 Article display preview: | This is a draft of a potential Signpost article, and should not be interpreted as a finished piece. Its content is subject to review by the editorial team and ultimately by JPxG, the editor in chief. Please do not link to this draft as it is unfinished and the URL will change upon publication. If you would like to contribute and are familiar with the requirements of a Signpost article, feel free to be bold in making improvements!
| ||||
The Communications Workers of America will represent Wiki Workers United, the bargaining unit for eligible US-based staff within the Wikimedia Foundation after an NLRB-overseen vote ended with a clear result in favor of becoming unionized. There were 158 votes in support of unionization and 14 against. The WMF stated that collective bargaining will follow. During such bargaining the union is expected to demand a just cause protection from the WMF, a Wired report says:
Lauren de Lench, who has been a lead technical program manager at the Wikimedia Foundation since 2021, says she voted to unionize because she had seen too many colleagues decline to speak up during internal meetings out of fear of retaliation for raising issues or proposing far-out ideas.
Wired summarized the challenges facing the Wikimedia movement: "Wikipedia needs to make a bold push to become more attractive than AI—and shaping that strategy shouldn't be left to management alone." Similar demands were made by employees in the United Kingdom in June. According to Wired, the WMF halted hiring for product and technology roles in France earlier this year.
To date, the WMF has not provided any clarification on when it hired union busting firm Littler Mendelson and to what extent the firm's advice shaped WMF communications prior to the staff votes on unionization. At the time of writing, the last WMF word on the matter is a post by Jimmy Wales on 5 September saying:
I expect something from the WMF to be posted here soon on that question. I have encouraged them to be as transparent and open as possible, to the point of it feeling uncomfortable, and they don't disagree! The quiet period is over now, obviously, and we move on to the next phase.
As for me, I welcome the result, and I'm happy that it's clear. What I'd love to see from everyone is kindness and assuming good faith. And of course by that I mean both the WMF and their critics. I was happy to see the union acknowledging the WMF's good actions here, and I hope the critics will take that to heart.
On September 1st, 2026, the first issue of The Headword was published. According to the founders, the first English Wiktionary periodical aims to be "a place where editors can voice their thoughts, announce their accomplishments, and make silly creations." The first issue included an interview with a Wiktionary editor, a satirical piece, a traffic report on English Wiktionary, and an active discussion focusing on how to improve Foreign Word of the Day (FWOTD). The issue also includes a short history of the International Symbol of Access and a section with tips for editors.
The Headword was founded by editors who "believe Wiktionary has plenty of lexicography yet very little shared culture." The periodical is inspired by the French Wiktionary's Actualités, a wikipress newspaper established in 2015, as well as other Wikimedia community publications. English Wiktionary defines headword as "A word (or compound term) used as the title of a list entry or section, particularly in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or thesaurus." A convincing argument could be made that User:Noé predicted this journal in his Wikimania 2026 presentation. – W5
Wikimedia's longstanding Chief Advancement Officer Lisa Seitz-Gruwell left the Wikimedia Foundation last month and has been replaced as Chief Advancement Officer and President of the Wikimedia Endowment by Sheetal Puri, who has taken on both roles in an interim capacity.
Lisa had announced her upcoming departure before Wikimania, reflecting on 15 years at the WMF:
[...] When you spend a decade and a half immersed in the Wikimedia ecosystem, it fundamentally alters your worldview. We live in an era defined by digital fragmentation, where the dominant internet business models are built to monetize outrage, construct walled gardens, and divide our attention. Wikipedia stands in contrast to this, and it has been immensely rewarding to be a part of it.
What this community has proven is that humanity will actually choose to build something beautiful, collaborative, and entirely dedicated to the public good if they are simply given the space and the tools to do so. Protecting this global information commons has been a defining privilege in my professional life.
But I want to be entirely transparent with you: when I first arrived 15 years ago, I didn’t fully understand how this magic actually happened. And the community, quite healthily, didn’t fully know what to make of me either.
I think back to my first Wikimania, where I was viewed with a healthy, distinct dose of Wikimedian skepticism. To many of you, I wasn’t quite a peer yet; I was a walking dollar sign. I was affectionately—and sometimes pointedly—dubbed “the money lady.” There is a world where an executive might find that frustrating. But as I grew to understand this community, I realized that skepticism wasn’t a bug; it was a feature. It was the natural, protective immune system of a community that fiercely guards its independence and its values. It took some time to earn your trust, and honestly, that’s exactly how it should be.
In the process of earning that trust, you fundamentally changed me for the better.
Before Wikimedia, I thought I understood what collaboration meant. In the outside world, “collaboration” is often just a buzzword for a top-down committee meeting. You taught me what true collaboration looks like. It is messy, it is passionate, it requires patience, and it demands a profound willingness to listen to voices across different cultures, languages, and perspectives. You taught me that the best consensus isn’t the easiest one, but the one forged through rigorous debate and a shared devotion to truth. You patrolled my understanding of the community with the same terrifying, beautiful precision you use to patrol the edits on a featured article.
While my role focused primarily on building financial sustainability, I have always been acutely aware that the real value of Wikipedia isn’t the capital we raise—it’s the billions of edits you make. It is your late-night citation hunts, your copyright verifications, your formatting fixes, and your radical commitment to neutrality. You are the ones doing the heavy lifting. [...]
Lisa has now joined the Buck Institute for Research on Aging as Chief Advancement Officer. The Signpost wishes Lisa all the best in her new career setting. – AK
WP:GAN mega RFC (located at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/August 2026 RfC)
There were 35 separate proposals up for comment, grouped into these topics: nominators, nominations, reviews, reviewing initiatives, volunteer roles (coordinators), and other.
A special issue of Good Article Gazette "With several major discussions underway" preceded the RfC.
See The Signpost's 2010 "Dispatches" piece comparing Good Article review to other content rating and improvement initiatives. – B
.jpg)
Discuss this story
(This allows for greater visibility of discussions, makes archiving easier, and prevents discussions becoming disconnected from articles during the publication process)