encyclopedic information. WMF is not going to ask for a refund from Littler.

The initial version of ALT3 doesn't include explicit links to the donations page. I think that by omitting that, we are subtly hinting that although we want donations, we consider the moral and editing support and readers informing themselves to be even more important right at the moment. But still, we could add a donations link if that's the rough consensus. Boud (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if "inform yourself about the WMF's staff's ongoing labor organization efforts" would work better than express your moral support for WMF staff who are now organising as unions; (with the appropriate WLs) — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 16:30, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to be clear: § BannerALT3 still needs some editing. For example, we should bold the goal that we feel is most important (and not overbold). My feeling is that if bolding the link to sign the meta WWU petition - TAs should be fine - leads to another 1000 signatures (typical front-page DYKs get a few thousand views), then that would be a public signal both of support for WWU and indirectly to WMF to inform it that the readership, not just editors, supports WWU.

I'm neutral about the specific wording such as "inform yourself...", feel free to edit directly, per rough consensus. Personally I would include a concrete "action" (signing support), though "inform yourself" is useful too. Boud (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the direction we are going with, increasingly focused on Neutral language which is more likely to gain consensus as a Wiki community and also a testament to our confidence on relying our encyclopedic articles that anyone can edit. I think a call to action is important; but what that is…will change in the upcoming weeks. There might be a new petition, a specific demand… and we might want it to be visible, or we may want the Foundation to feel it (financial or reputational). We don’t need to figure all the details now, as long as we have a feel for the direction. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I doubt anything will change within the next few weeks specifically other than the election. I don't like the idea of postponing this simply because the WMF gave in a little after very vocal outrage going on for days. This isn't really that drastic of an action to take in response to what has happened (calling the CEO to resign is actually more intense than that) and we can always escalate further down the line if we need to. But donations have already been directed in this direction and I think people deserve to know. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Banner Alt3 should mention affiliates as well if we're mentioning WMF staff. Some affiliates support vital technical work, among other things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

organising as unions feels like awkward phrasing. Rosguill mentioned on their talk page that we could have a longer message linked from whatever banner we have giving deeper context and I think that's a good idea. I also want the community fact-check regarding certain claims to be here because the WMF is definitely going to respond with their misleading FAQ to anyone who reaches out to them, like the PR statements when people were cancelling donations as a result of the CommTech dissolution. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that Banner 2 is the best option. It is short and to-the-point. It says what the issue is and isn't so long that somebody may not bother to read at a glance. I also think it's important to tell readers to share feedback and not tell them to continue their financial donations. I also think that a link to meta:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses should be included in a banner because it highlights the anti-union claims made by the WMF and the debunks to many of those claims. While the WMF did agree to allow the election, they are still employing Littler Mendelson, so I think it would be morally wrong to advise readers to continue donating. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any and all banners. Wikipedia is not the place for advocacy, no matter how worthy the cause. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  We already have calls for donations, which are not just moral advocacy, but money-based advocacy relating to the existence of Wikipedia. Advocacy for supporting the existence of Wikipedia is justified. Boud (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  As I said… I strongly oppose all advocacy banners. If you want to include banners asking for donations as “advocacy”, the solution isn’t to have “counter-advocacy” banners - the solution is to have NO banners at all. Blueboar (talk) 11:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I added § BannerALT3b, which aims to fix concerns in ALT3 by Ixtal, Clovermoss, and ArtemisiaGentileschiFan: rewording of WMF organising line; inclusion of m:Wiki Workers United/Claims and responses; removal of the direct request for financial support, while retaining the comment that financial support is needed. This brings ALT3b closer in alignment to ALT2, which Kowal2701 and Gnomingstuff supported in comments above.

Is ALT3b ready for a proper VP proposal with a chance of rough consensus? Boud (talk) 08:32, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Banner alternative 1

Wikimedia Foundation needs to hear from you.

Your contributions are a vital part of keeping Wikipedia free. Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: donors who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.

As volunteer editors, we know how important donations are to keeping Wikipedia running. We also believe donors deserve to reflect on how their contributions are being used.

Wikimedia employees are organizing unions in the United States and the United Kingdom. In response to union organizing in the United States, the Wikimedia Foundation retained Littler Mendelson, a law firm well known for advising employers on union avoidance.

We believe donors should ask whether spending movement funds on a union-avoidance law firm reflects the values they expect Wikimedia to uphold.

The Foundation has already heard concerns from volunteer editors. Now, it should hear from donors too.

We ask you to continue supporting Wikipedia, while also contacting the Wikimedia Foundation at donate@wikimedia.org to express your concerns about the use of donor funds to retain Littler Mendelson and about union-busting at Wikimedia.

Supporting Wikipedia and questioning how Wikimedia spends your contribution are not contradictory. Both are ways of caring about the future of the movement.

Banner alternative 2

Wikimedia Foundation needs to hear from you.

Wikipedia is made possible by three groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.

As volunteer-editors we believe it is important that you are made aware of the labor union drives by Wikimedia staff in the US and the UK.

In response, the Wikimedia Foundation retained Littler Mendelson, a law firm that describes union-prevention as one of its services.

The Foundation has heard from its staff and volunteer editors. Now, it should hear from you, its readers and donors too. Share your feedback [info@wikimedia.org mailto:info@wikimedia.org.

Banner alternative 3

Wikipedia is made possible by three overlapping groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.

We strongly encourage you to:

• continue your financial support;
• express your moral support for WMF staff who are now organising as unions; and
• consider helping to edit encyclopedic articles about how work is organised around the world during our September 2026 editathon.

Follow the links for more in-depth information.

Banner alternative 3b

Wikipedia is made possible by four overlapping groups: readers like yourself who provide financial support, volunteer editors who create and improve its content, Wikimedia movement affiliates, and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff who build and maintain the websites you are reading.

We strongly encourage you to:

• inform yourself about WMF staff's ongoing organising efforts and consider expressing your moral support for them;
• consider helping to edit encyclopedic articles about how work is organised around the world during our September 2026 editathon.

Follow the links for more in-depth information.

New union FAQ: no disruption

In my above vote, I said I wasn't quite sure we were helping the union by escalating when they just managed to get a major concession. We're moving to a period where they need to convince coworkers that a union is the right thing and will be a stabilising counterforce within the foundation. And then negotiations start, where we might make their lives more difficult if we escalate too much in support.

It seems that was right: the union is now making this explicit. In the FAQ about how communities can support them, they say (among other things) "As we move through this election, we do not call for actions that would disrupt the normal functioning of Wikimedia projects or undermine the work of volunteers, staff, or the movement we all care deeply about. The US branch of Wiki Workers United is currently focusing all their efforts on organizing and preparing for the upcoming NLRB election. At this time, we ask the Wikimedia community to support that path."

Let's help them. And let's take a path that still exerts pressure, but not by escalating. Let's build content about unions. And put these new articles and new GAs on the front page, and FAs on the front page, and get union news into ITN for good measure. September 7, anyone? Show we have the momentum to bring about a strong campaign, which can escalate if necessary, but not in a period where this escalation makes the life of the union more difficult. Join the September Organized Labour campaign. Can we fill the mainpage?

In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I just want to confirm that this is what they mean when they say no disruption, because the banner idea seems like it's fairly consistent with what they encourage community members to do:

Here are ways you can support: Learn more about why Foundation workers chose to organize and why workers in both the United States and the United Kingdom are seeking voluntary recognition. Choose dialogue. We believe respectful, informed conversation is the best way to build understanding across our movement. Share the social media posts of our [union needed] campaign on the Fedi, and/or Bsky. Speak up in support of workers’ right to organize and help ensure discussions remain respectful, informed, and grounded in accurate information. Share information about WWU with others in the Wikimedia community. Learn more about why Foundation workers chose to organize and why workers in both the United States and the United Kingdom are seeking voluntary recognition.

Wouldn't a banner do these things? Informing people doesn't feel disruptive? I'll check in with people I trust to make sure I'm not misunderstanding here, but yesterday a union organizer seemed to be reassuring me and suggested I trust my instincts when I brought up the concerns I've seen a few people raise here about this possibly harming the WWU. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Whereas I oppose any action here, I at least can understand when people say they want to WMF employees to freely decide whether they want to unionize or not. I see a cause here, even if I disagree. Having a banner promoting the union - I am sorry this seems like the worst sort of political activism to me. I strongly oppose any activism on Wikipedia with the possible exception of attacks on the principles of free knowledge - which we clearly do not have here. Ymblanter (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Banner 1 and banner 2 surely disrupt. Banner 3 has risk of disrupting, despite is more tame text, given that we don't normally do these kinds of banners and people might rightly figure out something fishy is going on. That is a form of escalation, especially if more press gets a hold of this. When that banner is placed instead of a banner that fundraises effectively, it causes loss of income, which is also disruptive. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:35, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I've checked in with the people I know and I've reluctantly shifted my position on this. I'm just glad I can do it without doubting this wasn't something that was lost in translation. I still wish we could go along with it because I see it as a good way to raise awareness (and doing that through any method has the same risks) but I also don't want to harm people in the name of helping them. I also really really care about donor transparency, but I can make my voice heard in other contexts. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

§ BannerALT3b is as much likely to cause an increase in the number of editors, which is a "strategic" goal, rather than a drop in donations; Wikipedian readers expect transparency, and are more likely to appreciate transparency rather than stopping donations. But if WMF non-management employees think that they may be harmed by ALT3b, then the possible increase in editorship is probably not worth it. Boud (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I found the process of researching about Littler Mendelson and expanding its corresponding article to be very educational and helpful for improving my understanding of trade union dynamics. Other articles about organized labor that need serious improvement are Card check and Captive audience meeting, both of which unduly focus on the United States and need to be expanded and revised to reflect a global perspective. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, it would be good to see these somewhat neglected articles and other articles related to organized labor receive some more attention. — Newslinger talk 20:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger would you consider directly adding your observations into suggested tasks in Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/2026 Online Campaign? We need more volunteers to flesh out the page and ensure that September is in good path for promoting encyclopedic knowledge on labor ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 21:12, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course, I've added my comment there. — Newslinger talk 21:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose; this is a WMF thing, not a community thing; and union-busting is a good thing. Nyttend (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If union busting were a "good thing", the WMF and Littler Mendelson wouldn't be trying so hard to conceal that they've been doing it. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Whether union busting is or is not a good thing is a matter of opinion. Just because I and most other contributors here believe it to be a bad thing does not mean that opinion is objective or necessarily correct. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

A major part of this debacle is the fact that the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation has been making pro-union statements in public, such as "As a past union member for 13 years, I understand personally the benefits that unions can bring to organizations", while simultaneously engaging in union busting. She also posted this deceptive comment ("These lawyers have in fact supported work with organizations that now have unions, and they are familiar with the process"), which is a carefully phrased piece of wikilawyering actual "lawyering" that was constructed to give the impression that Littler Mendelson's attorneys support unions, when the reality is exactly the opposite; see the fact check for details. Anyone can recognize the contradictions and the hypocrisy regardless of whether they support unions. — Newslinger talk 21:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Except, the recent evidence is that the Union has said, the WMF is in good faith and supporting a speedy election. This even with Littler, so someone saying they are using Littler not for union busting but for their knowledge of the NLRB and the labor codes union process, is backed by some evidence. She is management, she and anyone else in that position is going be management and their duty will always be to the corporation, nothing else, no matter their opinions, she has to take management's side, without management's side existing, there can be no union of workers, no negotiations, and no corporation. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The WMF only announced the election date after the community called for the CEO to resign, which is a concession from the WMF in response to extraordinarily negative community feedback after we discovered that the WMF had hired Littler. While the WWU posted a graceful response in light of the concession, it contains no evidence supporting your suggestion that the WMF did not hire Littler Mendelson, "the country's most notorious union-busting law firm", for union busting. On the contrary, the WMF's anti-union communications mirror that of Littler's other clients who engaged in union busting under the firm's guidance. The WMF CEO being part of WMF management does not excuse her misrepresentations to the community. — Newslinger talk 01:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

According to the union, the WMF announced the election date after the WMF had publicly said it wanted a speedy election and to bargain in good faith. And according to the union, that's what the WMF did, the WMF was true to its public word, yes, after Littler appeared. So, there is no evidence that Littler was there in this case for union busting, unless, you are saying the union is misrepresenting or does not know what it is talking about with respect to the WMF's good faith in bargaining in conformance with its public statements.

Even if we imagine (and we have to imagine because you don't know) the WMF somehow changed in a few days because of you or others, with the usual "resign!" calls, that would be evidence of listening. But there is no such evidence of such a change, the WMF began with a public commitment to good faith and speedy elections and it followed through, per the union. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

We do know that WMF and its representatives have made numerous false and misleading statements during this debacle, we do know that the WMF made concessions in its negotiations with the union in response to community pressure. I understand that you disagree and that you believe the WMF was acting in "good faith" this entire time, but based on the discussions on this matter, almost nobody in the community shares your opinion. — Newslinger talk 07:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

No. I credit the union, that it meant what it said. The union officially said that the WMF made public good faith representation's and kept them. I don't and can't credit, gossip on the web, made by people who can't know, at least not without getting an admission from the WMF of what it was thinking regarding pressure on it, and how its think changed. There are many pressures on the WMF corporation, particularly those arising in law. (And I remind you, that would be listening.) Nor is your opinion of it what matters, at all. Your argument on opinion is illogical (see, appeal to the public) and wrong, you don't speak for anyone but you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

If you credit the union when it said We welcome management’s cooperation as an example of the Foundation putting into practice their public commitment to a speedy election process and to bargaining in good faith, then surely you also credit the union when it said the Wikimedia Foundation has taken the low road, that the WMF refused to live up to their values and be the high-road employer that they purport to be, that the WMF sent out to employees and the public statements couched in classic union-busting rhetoric ... undoubtedly provided by outrageously expensive union-avoidance law firms (one such example is at m:WWUEMAIL, and we now know the WMF hired Littler Mendelson), and that the WMF was delaying the process and stalling the vote in order to give time to the union busters to launch a potentially coercive anti-union campaign against Foundation employees, because otherwise you'd just be cherry picking statements and surely you wouldn't do that. Levivich (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Whatever, the value of those earlier statements, they must be viewed through the later statement, where the WMF showed its good faith in practice, according to the union. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, according to the union, after taking the low road and engaging in union-busting, and with the Wikimedia community standing beside all Wikimedia workers and asking difficult questions, the WMF signed a stipulated agreement that the union welcome[s] as an example -- one example -- of bargaining in good faith. After taking the union-busting low road, the WMF has finally bargained in good faith, and we're all grateful for that. Levivich (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

You left out "public commitment", the WMF's practices of good faith were true to its word in the union's election formation. And this with Littler, which is why this discussion, here, between me and someone else, began. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Digression over potentially sanctioning someone for disagreeing with the majority. Let's not go there.

union-busting is a good thing should get you recalled. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:11, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

No it shouldn't? Ideological conformity isn't required or even desirable, and threats like this have a chilling effect Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 02:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't expect ideological conformity, but this is taking sides of someone who hired a union busting firm because the workers wanted more rights. It's incompatible with the community values. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Also just, throwing that view out without elaboration at all, is, imo disruptive as fuck LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Saying that "union-busting is a good thing" is like saying "Wikipedia vandalism is a good thing" or "harassment is a good thing". IMO it's not a matter of ideology; it's a matter of supporting something that actively harms the community and contradicts the values that make Wikipedia work in the first place. ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that opposing labor unions is the same as supporting harm to Wikipedia articles or to individuals. I'm curious why he said that, but maybe his lived experience is that labor unions are harmful. Maybe he does have an ideological ("of or relating to a collection of sociopolitical claims, ideas, and goals") opposition to labor unions. The libertarian Cato Institute seems to have an ideological opposition to at least the US form of unions, so it is possible to be a matter of ideology. Some people actually have a religious opposition to labor unions, including Seventh-day Adventist Church and Mennonites.

If anyone would like to contribute to improving Wikipedia's history of the labor movement, then in addition to creating a basic article on Labor unions and religion, these are some of the missing articles on religious opposition to labor unions as it has manifested in US courts:

• Nottelson v. Smith (1981)
• Tooley v. Martin-Marietta Corp. (1981)
• International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Boeing (1987)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Union busting is actively harming individuals by screwing over their right to assemble and bargain without fear of losing security. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 13:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that a person could oppose both labor unions and union busting. You may have noticed that I wrote "I don't think that opposing labor unions is the same as supporting harm". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, but that's irrelevant. This entire subthread kinda hinges on Nyttend's comment, which explicitly said "union busting is a good thing". I don't think that Nyttend should be sanctioned immediately, but I am in full support of giving them a Template:uw-disruptive1 or Template:uw-disruptive2 because their comment was just not productive, did not give a rational, policy-based argument, and was just disruptive, as pointed out by this comment. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 08:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we'd need to be clamping down on all soapboxing for that, the disruption caused here was others pushing back, yet when someone makes a soapboxy comment that happens to align with most people here it isn't met with the same (and arguably Nyttend's comment was a reaction to that prior soapboxiness) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOAP only applies to usernames, articles, drafts, categories, files, talk page discussions, templates, and user pages. The disruption was partly because there was no backing to the argument. I think this comment encapsulates it well. Plus, Nyttend's comment was a !vote to the original thread, so it can't be a reaction to prior soapboxing.

I'm just going to leave it at that. Too much discussion is going on about Nyttend's comment instead of anything actually important anyways. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

(SOAP applies to everything, "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion", the list isn't exhaustive. WP:NOTFORUM covers similar ground) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 11:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

While I disagree with Nyttend's comment, it is not the only one on this page that expresses an opinion about union busting that is not accompanied by a "rational, policy-cased argument". The only difference is that the other such comments are opposed to union-busting. If sanctions are to result from expressing a POV without supporting evidence/explanation then that must be the standard we hold everybody to, regardless of which POV is being expressed. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not about POV. It's about disruptive editing. Comments opposed to union-busting did not generate this level of off-topic discussion about the comments themselves rather than the topic at hand. I'm only suggesting a Template:uw-disruptive1 or Template:uw-disruptive2, which are relatively very tame warnings. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 09:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive comments about Nyttend's comments are not the responsibility of Nyttend, so any templated warnings should be given to those leaving the disruptive comments. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

While I very strongly disagree with what Nyttend is saying I would not support any action against them for saying it. It’s their opinion, and we should not be calling for sanctions based on just this alone. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 13:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Can you please at least elaborate why you hold that view? You essentially just threw a grenade into the discussion and ran. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

And what's wrong with child labor, anyway? It keeps those damn kids off my lawn! Levivich (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of, there isn't a Child labour in Canada article. I've been meaning to write it for years to be a companion for Child labour in the United States.

Agree with the others saying that someone being against unions isn't inherently sanctionable, even if there's lots of very good reasons such an opinion is controversial. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the article. I'll see if I have time this weekend to look up some sources to add stuff to the article. Also, as the son of an union man, and brief member of the IBEW myself 20 years ago, I'd say unions are a good thing, and I wholeheartedly support WWU. In solidarity, Abzeronow (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem we have is that when people state their opinion on matters such as union organizing and many other matters, it invites counter opinion, and it is not WP:PURPOSE related, see also, WP:NOT, from the start. They are political matters, see Trump's controversial attack on law firms for their clients and litigation positions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I move then to wait and see how the situation develops. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum ♠ 22:24, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I have not said whether I am pro or anti union (and don't intend to; I don't think I've ever stated a political opinion on-wiki) but I am strongly against taking any action against an editor such as Nyttend because of their political views, regardless of in which direction. That's also why I don't support the banners. I would oppose banners that were supportive of union-busting as well. An alarmingly (to me) small minority of commenters above consider this a political opinion; I hope those who support the union and the banner suggestions consider how they would feel about this if the consensus were for anti-union banners. I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that those who want a demonstration of some kind withhold their labour - a strike day, if you like. That's something that does not imply the whole community supports their position. A big drop in editing volume on a strike day would be a strong signal -- and if those with these views do not constitute enough of our community to make a noticeable difference to editing volume via a strike, I don't think they should be considering banners either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• WWU has come out against disrupting Wikipedia in their name. Do I qualify for an "I told you so" against everyone who signed WP:WWUWHATSTHIS, or is this more of an adjacent thing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  No, you do not quality for an "I told you so". The petition said we'd engage in collective action if called for by WWU, and we've done just that. Your attempt to one-up isn't great, actually. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  My proposal wasn't "in their name", it's about the treatment the WMF leadership and the board have given the community and e.g. the decision to spend donor money on that company. While the wishes of the union are an aspect to take into consideration, it's not a "we do what they want" situation, it's a "we do this becayse we think it is unacceptable" proposal. Fram (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As of a few years ago it was an acceptable (if minority) opinion that WMF was significantly wasting their donation money. To avoid euphemisms, keep in mind that like any charity (or, institution in general), the vast majority of the budget is salaries. I am curious if this is now a fringe opinion? This is an actual question not a joke. Or, could someone who holds both views please explain how you could agree with the classic essay but also think WMF absolutely must not downsize (I.e. layoffs)? ~2026-44189-35 (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's any more fringe today than it was before; in fact, such an opinion may be more acceptable today given the WMF's money spent on Littler Mendelson, which is known to be expensive. Obviously I'm somewhat new to Wikipedian culture and so I don't necessarily know everything, but I believe this is the case. Even Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, maintains that the WMF is, in his words, mismanaging funds. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 18:02, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with all that you've just said. My confusion is why it seems like everyone is nevertheless indignant that WMF must not downsize. As the editors & donors, shouldn't we want them to have layoffs? Collect less donations, spend less money, have fewer employees? The WMF of a few years ago was just as functional but spent way less money, etc, thus goes the argument, why can't we why shouldn't we return to that? I think holding the WMF accountable in terms of trying to withhold / disrupt their donations is a good thing, but, not in the direction of "please have more employees with higher salaries" rather the opposite, "please spend less money" (largely on salaries, since that's what they spent the vast majority of their money on). ~2026-44206-58 (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Suggestion for an alternative

Should consensus be reached to modify or push back against the banners in some way—whether now or in the future—may I suggest directing donors toward the Internet Archive instead? A general notice that they support Wikipedia's efforts and can use support would go a long way. Hell, throw in a sensationalist "under attack" if you must. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. Smart idea. I second that. In solidarity, Brynn Who Likes Editing | talk w/ me! 19:37, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Support, incredibly funny and unfathomably based. ^MetalBreaks_AndBends (One for all) 04:32, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support, IA is heavily used to write articles, protecting it is in the encyclopedia's interest. Btw we should've done a watchlist notice for this since it probably needs a very broad consensus Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:28, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Conditional support — I would rather we didn't touch the banners at all, but if we were to do so, that would be my preferred replacement. However, while I am a big fan of the Internet Archive and want them to get more support, I worry that such a move could land us in legal trouble on way or the other. I have nothing but contempt for the modern copyright system and proudly sail the high seas, but when it comes to Wikipedia I think we cannot afford any risk, and the IA is one hair away from litigation at all times. I do my part IRL and suggest donating to them instead every time donating to Wikimedia comes up in a conversation, but I would only be in favor of doing so "officially" if it was safe to do without exposing ourselves to repercussions. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 11:07, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Oppose While the Internet Archive is worthy of donations, I don't think pushing people who're looking to donate here at them would be a useful move. Particularly when it seems likely that the "modify or push back" would be more along the lines of the proposals above, that provide information about the current situation without directly encouraging non-donation. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Bold Navigational Template Redirects

Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates (permalink)

Some navigational templates have links to redirects. The expected behavior is that the link to the current article is unlinked and bolded. Currently, the link is only bolded when it exactly matches the title of the article, breaking expectations for links that are redirects. TPI81AF (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes... and? Primefac (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Someone should fix it. TPI81AF (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The fix is to replace the redirect with its target. If the target is not pertinent to the navbox, then the redirect should be removed.

There is nothing else to be done on the point. Izno (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The target names can be very long relative to the redirected name. Where am I intended to submit feature requests? From your tone, I infer that it is not the WikiProject Templates talk page. TPI81AF (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

WP:Bug reports describes the process for changing the software, which is what would functionally be required. I do not expect your request to be implemented. Izno (talk) 22:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I can try. TPI81AF (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

TPI81AF, regarding target names can be very long relative to the redirected name, you might want to consider using piped links to make things shorter. Primefac (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:BRINT, and here's one that I did earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:02, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

So is it preferable that the navigational template should include [ Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method ] or [ Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method|Personal Trainer: Math ] rather than [ Personal Trainer: Math ]? A much shorter link would seem to be ideal in navboxes where space is limited. If the article page is moved and it is linked to in several navigational templates, editors often forget to update all or any of the redirected links to piped links so this proposed change would also save some effort globally. TPI81AF (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

so this proposed change... my apologies for missing something obvious, but what is your proposal? Primefac (talk) 08:40, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

In navigational templates, that links to redirects to the current article should be rendered bold as direct links are. Currently, if the link is not a direct link it appears the same as all the others. (There is an edge case mentioned in WP:BRINT where redirects are intentionally left unbold that could be handled by checking for section links) TPI81AF (talk) 15:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Now that you have actually named an article, instead of leaving us completely in the dark, I'm guessing that you refer to Template:Touch! Generations. For the specific article concerned, the template contains

|group4=2009
|list4=
*''[[Personal Trainer: Walking]]''
*''[[Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method]]''

the first link of which is an unpiped redirect, and the second is a direct link, not piped and not redirected. It would be acceptable (and indeed desirable for the first one, per WP:BRINT) to alter these to

|group4=2009
|list4=
*''[[Walk with me! Do you know your walking routine?|Personal Trainer: Walking]]''
*''[[Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method|Personal Trainer: Math]]''

I don't see what the problem is about space - if the right margin is reached, navboxes will wrap the text just like any other part of the page. I also don't see what the problem is about pages being moved - if a page is moved, a redirect is left behind and the link still works, even if it doesn't get bolded. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:14, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem is that the link isn't bold until some editor notices that the page was moved and has manually intervened to get it to bold again. Ideally the system could automatically handle this case by bolding the appropriate redirected links. TPI81AF (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I suppose that would be nice. Unfortunately that's not anything we can do anything about; that would be something that the WMF has to take care of on the backend. I recommend submitted a phabricator request to get this change made. Primefac (talk) 22:33, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I did submit one here, but I was told to "see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tech instead. This needs fixing on the local wiki by editing its local content."

Would you happen to know if this is true and the right path forward for such a change? TPI81AF (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Would you mind if I moved this entire discussion to WP:VPR? It's a better forum for this sort of discussion (as it's not related to this project) and it wouldn't require rehashing the entire discussion again. Primefac (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not mind at all. Please move it to wherever it would fit best. TPI81AF (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Just to restart the threading and give a very quick summary of the above: TPI81AF is wondering if we can make all circular redirects bold on the page so that navboxes don't need to be updated as frequently following any page moves. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this would be a good change. We might provide some guidance on when redirects are more appropriate than piped links. In general, we encourage appropriate, contextual use of redirects that are WP:NOTBROKEN and navboxes are an exception to this practice due to technical limitations. For an {{R with possibilities}} or an {{R to section}}, for example, it makes sense to use the redirect. I often see redirects used in templates and navboxes when I'm reviewing 'What Links Here' for links to redirects from article space. Editors naturally want to use redirects in these templates the same way they do elsewhere in article space, or don't even realize the link is a redirect, and if we can facilitate that, we should. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion over the actual issue. It also didn't help that at phab:T433904 the request was unclear, which brought about the early closure as "invalid". The comment by AKlapper (WMF) (talk · contribs) was This needs fixing on the local wiki by editing its local content. which suggests to me that they believed that the issue was simply one of incorrect wikimarkup in the template. Reading the opening paragraph here again, together with subsequent posts by TPI81AF, the desire is that redirects to pages be treated exactly the same as direct links (for instance, if I add a link to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) here, it's shown black and bold, whereas a link via a redirect such as WP:VPR is shown in blue). That is not something that can be altered on-wiki, but requires a MediaWiki software change, for which Phabricator is the proper venue. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Since we're here, and TPI81AF has been sent to several different venues and has been told that the request needs clarification, perhaps someone could suggest wording for a proper phab request. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It has been merged to this Phabricator issue. Thank you for your concern. TPI81AF (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

The issue was re-opened by Pppery and merged to this Phabricator issue from 10 years ago. Thank you for confirming that it indeed requires a software change. <3 TPI81AF (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue, and thanks to all the other editors who have helped clarify the question and direct it to the right place. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This could probably be addressed via WP:AWB or even a bot: just find redirects and pipe them.

To be candid, I think this is a pretty unimportant problem because it appears only rarely, has an easy fix that any editor can do, and is only seen on the desktop site. It probably affects very few people in practice. Here's a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation in case anyone's curious:

Professor Kageyama's Maths Training: The Hundred Cell Calculation Method has 300 page views per month, so applying the usual numbers, that's 120 on the desktop site. There's about a 50% chance of a reader clicking on any link in the first article they read (which takes us down to 60), and there are about 60 links in the article (half in the navbox), so we're talking about slightly inconveniencing or confusing one reader a month – at most, because (a) click distribution is biased away from the end of the articles, which is where the navboxes are located and (b) since nearly half the people arriving at this page were already on a Wikipedia page, the chance of them clicking on any link at all is lower than the usual 50% (but I don't know exactly how much). At any rate, we're talking a handful of readers per year, out of more than a 100 billion page views per year. It's probably be more useful to put the WP:ELOFFICIAL website in the infobox than to worry about this, as that would likely interest a lot (>10x) more readers.

For clarity, I don't mind if someone else wants to work on this problem; I'm just explaining why it's not hugely important to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Your words are enlightening, to me and hopefully to editor TPI81AF, others above who seek a software solution, and the overworked devs, who have higher priorities to deal with. Here's another reason to smile knowingly: as a certified Wikignome one of my favorite WP duties is finding and bypassing redirects in navbars. It's one reason I became a page mover. When I close a move request, either moved or not moved, I check the article for navbars and bypass the redirects. And not just the one redirect left behind by the page I just renamed, I find and bypass any and all other redirects in the navbars that need bypassing. I've been doing this since I first registered and really do enjoy that part of the job! And I'm not the only one. There will always be low-priority things to do on WP for us gnomes to fix. They puts the "edit" in "editor"!>) P.I. Ellsworth , ed. – welcome! – 23:48, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:Find sources § Consensus as to whether to add Internet Archive Scholar to Find sources template

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Find sources § Consensus as to whether to add Internet Archive Scholar to Find sources template. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

We need to get rid of the "suggested links" tool

The "suggested links" tool, which prompts newbies to add links in articles, is more trouble than it's worth. Every few weeks, at least, I see an article edited as suggested with the addition of links that are just plain wrong. One that sticks out in my memory was the linking of the phrase operation of law in a sentence about the day-to-day operation of law schools. Today it was on List of Blue Bloods characters, where, in reference to a character having worked in the Brooklyn South Division it suggested linking Brooklyn South, which sounds like it makes sense if you don't know that Brooklyn South is just the name of an unrelated TV series, and not relevant to the article where the link was added. On other occasions, I have seen a slow motion project-wide edit war between suggested links and editors dealing with WP:OVERLINKING (which suggested links often amount to). There are more than enough tasks needing work that a low priority busywork tool with a high enough error rate to make me go "not this again" should be eliminated. BD2412 T 15:58, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

+1. Im pretty sure I see this on an even more frequent basis than is stated above. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've encountered similar problems so often that I created a template that I can call from twinkle to try and explain the problem to new editors. Schazjmd (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

MMiller (WMF) is the most likely person to be able to change this, at least among my limited "people I remember working at the foundation and work in this area" mental checklist. KStoller-WMF has also participated in some related discussions. I will say this isn't the first time I've seen this feature suggested as harmful to the new user experience. It definitely prompts a lot of new editors to try and use it, but I think it kind've defeats the point of more active participation if they'll get reverted for it. It's demoralizing to get told not to do something you were told to do by the software itself. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think it kind've defeats the point of more active participation if they'll get reverted for it. We’ve found that being reverted is one of the most demotivating experiences a newcomer can have. This is actually part of what motivated us to create Add-a-Link, as we wanted to give newcomers an easier, more structured task where they would be less likely to get reverted and could build up their confidence.

Given their inexperience, newcomers are still going to make mistakes and get reverted sometimes. But compared to the baseline of newcomers making unstructured edits, we’ve found the tool to be a success. In the A/B experiment we ran, we found:

The group of newcomers for whom the feature was enabled was 33.7% more likely to successfully make an edit that was not reverted ("constructive activation"), 3.7% more likely to stay active ("constructive retention"), and 19.6% less likely to have their edits reverted ("revert rate"). This is similar to our prior findings for the feature in other languages.

Cheers, Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 23:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I just worry that the percentages aren't accurate, given the manual and slow nature of a lot of the reverts. And I do think that the impact of being reverted is heightened when it's a consequence of the software literally telling you to do something vs an independent decision where you might feel like "oh, it probably makes sense that I messed up". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Any "manual and slow nature of" reverts ought to apply equally to other good-faith edits, though, so even if that's a problem, it's a problem equally distributed across the two groups. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's nessecarily the case, although I think statistics shouldn't just be for a short time frame and should try to account for reverts that might not be as easily tagged, but I'm not sure how technically possible it is. I think this type of edit would be more likely to be "hidden" by filters, less likely to be immediately reverted because someone doesn't have that specific article on their watchlist, etc. I guess what I'm saying is it's the exact sort of small change that might have a skewed ratio on paper in a favourable looking direction. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

From the notes: "These figures reflect the revert rates for all article edits made by users in each group on English Wikipedia rather than only edits made through the “Add-a-link” structured task. Edits made via “Add-a-link” specifically have a lower revert rate than the overall rates presented here."

The only difference between the two groups is that one randomly selected group had the feature enabled – not that they all used it, but that the software feature was there. It's about "Users assigned to the treatment group", not "Users who made this type of edit". This is the same kind of trial run when researchers want to know whether telling someone to floss their teeth improves dental health: you're comparing the ones in the treatment group, including the ones who didn't floss their teeth, against the ones in the control group, including the ones who decided to floss their teeth without being told. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

And I'm saying that having the feature enabled by itself matters, because being prompted to do something affects people's behaviour and how they perceive what comes after. I'm not saying we need to get rid of the feature entirely, I'm just pointing out the flaws of "metrics are good" reasoning. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

When users add multiple links, when one is bad the others can be good or neutral. Partially reverting the bad ones may not show up as a reversion. CMD (talk) 03:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

With the Blue Bloods list, a link was added to the wrong Brooklyn South, and other links were added to Fulton County, Georgia and political correctness. While technically correct, I don't think the other two add anything to the article, but I only manually removed the Brooklyn South link. BD2412 T 03:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

+1 the over linking is annoying. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:18, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the tool leads to a lot of overlinking (and the wrong links as pointed out by BD2412 are really bad). There would need to be quite big advantages for the tool to counter these downsides. Does anyone or @WhatamIdoing know if we have any research about that? —Kusma (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there is some research. However, the research we need would answer a question like "Is the main problem this particular tool, or is the main problem that newbies make mistakes?"

Or even, in the case of WP:OVERLINKING accusations, is the problem that old hands didn't know that WP:REPEATLINK was changed a few years ago to permit a lot more repeated links? If the mw:ORES review tool is still working, we could hand-code a collection of links to see how well it's working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Anecdotally, the most frequent bad newbie link pattern that I see is linking common English vocabulary, and links to disambiguation pages. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This tool shouldn't be suggesting any dab pages. Of course, the editors can manually change a link to something else. Do you have diffs of a few? Maybe we could find a pattern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I found this: mw:Growth/Personalized first day/Structured tasks/Add a link/Experiment analysis, December 2021. I haven't read the whole thing but the summary states that the structured Add a Link newbie task leads to an improvement in the quality of newcomer edits as measured by the revert rate (-11.0% over baseline, -11.5% over the unstructured link task). —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Here's the list of the last 500 "add a link" edits. If there's support for getting rid of this task, that's something any admin can (largely) do at Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits; we don't have to ask the WMF's permission. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There have been 558 such edits in the last 24 hours. 297 of them were from accounts that haven't even made 10 edits yet (and so not autoconfirmed). Only one (1) of those edits has been reverted so far. This does not look like evidence of a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I've found a lot of errors, but I don't revert unless every link they add is incorrect. Instead, I manually remove the bad links. (For example, removing a wikilink to the wrong person or to the wrong target for that context.) The problem that I've seen is the tool suggesting bad links and new editors not having the experience to recognize them. When a new editor adds an inappropriate link, I fix it, but then also feel obligated to go through their other edits to correct similar problems on articles I'm not watching. Schazjmd (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Would it be easier for you if we only let the tool suggest one (or even two) links at a time? It's currently set to a maximum of three suggestions per edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

If they could only make one link per edit, it would be a quick revert. I just wish the tool made smarter recommendations. Recent examples of bad ones: Schazjmd (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: I see a very clear problematic pattern here of the tool wanting to link lowercase phrases (e.g. "fashionable friends", "a taxi driver", "why her") with capitalized names of works (Fashionable Friends, A Taxi Driver, Why Her). I can't imagine why on Earth anyone, machine or not, would think that such a title would reflect the generalizable lowercase phrase. Barring non-matching capitalization from the tool would prevent the bulk of these, though ironically not the two cases that mentioned, which do have matching capitalization. BD2412 T 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It would make a whole lotta sense to fix this. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a case for withdrawing the tool entirely, but the absolute minimum change needed is a capitalisation filter: stop suggesting A Taxi Driver whenever someone writes about a taxi driver. Such links will almost never be an improvement. Searching a text dump for [[Any Phrase|any phrase]] and selectively unlinking would be a massive exercise with many false positives. It'll be far quicker if we can get access to the list of such links which have been suggested and reverse the systematic damage one phrase at a time. Certes (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

... Of course, the first letter of the title is exempt. "Hot money" and "hot money" can both link to Hot money, but only "Hot Money" should link to Hot Money. On the other hand, it may be better to avoid suggesting cases where two articles (not redirects to the same article) differ only in capitalisation. Perhaps the system already does. Certes (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

In the category of "low priority busywork": If you see this tool exclusively as a method of adding desirable links, and you assume that its users would do something more significant if it didn't exist, then I can understand describing this as "low priority busywork".

However, I suggest that you consider:

• that the tool's real value might be in teaching newcomers how to make links and that we want to Wikipedia:Build the web between articles,
• that many newcomers probably can't do complex tasks, so the realistic choice is better "low priority busywork" and nothing, rather than between "low priority busywork" and "high-priority contributions", and
• that if someone is consistently sloppy about making links, it might be better to find that out now, while they're doing "low priority busywork", and let them earn a block for incompetence instead of waiting until their sloppiness extends into areas that are more subtle or complicated to fix.

If we're getting too many poor suggestions, then I think that it might make sense to look at making a few changes to Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits#link recommendation. We're already limiting access to the tool (no more than 15 articles per day; never for anyone with more than 150 edits). Should we change the "Weight of underlinked articles" (currently set to 50%) to make it pick articles that are more severely underlinked? Should the "Minimum required link score" go up, to increase the required confidence in link suggestions? We've got some levers here that don't involve just a binary on/off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Your last point is an interesting one. At the German Wikipedia, users are limited to one link per task (rather than three) and seven tasks per day (rather than 15); the task is turned off after the user has made five edits (rather than 150); and the "Minimum required link score" is 0.7 (rather than 0.6). Maybe some of those changes would be worth making here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that the approach taken by the German-language Wikipedia won't work for us, especially with cutting off the task before many people have had a chance to try it (especially if they start with Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure, which can make more than 20 edits). But I think we should try making a small change in that direction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

One link per task looks like it would make it easier on patrollers. —Kusma (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree. I'll be honest, there's been a few times I've ignored edits with this tool that probably should have been reverted because it felt like too much effort and didn't seem like that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. I figured that if someone else cared enough, they would revert later, and sometimes they do, even if it takes months. I don't think reversion rates are entirely accurate if people are manually fixing these as they come across them much later. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, one link per task seems sensible. Making it easier for patrollers will presumably result in more problematic links being reverted. That, in turn, should make the revert statistics more reliable—that is, more reflective of the true "bad link" rate. In theory, the current revert rate is artificially low because the effort required to review multiple links tends towards keeping more bad links and because manual correction (reversion) of just one out of three links may not be consistently logged as a revert. I don't know enough about these levers to have a strong opinion but a modest increase to the link score also seems reasonable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this point about the difficulty of reverting Add-a-Link suggestions when there are multiple suggestions in an edit, @Extraordinary Writ/@WhatamIdoing/@Kusma/@Clovermoss/@Myceteae. Limiting to one link per task will resolve that, although it may also lead to a few more instances where only one item in a list gets linked.

One other approach to this issue we briefly considered (and could explore again if there is interest) is to make each added link a separate edit, just publishing them in rapid succession after clicking "publish" when a user adds multiple links in one article. This would make reverting easier, but it could also clog watchlists by producing more overall edits. I'm curious to hear from folks — would this be more desirable? Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 23:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

This change has apparently been implemented, per comment below in this discussion. I think it is a good one. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:10, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the tendency towards poor suggestions arises out of the nature of Wikipedia as a very large general purpose encyclopedia. As with the recent Blue Bloods example, there are just way too many titles that sound like some general topic but are in fact titles of specific works, which could be films or songs or albums or books. Similarly, the "operation of law" instance is misuse of a term of art within a specific profession. If links were limited to topics that were definitively the topic, like titles properly categorized as place names or names of people, presuming that we didn't get mistakes in the identity of ambiguously named places and people, that would be much better. At the same time however, place names tend to be some of the most overlinked in articles. BD2412 T 19:30, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like this problem was identified for Vietnamese at phab:T278864#6961431 but I don't see a more general Phab ticket. From the comments above, it sounds like our plan so far is:

• to write a Phab ticket asking for lowercase text to not be matched to proper nouns, and
• to edit the configuration to suggest just one link at a time.

Is there anything else that we need to add to this list? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I would say at the least to only link where there is already exactly matching capitalization, but I am wondering if we can just exclude all subjects categorized as titles of media from the tool altogether. There are plenty of other things to be linked without these in the list. That, and limiting to one link at a time and perhaps fewer instances per day, would address the immediate concerns. BD2412 T 21:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Matching the capitalization should be a one-way street, because a link to the article Chocolate cake should be suggested when it's capitalized at the beginning of the sentence ("Chocolate cake is good") as well as when it's not capitalized in the middle of the sentence ("This chocolate cake is good"). What we don't want is a sentence like "Prison and Chocolate Cake was first published in 1954" to be linked to Chocolate cake, because Prison and Chocolate Cake is the title of a book. Our article on cakes made of chocolate should be suggested for any sentence-case string (chocolate cake, Chocolate cake) but not for the title-case string (Chocolate Cake); if our article is in title case, it should only be linked if the article text is also title case (e.g., the article Alice and Bob can be suggested for any mention of Alice and Bob, but not for Alice and bob. Unfortunately, we'll lose Alice And Bob matches). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly matching capitalization would prevent at least half of the problems I find. Schazjmd (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Exactly matching capitalization may be ideal. At a minimum, not suggesting title case links for sentence case phrases would be a substantial improvement. Discrimination in link target/primary topic based on capitalization is a fundamental approach on English Wikipedia. It's also not something I expect newcomers to be attuned to since many publish works use title case for, as the name suggests, titles. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we should try raising the "Minimum required link score" a bit, maybe to 0.7. Special:NewcomerTasksInfo indicates that there are over 1.1 million possible tasks in the pool right now, so I don't think there'd be any harm in being a little more selective (although finding the right threshold might take a little experimenting). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Are we okay with changing more than one thing at a time? If so, I think this is not an unreasonable step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing Thanks for chiming in and offering to support Community Configuration changes. I agree adjusting some config settings seems like a good place to start.

We are aware of two main issues with the model currently, both of which I see reflected in the concerns raised above:

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T405185

• The model looks at individual words, rather than phrases, which is resulting in many of the partial name links over proper nouns (sometimes improperly capitalized), including in the Brooklyn South diff. To address this, in T405185 we are introducing named entity recognition, which should resolve this. I discussed this task again just now with the product manager of the Machine Learning team (which works on the model), and they've committed to moving that work forward.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T415623

• The model is trained on the first sentence of every article, which we believe may be leading to some of the overlinking tendencies because first sentences contain contextual links to more generic topics. In T415623 the Machine Learning team will explore retraining the model to instead use the first sentence after the lead section, which I’m hopeful will help address the overlinking issue. To help reduce overlinking suggestions, admins can also increase the "Weight of underlinked articles" score via the Suggested Edits Community Configuration form to prioritize articles that are more severely underlinked.

I hope that helps! - KStoller-WMF (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@KStoller-WMF: Does that mean that the requested fixes are not possible? One of the above examples is of an article with a sentence ending with saying that someone "was a taxi driver", which the tool advised to be linked to the media, A Taxi Driver. If these kinds of edits were not being pursuant to the suggestions of the tool, I would think a vandal was trolling us through intentionally bad links. I don't see how the partial name check would have prevented this one, as it is a complete phrase. What we should be doing is forcing sentence case capitalization matching, and excluding media titles from being linked at all. BD2412 T 23:54, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@BD2412 The requested improvements are possible, although they’re not trivial, which is why they weren’t prioritized immediately.

The capitalization matching specifically is something we’ve been thinking about beyond just named entity recognition. The bottom half of the description of T405185 captures work on training the model to make use of the signals case sensitivity provides, which is essentially what you’re describing: in your “taxi driver” example, the mismatch between the lowercase phrase in the article and the capitalized title “A Taxi Driver” is exactly the kind of signal that work aims to have the model learn from. There’s also T409138, a related but separate task that looks at instances where the model suggests a link to the wrong proper noun (e.g. if there were two films both titled A Taxi Driver).

We’re prioritizing named entity recognition first because we believe it will have the greatest impact. However, we’re committed to continuing to improve the quality of Add a Link suggestions. Once that work is complete, we’ll evaluate the remaining issues and continue exploring additional improvements where they’re needed.

At the same time, no machine learning model will ever be perfect. That’s why we the onboarding instructions for newcomers make it clear that suggestions may be incorrect and encourage them to use their own judgment. Our expectation, however, is that these improvements will make the suggestions significantly more accurate than they are today.

And sorry that you've found these newcomer edits frustrating. I'm hopeful that, together with the Community Configuration changes discussed in this thread and continued improvements to the link suggestion model, we can strike a better balance by preserving approachable, less intimidating ways for new editors to get started while reducing the burden on experienced editors and patrollers. - KStoller-WMF (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

My inclination would be to suspend use of the model until the proposed improvements are implemented. I am not in principle against link suggestions as a learning tool. I am very much against link suggestions that have an excessive probability of being erroneous. While we do want to encourage more editors, ultimately our encyclopedia is for the readers, and readers should not face the confusion of following links to the wrong place. BD2412 T 02:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@KStoller-WMF, are these actually going to be prioritized now? When would you be expecting they be completed? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi! I'm Sucheta, from the Machine Learning team. We're starting work on the first improvement that Kirsten mentioned (Named Entity Recognition) this month, and have outlined a plan in the Phabricator ticket. We need to do a bit more technical digging to construct a time estimate for delivery, but we'll keep the Phabricator ticket updated once we have that. Please feel free to subscribe and add any questions to the ticket. SSalgaonkar-WMF (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Asilvering: This is exactly why I am thinking that the tool should be suspended pending implementation of the requested fixes. BD2412 T 17:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi all (and thanks for pinging us, Clovermoss)! Add-a-Link is a feature we created as the Growth team, so Kirsten and I can speak to these concerns.

Add-a-Link's onboarding instructions, telling editors to judge each suggestion as it may be wrong

Add-a-Link is a type of structured task. We’ve built these to break down the editing process into a series of steps that newcomers can accomplish easily, particularly on mobile, to help them get used to editing. We gave all newcomers access to Add-a-Link last September after this discussion. We’re trying to help improve underlinked articles by suggesting potential links, but editors are still instructed to use their own judgement to evaluate whether or not they are appropriate to add (see screenshot). As with other forms of assisted editing, editors are ultimately responsible for the edits they make, and like with other editing, some will edit less carefully than others; in this case they can be warned with {{Uw-addalink}}.

I know it can seem like a lot of these edits are getting reverted, but unfortunately newcomers in general are reverted frequently. As I mentioned to Clovermoss above, our data shows that Add-a-Link improves on the baseline and results in fewer reverts than newcomers editing without structure.

All that said, we do recognize that having the suggestions reflect the encyclopedia’s best practices for linking is important for teaching newcomers about them. I hope resolving the two issues with the model that Kirsten mentioned above will improve this significantly. In the meantime, the Community Configuration controls I hope will allow you all to mitigate them sufficiently that it won’t be necessary to disable Add-a-Link overall. Bringing in newcomers with easier structured tasks so that they can build up their confidence before diving into more complex tasks is vital for onboarding the next generation of editors, and we want to handle it in a way that results in as few reverts/as little extra work for other editors as possible.

Cheers, Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 23:38, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Advising newcomers to add incorrect/irrelevant links as part of a training exercise is not going to go well for anyone. BD2412 T 23:51, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

We sometimes face the choice between using Wikipedia as a training ground and keeping the encyclopedia as correct as we can. I tend to prefer the latter but others may disagree. Most other ventures have a dedicated testing area where newcomers can make mistakes harmlessly, and it is unfortunate that we have to let ours loose on the live system immediately. Certes (talk) 11:18, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I just want to add one quick perspective on this -- the way we've seen success with teaching and onboarding people to Wikipedia is through them doing real wiki work, as opposed to training-work. That makes it possible for them to quickly feel the excitement of changing the encyclopedia and seeing their impact. My thinking on this was shaped by the concept of "legitimate peripheral participation" in which people new to a community get involved by doing real work around the edges (like adding links!)

Does that make sense? What's been your experience? MMiller (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Doing real work certainly helps motivation. I created an account after fixing a few typos as an IP editor and enjoying the contrast with other reference sites whose errors I would have helplessly ignored. I think the tool has potential to do more good than harm if we can tame some of the less appropriate suggestions. I'm happy to see capitalisation being taken into account. Another possible improvement is not to suggest a name which has alternatives, e.g. don't offer a link to Joe Schmoe if we also have an article on Joe Schmoe (singer) because it might mean him instead. Perhaps that already happens – with an opaque evaluation algorithm, it's hard to tell.

Is there a log anywhere of which articles have been suggested as link targets? If so, that could be a starting point for undoing the remaining damage. Certes (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Certes, individual edits where Add-a-Link was activated are tagged (here's the feed), but there's no master list of which articles have been suggested because the model can suggest any article.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T409138

The Joe Schmoe situation you're describing is an example of a homonym; T409138 is the task where we're tackling that problem. Systemically identifying which articles have a homonym is unfortunately non-trivial from a technical perspective; we'd welcome engagement/ideas about how we could do so! Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 21:21, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This does make sense. Making live edits is also the way that errors are discovered and can be corrected in a way that supports learning and better contributions over time. Except, of course, when the correction is discouraging, so there is a balance here. If an editor links to the wrong 'Joe Schmoe' or mistakenly links a phrase like 'a taxi driver' in a training environment, who will catch the mistake? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Making live edits also means we have newcomers who are willing and able to Wikipedia:Be bold. Learning-by-doing is the main method that most of us learned to edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Sdkb-WMF, does the add-a-link task factor in the presence of {{Underlinked}} at all? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The older, unstructured version of the task was triggered by {{Underlinked}} (and {{Dead end}}; both were specified in the Community Configuration). The current version instead identifies underlinked articles automatically per the formula at phab:T301096#8388234. Cheers, Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 16:35, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Support tweaking Special:CommunityConfiguration/GrowthSuggestedEdits to one link an edit. Perhaps in the same way as checking multiple links takes up reviewer time, it may contribute to new users not bothering to check the links. phab:T405185 which is about an issue which directly leads to bad links has been open since September, phab:T415623 and phab:T415622 which relate to less directly bad issue of overlinking have been open since January. All are still set to "Needs Triage", so we should take our own action as we can. Switching to one link an edit would give more relevant reversion statistics too. CMD (talk) 03:29, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I think this idea is worth trying and is worth it in terms of reducing reviewer workload. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Do we have a list of known mislinked articles? I just fixed the remainder of A Taxi Driver (10) and Why Her (1) but there will be other targets that can be unlinked systematically. I didn't find any Fashionable Friends or other articles mentioned above. Certes (talk) 11:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Certes, while you're doing cleanup, if you find that any particular article is constantly being mislinked in the other direction (that is, suggested links tasks on the article, not to, the article, are overwhelmingly bunk for some reason), could you report it at WT:GTF (in case that helps fix whatever the issue is), but also add {{no newcomer task}} to that article so it doesn't keep happening? Thanks. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Will do, but I've rarely found more than one set of three outgoing links added to the same article. I can't do much more without a list of targets that the tool has suggested, but I don't think we have or can easily get that. Certes (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T434255

@Certes, inspired by your comment, I've logged T434255, which would create a mechanism that would allow you or other editors to exclude pages like A Taxi Driver from being suggested as links at any article. Feel free to take a look and make adjustments! Cheers, Sdkb‑WMF ^talk 21:02, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Settings changed: Given the comments above, I've changed the settings for this task so that it only suggests one link each time, and correspondingly bumped up the number of tasks that can be completed per day. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Just noticing this discussion, switching to just one link per article was one of the most important changes we made on German Wikipedia to increase acceptance of this newcomer task. I don't have any data but in our perception the tool is usually able to identify one useful suggestion while the second and third link suggestion are significantly worse. @Sdkb-WMF perhaps that's something the Growth team wants to investigate? Increasing the minimum required link score to 0.7 also seemed to have a positive effect (and still leads to more than enough article suggestions on dewiki).

Even after making these changes we decided to significantly limit the number of edits because we want newcomers to progress to more useful tasks more quickly (e.g. adding references), given that users are automatically promoted to dewiki's autoreviewed user group once they reach 50-150 article namespace edits. I've heard from other wikis also setting limits stricter than 150 edits, e.g. to avoid users getting eligible to vote in local admin elections entirely by completing "add link" tasks. Johannnes89 (talk) 06:31, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, @Johannnes89, that's really helpful. We actually haven't changed the link scores at all, and we have so many articles with barely any links, so increasing that probably won't cut off the task at all. As far as the number of edits goes, I think en-wiki is perhaps uniquely placed to tolerate high numbers per editor, since we have WP:XC, which doesn't apply until 500 edits. I've actually heard feedback from several mentees that they miss the add-a-link task when they "age out" of it, so I wouldn't want to drop it, myself. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I support this change, and I appreciate the insights from German Wikipedia. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

This is helpful, @Asilvering, thanks. I've noticed a difference the past few days and reviewing a single link at a time is easier. Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Exterminate, BD2412 had it correct right off the bat: "The 'suggested links' tool, which prompts newbies to add links in articles, is more trouble than it's worth. Every few weeks, at least, I see an article edited as suggested with the addition of links that are just plain wrong." Sending newbies into the world of clutter and tools has enough content without this. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• No, just no: The suggested links feature is the least of the problems with Newcomer Tasks. At least fixing overlinking is easy, compared to dealing with the AI slop that is introduced via every other task (copyedit, expand, reference, update). Why is this the one that is getting traction to be removed? Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think that's a problem specific to newcomer tasks – at least those come with onboarding pop-ups like this teaching newcomers about our rules. Whenever I see newcomers clearly ignoring task instructions, they are usually also doing regular edits which are just as unhelpful. Johannnes89 (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  The problem is the gamification that encourages this stuff. I am currently around 150 tabs deep in cleanup related to this and have probably done many more hundreds total. I have actively done an audit showing a dismal rate of good edits. Nothing seems to matter and so the workload continues to balloon and the articles continue to deteriorate.

  By contrast, I am actively relieved when I encounter an edit history full of link adding, because the damage done is small by comparison. And yet for some reason it is THE ONE thing that gets immediate action. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah exactly, the links are the by far least problematic 'newcomer task' and doesn't do any real damage. It's the other tasks that need to be removed, not this one. ‑‑gurkubondinn 15:42, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep the tool: let's try this with the new settings. Most of the added links are good, we need the extra retention, and it's easy to revert, especially now with the new settings. With the further development of the tool as promised we might get rid of further errors in the task. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• I'm for keeping the tool. Tune up, if you can figure out a tune up. We have no tasks, where users won't make mistakes (all experience levels). Editing requires some boldness and more editing requires some confidence gained in editing: we want/need editors. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• I'm entirely agreement with @Alanscottwalker here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Official recognition for WikiForms tool.

Dear Wikipedians,

A few weeks ago, I made a proposal regarding the WikiForms tool. The previous discussion mainly focused on tool development, security, and revisions.

I am glad to share that the tool is now fully production-ready and all suggested improvements have been incorporated.

I would like to propose officially recognizing this tool by establishing a dedicated documentation page at Wikipedia:WikiForms. This page will outline the guidelines and usage for the tool, offering a native, privacy-friendly alternative to external services like Google Forms for surveys or data collection within the community.

Please let me know your thoughts and feedback! Anaf Ibn Shahibul (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 230#Introducing WikiForms – A native tool for data collection and forms within Wikimedia and the tool itself is at https://wikiforms.toolforge.org/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I like the idea. :) I'll leave the more thorough feedback for others. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The tool still appears far from production ready. Nevermind the top of the page saying "banner_message", or the silent failures when publishing a blank form, or the fact that after publishing a form you're still given the ability to edit the form and add questions but clicking the publish button a second time doesn't do anything. My biggest concern is that it still describes itself as being able to "Create powerful data collection forms or secure AI-proctored quizzes" and offers an option for an "Anti-cheat AI proctoring protection subsystem built-in natively" despite you saying in the previous discussion that you were completely removing all AI components. I also fail to see what need this fills for the Wikipedia community that isn't already met by meta:LimeSurvey or meta:SecurePoll. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:02, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Reversion of Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast?

"Quazer Beast" was one of Wikipedia's earlier bits of vandalism, deleted in 2006. I have no issue with the original intent of the Wikipedia:Society for the Preservation of the Quazer Beast page, a jokey "preservation" of an early bit of vandalism, but the page has since effectively been hijacked by another, since-banned user who drifted it massively off-topic and diluted the original use of the page.

Said user was Dronebogus (talk · contribs), who started editing the page in November 2021 and made literally hundreds more edits between then and March 2024. Their edits consisted of adding links to other animal-related hoaxes such as Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Salvadorian Magpie, and even this paywalled link to a skepticism newsletter which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's clear Dronebogus was using this as a WP:NOTHERE violation, creating a Wikipedia game. GREEK MYTHOLOGY 123 (talk · contribs) has also participated a few times, adding in more random links to hoax articles.

Dronebogus also made a WP:NOTHERE violation at Wikipedia:True facts about Wikipe-tan, which was deleted in May for being nonsense. I should also note that the page had only about 10 edits between 2013 and the time Dronebogus effectively hijacked it in 2021, suggesting there was little reason for its original purpose to be overridden like this. I don't think Greek Mythology is acting in bad faith, but they are still following in Dronebogus' footsteps and steering the page further from what it used to be.

Given the page has drifted massively off-topic largely by a user who is now banned, my proposal is this: would it be acceptable to revert the page to this edit from 2019, the last before Dronebogus touched it? Ten Pound Hammer (they/them) • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Support. Fair enough. I was kinda new at the time. I think you should keep Dronebogus's userbox on there though. GREEK MYTHOLOGY 123 (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

CentralNotice for September Organized Labour Campaign

As an alternative to showing our readers a banner related to donations (see WP:VPPR#Don't run any donation banners until the union-busting is completely ended), I would like to suggest we run a meta:CentralNotice banner for the September Organized Labour Campaign. As this is shown to all logged-in people, it requires local consensus before it can be proposed on meta.

The text would be:

• Join the September Organized Labour editing Campaign!

I wanted to get a solidarity statement in there, but ran out of characters (guideline says 50 to 70 characters for CentralNotice banner). Open to hear from more creative folks. There is space to say "Support WWU", but that might be too much inside baseball.

We get two images, which I propose would be the WWU-adjusted trout logo and the Organized Labour WikiProject logo (first two in this post). In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 17:44, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Not just inside baseball, it is campaigning in an election. (I'm only commenting about your sentence that mentions inside baseball). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I will be generous and acknowledge that any labor-related edit-a-thon is clearly indirect if not direct support for WP:WWUS but I believe it is the right thing and will support whatever brief statement that people find descriptive. The end result will be improved encyclopedic articles that enrich the discussions. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a good concession for success of the drive.

Couldn't the only possible goal be to get any editor regardless of how the feel on that matter to produce V/NPOV/NOR content? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Of course any editor is welcome. One of the reason to do a widely published banner is to get a wider group of people interested in helping out. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:02, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you see the post I was responding too? This question did not come out of no where. Just above, there was a claim that the drive is at least "clearly" an indirect support for some other cause. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I did. I just wanted to reassure you that despite the motivation of showing solidarity with WWU, the campaign is open to all. Of course, we'll respect NPOV etc. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 19:22, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

As I put below: the aim is V/NPOV/NOR content, which may turn out to (overall) show that unionisation is generally a bad thing. Encouraging participation in this editathon could contribute to WWU US losing the election. Boud (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The election will be over in the first days of the drive. So, your argument makes little sense. Any influence on the election would be in August, presumably when the banner is suppose to run. Moreover, the goal of WWU wining or losing the election can play no part in editing decisions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Fair point about the timeline, which makes it even less likely that the editathon will bias WMF US employees in their vote, since the newly added content may be unstable until sufficiently many diverse editors have got involved in editing. To people familiar with Wikipedia, unstable articles full of {{refimprove}} and other tags are a hint to read the talk page and check the sources yourself rather than consider the content as consensus-based. Agreed that the goal of WWU win[n]ing or losing the election can play no part in editing decisions; that's uncontroversial as a matter of principle. But some concern has been raised here that in practice, either editing or the effects of the edits might be influenced by, or have an influence on, the NLRB ballot. My point is that if there is an influence by editors despite editors' best intentions, there's no prior reason to be certain which way, if any, that could influence the vote. Some WMF US employees are Wikipedia editors (identified or anonymous), and 1/3 did not sign union cards either the first or second time; they may have some good WP:RS that present arguments against unions, and might add those during August, motivated by the CentralNotice. Getting a mix of editors with a variety of biases tends to produce high-quality articles. Boud (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

The promotion of bias in the election is in the running of an August banner for a project "edit-a-thon [that] is clearly indirect if not direct support for WWUS" (they are working to win an election in August). So, change to the bias of the editathon, would be what's required. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

We need to do more than avoid bias… we need to avoid even the appearance of bias. Blueboar (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Good point, we must be strictly against bias. And we can't normalize, under any guise, agenda editing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Not at this time - While asking editors to help improve articles in a specific topic area is standard practice, we can not ignore the fact that there is currently an ongoing discussion between the WMF and its employees over forming a union.
  Running an editing campaign “in solidarity” of Organized Labor while this discussion is going on is inappropriate. It would be like running an editing campaign “in solidarity” with a specific political party during a national election. Wait until the WMF employee union issue is resolved… then do a campaign on this topic area. Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Blueboar this is akin to saying that WP:LGBT content should not be promoted during pride month or other thematic WP:Today's Featured Article. The content is always subject to NPOV, but the discretion what to promote is not ever neutral. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Not buying that… When the organizers of the campaign are calling for “solidarity” it becomes more than that. It becomes advocacy.

  September has lots of causes… it’s Childhood Cancer Awareness Month, Suicide Prevention Month, World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month (just to name a few)… we can focus on those topics instead. Blueboar (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's a fair worry, even though I'm not sure when the issue would be resolved (after the vote? after the first negotiations are done?). Just for reference, there is precedent of editing campaigns with a political backdrop to it, in the Ukraine Diplomacy Month, which is, at least to me, clearly in solidarity with the victims of war. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  And we should not be doing that either. Blueboar (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Reliable sources that show in what situations (when, where, why, who, how) unionisation has led to lower salaries or worse conditions are fully on-topic for this editathon. Without already knowing what sources are going to be used and what they say, we cannot predict whether the result of the editathon will be to show, overall, that unionisation is good or bad. I've added a section to encourage adding, especially, scholarly sources that are suspected to be biased pro- or anti-union.

  This editathon might just as well convince lots of WMF workers that unionisation is, per the evidence, a bad thing, as convince them that it's a good thing. The WMF US workers' votes may be influenced by the encyclopedic evidence, either pro- or anti-unionisation. Boud (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2026 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC))

• Support. Many of our articles about organized labor would benefit from this edit-a-thon. The scope of WikiProject Organized Labour includes both pro-union and anti-union aspects of the topic area, as well as general information about trade unions. The word "solidarity" could be removed from the event page if it is considered a concern, but the existence of other themed months for September (e.g. Childhood Cancer Awareness Month) is not a good reason to forego this event. Feel free to start a separate edit-a-thon about childhood cancer, if you are interested in doing so for that topic. — Newslinger talk 21:31, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support per proposal. ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support a central notice for the campaign, and the having of the campaign. The short suggested text here seems fine to me too. Not sure about using the "trout" logo though, and possibly we should be a little more subtle about the WWU advocacy on the event page. Anomie⚔ 23:48, 8 August 2026 (UTC)
• Obligatory oppose against the message of support for WWU. Sending a CentralNotice is fine. Regarding the icon, I think I like the trout best. Like Newslinger said, there's pro-union (labor) and anti-(labor) articles out there - it's a contentious topic. The image of the red* raised fist looks like a revolution took place, and the third image is the WWU logo, which is a non-starter for this endeavor. †I am reminded of a paper glossed in The Atlantic which included an exploration of the rise of the color red during the Russian Revolution. - Embyarby (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Embyarby: we can have up to two images. What would you think of a combination of the trout and an alternative image of raised fists, that isn't red?

  

  In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 08:20, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Looks good to me! - Embyarby (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I like this multi-colored people-icon image.

  Is the fist-with-trout supposed to echo Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime, or is this supposed to be an inside joke that even 99% of editors won't get? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's an inside joke. The fact you had to ask the question means that it likely isn't as effective as I thought it would. Also, people seem keen on not displaying WWU solidarity too blatantly, so I'm very happy to just go for the multi-colored people icon, as a single image. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 06:58, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Edit-a-thon good for wiki. Organised Labour good for everyone. Spreading awareness good in general. 🐺 WolfOnABus 🚍 (talk) 10:39, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
• Support. More NPOVed, RSed, DUE-weight, crowdsource-edited encyclopedic knowledge on this specific subset of human rights will benefit Wikipedia readers and Wikipedia's reputation as a source of encyclopedic reviews of knowledge, and will likely also help encourage inter-language wiki cross-coordination. Boud (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Support, while I agree any actual advocacy should be muted, I don't see how anyone could take issue with the current state of the page, it's no different to other edit-a-thons really. The only point of contention I can see is that the most prominent suggested articles are centred around the WMF dispute, rather than the most vital articles about organised labour. I think it should have the latter as the most prominent, with a later subsection on articles related to the WMF dispute.

I also think there should be a pointer to another page (or a section near the end) giving a neutral summary of the recent events and linking to the ongoing discussions. At the moment the discussions are dominated by enwiki editors while others are left out of the loop, the page is about to be MassMessage'd to other wikis and they won't know what's going on based on the current state of the page. Otherwise it's a big support, lots of articles will be improved, which is the reason we're all here anyway Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 16:52, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Support Central Notice without any advocacy for WWU. We should try for improved, NPOV, RSed articles on labour issues. I think getting more people involved on articles relating to this would be beneficial, and we should not directly tie it to WWU's efforts (which I support). Improving the encyclopedia should be what we want for the Central Notice. Abzeronow (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Would anyone be opposed to a bot that notifies you when someone translates an article you made?

I originally proposed this at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Bot that informs you when someone translates your article, and was told to come here for consensus. For further detail on how it would work, read the section there Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I think that would be fantastic! In general I also wished that “first edit author” did not have exclusive API benefits but that anyone could subscribe to watch for such translation alerts even if they did not create a specific article ~ In solidarity 🦝 Shushugah (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Anyone have any ideas on how it could be an opt-in for an individual article? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would caution that just because a new article was created in another language Wikipedia about the same topic doesn't meant that it was translated. Currently, to see associated Wikidata changes for a page you are watching, you can enable Preferences → Watchlist → Advanced options → Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist. This will let you see when someone adds a new language version to the corresponding Wikidata item. isaacl (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont want to see every wikidata change, only translations. I feel like that would quickly bloat my watchlist with minor wikidata changes Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

In my experience, past the initial creation of properties, there aren't many updates at all, which makes sense for most topics, as their properties are stable. The most frequent changes are adding links to new articles in different language Wikipedias. isaacl (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I really like this, it's always great to see. Maybe make a phab request for this to show up in notifications like when someone links to an article you've made? @SPerry-WMF may be interested as part of m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2026-2027#Contributors? Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I developed a quick proof of concept that if this gets consensus could have ready to go, still would need to work out whether it's opt in or out and the mechanism for others subscribing. Balance3641 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Since this has been raised both here and in the original BOTREQ post, is there some way this would distinguish between translations vs. new articles created from scratch on another wiki? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

That information isn't recorded on Wikidata, as far as I know. It's after all not a property of the thing itself, but of a specific article version in a language Wikipedia. I think if we start storing items about the written articles themselves, they're going to get confused with the items about the underlying things. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't think so but wanted clarification/confirmation. It's not clear how this proposal would even work, then, as this proposal is predicated on translations being a distinct characteristic that is consistently and uniquely coded or documented. Turning on/creating new alerts for all Wikidata changes or just for new language versions of a page would seem to be a viable approach that would capture these but would also produce a great many alerts that are not actually translations from the en-wiki article. Those might still be of interest to the creator and any other editor interested in a particular article. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

A properly attributed translation should link to the enwiki article in an edit summary (which I believe the content translation tools do automatically), so it may be possible to look for new Wikidata entries and then check the article history. ScalarFactor (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Based on the discussion linked in the original post, the original poster doesn't seem too concerned about trying to limit notifications to just translations. Personally, I'm happy with the existing Wikidata changes mechanism that I mentioned earlier. But if any new bot-based notification is opt-in, and someone wants to maintain the bot, more power to them. isaacl (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

What if the mechanism is that 100% tagged translations are alerted with opt-out and there is opt-in for pages created on different language wikis? Balance3641 (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like this is feasible. At least, not reliably, since translations are not consistently documented. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah agree, think it has to be linked articles or not at all. Balance3641 🍃 (talk · contribs) 17:16, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont understand what you're trying to say Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

No, I dont think the distinction is important, any article created by you that later has content about it in another language is bound to share atleast some content with a good enwiki article, as they both cover the same topic. Also some authors only partially translate an article, and dont do the whole thing.

also, ScalarFactor, I think that idea works in theory, but not in practice, as not everyone bothers with the edit summary and some only add it to wikidata. Checking my articles that have been translated (linked here), only three out of seven linked to the original enwiki article in it's creation (The Man Who Slipped on the Ice, Szivárvány TV and Bastardstown) But all were added to the same wikidata Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would be excited to see that! If only so I could Google Translate it back to English to see if it still made sense. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 05:44, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I would find some sort of notification of this (this being perhaps a newly added interwiki link on wikidata) useful. If it notifies of a translation, that is nice to see. However, if it is a separate creation, or even a translation with additions, it may contain additional sources or ideas that could be worth looking through to improve articles here. CMD (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Created WP:Bots/Requests_for_approval/NervousBot as a parallel to this discussion. Balance3641 🍃 (talk · contribs) 10:00, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Just wondering, but why is it called nervousbot? Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

because it is nervous grapesurgeon (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I dont get it Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

I just rerolled random words until there was one I was happy with, am planning to do some more stuff with it so it didn't make sense to call it something like SomeoneTranslatedAnArticleYouWroteBot Balance3641 🍃 (talk · contribs) 15:22, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

oki doki Froglord (Finnfrog99) (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

As mentioned, personally I don't support enabling it by default to notify all users. This duplicates notifications for those who are already watching associated Wikidata changes, and increases the messaging on English Wikipedia to approximate the rate of article creation across all other language Wikipedias. Specifically regarding the message, I don't like "your page" as it runs counter to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2026 (UTC)