See also coverage in this issue's Technology report: "Community Tech team is disbanded, controversy erupts"

On 20 May 2026, Wikimedia disbanded the Community Tech team, which was responsible for the Community Wishlist. This abrupt announcement affected six employees, including several members of the Wiki Workers United which went public in February 2026.

On February 6 (two weeks after Bernadette Meehan had taken the reins as new Wikimedia Foundation CEO), longtime WMF employee Bryan Davis announced on Mastodon that he and several other staff had begun an effort to unionize:

Five years ago I made a Twitter post calling for employees of @wikimediafoundation to organize a union. Yesterday a group of us came out publicly to all other staff as being actively engaged in that effort. I’m proud of everyone who has helped get us to this new milestone and I look forward to being part of a recognized bargaining unit in the future.
— [1]

This labor union, labeled "Wiki Workers United", also has its own web presence at https://wikiworkersunited.org and Mastadon instance.

Over 1,000 comments were exchanged between community editors and Foundation leadership. The layoffs were covered by news outlets The Verge, Heise Online, and PC Magazine. This opinion essay focuses on the future of the nascent Wiki Workers United initiative and explains why editors should care about trade unions and get involved. I am writing this from the perspective of a disgruntled tech worker and union member.

George Bernard Shaw once said that "democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve". Replacing nation-states with workplaces, the quote's meaning still holds true. A simplified version of the power resource approach used in the global labor movement argues that the strength of any labor movement, and its capacity to respond, depend on four different factors.

The power resource approach as defined by the organized labor movement is an analytical theory of change that analyzes the technical, social and economic relations in which workers operate.

• Associational power refers to the willingness of its members (Foundation staff in this case) to respond in a coordinated manner (forming a union, publishing shared statements, maybe even going on strike). Furthermore, the reliance on a [larger] pool of volunteer editors for content creation suggests that volunteer editors mainly hold symbolic societal power, but this picture shifts when you focus on the advanced permissions of trusted functionaries. Volunteer editors with advanced permissions would create a significant disruption cost, if they were to strike in solidarity with Wiki Workers United. Unlike staff, volunteers are not financially dependent on the WMF, so they can credibly strike for as long as necessary.
• Societal power draws on a larger audience beyond the immediate workplace bargaining unit. Examples of broader audience include NGOs, GLAM partners, Wiki readers/editors. Perceived legitimacy and boosted morale are important aspects of any popular labor dispute.
• Structural power is the strategic economic positions that both Wikimedia Foundation itself holds within the digital space and the unique labor-market skill sets that WMF staff have. Using engineering as an example, if the WMF could rely on a smaller core of engineers (both cheaper and easier to manage) or rely on volunteer open-source contributions alone to keep the lights on, the WMF would have done so a long time ago. The perceived and actual structural power of both the WMF and the staff themselves is up for debate. Clearly the WMF and the community do not value the Community Tech the same way.
• Institutional power is shaped by the legal setting, from national laws to the workplace policies and work contract language. As we saw from the Community Tech debacle, aside for potential union busting, what the WMF did was legal, even if highly unfair. Generally speaking, union busting is illegal in the United States, but the tough reality is that enforcement is negligible. Within the United States, every state has different regulations regarding right-to-work and at-will employment laws. Employees, contractors and freelancers might have differing regulations regarding their eligibility to bargain with the employer. Globally, there is no true labor law framework, so if Wiki Workers United were to operate as a global union, it would legally speaking be a patchwork of local initiatives volunteering to coordinate together. At the end of the day, behaving like a union is a political commitment, but it is important to also keep in mind the legal landscape and risks involved.

Ultimately, the qualitative character of the wider Wikimedia movement hinges on the net balance of power between volunteer editors, paid staff and the Foundation's leadership, among other stakeholders (contributors, readers, affiliates etc.).

The WMF has operated without workplace representation for over 20 years. What, then does the early stage union drive at Wikimedia mean for the already complex ecosystem of the Wikimedia movement?

Workplace democracy, including unionization at the WMF now is inevitable. Depending on the degree of community support (see more below), possible future retaliatory measures from management and the internal organization of Wikimedia staff, the nascent Wiki Workers United will either be an adversarial or harmonious addition to the Wiki ecosystem. The degree of influence that both staff and the community wield will determine how bold their respective demands will be.

As of writing, the solidarity-strike pledge is the second most popular petition on English Wikipedia which simply asks management to do the right thing and go beyond the bare legal minimum.

Management so far indicated a willingness to listen and even indicated a positive reception to unionization, but it does not mean much if management is unable to back words with action and correct its mistakes. Over the course of a long month, the WMF has hired back 3 of the 6 fired employees, but it has not made any commitments to avoid union-interference nor proposed any plans for the future of the Community Wishlist.

In a nutshell, the Wiki Workers United campaign focuses on two major themes:

1. Working conditions – internally focused on Wikimedia staff, e.g regarding hiring, firing, and salary equity.
2. Empowering the broader Wikimedia movement by giving a voice regarding transparency, and product development.

The abrupt dismantling of the Community Tech team without a plan, cut off one of the direct access points between the community and the Foundation engineering teams. Given the high churn rate of senior leadership, I am skeptical that the Foundation can make strategic decisions, without input of either the community or staff. The fact that CEO Bernadette Meehan and CPTO Selena Deckelmann were unprepared for the community backlash, reveals a disconnect from the community, something the Community Tech team ironically could have mitigated.

Assuming good faith, that the layoffs were not in fact motivated by union busting, it exposes second issue. The WMF's broken feedback culture with a culture of retaliation is an even stronger case for unionization. It is not organizationally sustainable if individual staff members need to make a risk assessment, and decide whether they can or should express themselves publicly and or internally within the workplace. This is likely a familiar situation for anyone who depends on their job for their livelihood. High profile union-drives are often blamed for fueling conflict, when in reality they reveal existing frictions and fault-lines between management and workers.

It is worth noting, the solidarity campaign for Wiki Workers United currently is happening without direct coordination of Wikimedia staff, in order to ensure their safety.

Formally, staff at the Wikimedia Foundation need enough signatures from coworkers to confirm their representative legitimacy. Then they can either request voluntary union recognition or go through a National Labor Relations Board supervised election.

Winning an election is a hurdle in its own right. Wiki Workers United will need to figure out its leadership structures, internal decision processes, demands and public communications. Winning their first collective bargaining agreements is an even bigger hurdle, especial as a first time union. As a union busting strategy, some employers disrupt union elections, while others allow the elections to pass through, and then stall the collective bargaining phase, dampening the momentum and budding enthusiasm of newly formed unions over a period of several years. This is the strategy Starbucks is using.

Any trade union worth their salt is democratic, but it is only as good as the level of engagement by its members. If anyone believes the Wikimedia Foundation staff are incompetent, then of course any related union structure will also be incompetent. Fortunately, it is safe to say that the overwhelming majority of Wikimedia staff have the interest of the Wikimedia projects at heart and broadly speaking, they want the same things as the Wiki community.

A trade union for Wikimedia staff would not solve all of the pressing issues such as rising authoritarianism, enshittification or income inequality, but it would enrich the debates and enable lower-level staff to participate in conversations without fear of retaliation. This will be necessary for the difficult conversations that don't have easy answers, for example budget priorizations and technical directions in Wikimedia Foundation planning.

With full time employee compensations representing a large expenditure in the annual budgets, it is tempting for disillusioned community members or management to view employees as line-items and perhaps even the root of Wikimedia's problems, without dismissing the qualitative institutional knowledge and community relations they provide.

A trade-union can save the Foundation money, by ensuring stable employee retention, reducing the cost of onboarding, context-switching or golden-parachutes that executive leadership receives when they depart. In the difficult situations where terminations may be necessitated for financial reasons or individual misconduct, collective agreements can ensure just-cause is adhered to, bringing confidence both to the wider workforce and wiki community that terminations happen in a dignified manner, where all other options are exhausted, instead of turning every layoff into a high-profile public relations disaster that risks harming the reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Despite renewed interest and popularity in the United States, in the private sector, union density or the ratio of union/non-union members is on the decline. The rate of newly unionized workplaces is not making up for the growing labor market, or retiring union members. Outside union hotspots in (New York City, Honolulu, Las Vegas) most workers learn about trade-unions through external means, i.e media coverage, e.g Hollywood celebrities going on strike or as alienated passengers of annoyingly effective transport strikes.

Unionization in the tech sector is on the rise after decades of inertia. Jake Orlowitz, founder of The Wikipedia Library warns in his op-ed that Big Tech’s Anti-Labor Playbook Has Come for Wikipedia. In my personal editing capacity, I have noted some of the new global tech labor struggles at Samsung, Tesla, Apple, Microsoft, IBM, SAP, Amazon among others. Future Wikipedia articles ought to be be created about the growing number of non-profits that are unionizing, from Planned Parenthood, Amnesty International, ACLU, EFF, South Poverty Law Center and the many other affiliates of Nonprofit Professional Employees Union. A wave of unionization at digital and traditional newsrooms reflect the collective responses to automation and depreciating online views.

It is not the first time volunteer editors have taken collective action either. Wikipedia editors might fondly remember in 2012 when multiple Wiki projects blacked out their respective home pages, or FRAMGATE which was one of the lowest points in the deteriorating trust between the community and the WMF. Repair work and restoration of trust has slowly happened, but this Community Tech incident is reigniting that mistrust.

In other volunteer-driven platforms, Reddit mods went on strike in 2023 as did AOL chatroom monitors in 1999. Some of these collective actions were more successful than others. There are instances where commercial content creators at Spotify and YouTube organized themselves, in parallel with Spotify and YouTube employees organising, but I cannot recall an instance where volunteer and paid contributors have combined forces, which might happen for the first time with volunteer editors threatening solidarity strikes in coordination with Wiki Workers United.

Wikimedia Foundation neither fits the classic "big tech", media nor non-profit profile, but either way, unionization is a logical response to the symptoms of growing uncertainty around algorithmic enshittification, disconnects between public values and internal actions and general uncertainty. Sounds familiar?

Fortunately, we are not starting from scratch. Do not underestimate the long-term obstacles ahead of us, but also embrace the fact that we have a lot of collective power. It is important to both celebrate the symbolic power and the withdrawal of activity by editors with advanced permissions (see the statistics)

1. Sign the English Wikipedia solidarity strike petition at Wikipedia:Wiki Workers United solidarity
2. Sign the official statement of solidarity with meta:Wiki Workers United
3. Update your signature and link to the Wikipedia:Wiki Workers Uniteds
4. Wear your union bug/userbox with pride

Markup	Renders as
{{User Wiki Workers United}}	This user supports the Wiki Workers United union of WMF staff. Sign the petition!

1. Wikimedia Deutschland has a works council and nonprofit-membership structure (see below)
2. Art+Feminism Workers United! – an ongoing union effort after mass dismissal. Unfortunately they are in a much weaker position (refer to the power resource approach above).

Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) is an autonomous non-profit that heavily contributes to MediaWiki, including the creation of Wikidata and its own version of Technical Wishes. Every few years, WMDE employees vote in 7-of their coworkers to represent them in the Wikimedia Deutschland works council, a German legally binding structure that approves the hiring/firing and transfer of employees. The works council's default regulatory powers are so powerful, it can even block the rollout of internal software not explicitly approved in a works agreement. If anything, because of employee input, WMDE and many other tech companies in Germany are in a better decision to make long-term technical decisions, because they are not afraid of being retaliated against, for merely questioning senior leadership.

User:Shushugah is a veteran Central Works Council chair and union organizer in an automotive tech company in Berlin, Germany. He spends his volunteer time editing Wikipedia and supporting unionization in transnational workplaces. He contributed to Signpost article on WikiProject Organized Labor and digital unionism on Wikipedia.

• Womack, John Jr. (2023). Olney, Peter; Perušek, Glenn (eds.). Labor Power and Strategy. PM Press. ISBN 9781629639741.
• "How to Start a Union at Your Workplace". Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee. 2026.
• Ripley, Amanda Tobin (2024). "The Passion Subsidy". The Power-Shifting Potential of Collectivism in US Art Museums. – challenges of unionizing in a workplace you are passionate about
• Cohen, Nicole S.; de Peuter, Greig (2020). New Media Unions: Organizing Digital Journalists. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780429449451. ISBN 978-0-429-44945-1.