Volunteer editors make up a vast majority of the workhorse in the encyclopedia. Here’s a post on how the strike will look like.

At WP:VPWMF § Petition: Editors willing to join in collective labor action, I’ve suggested the possibility of Wikipedia’s editorbase going on strike in solidarity with Wiki Workers United. As I stress at VPWMF, the details of such a strike would only be finalized in the event that a strike happens; supporting the conditional commitment to strike does not mean supporting exactly what I’ve written in this document. However, it seems prudent to sketch out an idea of how a strike might work, which is what I aim to do here.

What would the strike prohibit? Editors on strike would agree to refrain from any on-wiki activity that does not in some way further the goals of the strike, except as necessary to preserve the dignity of our readers, editors, and living biographical subjects. In particular, they would not: Edit or take other actions on content pages[a] or their talk pages, except to remove content that is so egregiously inappropriate as to require revision deletion, suppression, or speedy deletion as an attack page Revert, warn, or block accounts for routine violations of the vandalism policy, the username policy, or any content policies Participate in content improvement or curation processes such as Wikipedia:Good article nominations or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion How would the strike be enforced? The strike would be strictly voluntary. No one would be blocked or otherwise administratively sanctioned merely for not participating. However, nothing prevents striking editors from lobbying other editors to join, even in strongly-worded terms, so long as they are civil and do not harass people. Furthermore, nothing prevents striking editors from imposing social consequences against those who cross the picket line, for instance by saying that upon the end of the strike they will not review good article nominations or featured article nominations by former strikebreakers.

Would this require community consensus? Individual participation in the strike would not require community consensus. Organizing the strike and encouraging others to join would only require an absence of consensus forbidding it. If there is sufficient support for the strike among community members, community-level decisions could be made such as: Revoking authorization for bots that edit content pages Disabling software features that make editing easier, perhaps such as those that are maintained by Community Tech Authorizing a bot to notify users of the strike the first time they edit a content page Placing banner messages notifying readers of the strike

When would the strike end? A minimum criterion for ending the strike would be Wiki Workers United saying that it is no longer needed. However, the participants in the strike could !vote to add further criteria, such as greater accountability and community influence in WMF governance.

What if those criteria were never met? The community at all times reserves its fundamental right to fork the wiki if necessary.

Unfortunately and theoretically, the WMF could just resort to strikebreakers, like recruiting people through channels like WikiEd and so on.

This is one of the proofs. It’s completely understandable in human psychology when people initially goes into denial after being confronted with something shocking like that, as seen in the reactions by many people to the recent partial disclosure of the Epstein Files.

No, it was an “anti-contact MAP” who did it. We at here categorically condemn violence and hope that those who’re unhappy with Wikipedia can go to the likes of Grokipedia and HandWiki instead.

Roblox has a lot of problems in child safety aspects, such as the profileration of so-called condo games and inaction against child predators on the platform. YouTuber Schlep and others tried to raise the issues to Roblox but to no avail, and they had an easier time in collaborating with law enforcement to get chomos on the game platforms arrested instead.

Early this month Roblox, instead of using the banhammer against chomos, turned it against Schlep instead accusing the latter of “vigilantism” despite categorical refutations that Schlep had done everything by the books. It became the final straw as numerous influencers like KreekCraft expressed solidarities for Schlep and began to boycott Roblox.

The controversy got so big that Congressperson Ro Khanna launched a petition urging Roblox to fix its child safety issues and some U.S. states began to sue Roblox.