User:Tamzin/What would an editorial strike 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 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; the same of course is true for editors trying to dissuade people from striking. This kind of lobbying, when it occurs within the bounds of policy, is one of several forms of social pressure that are inherent to the wiki consensus-building model. Other, more active forms of social pressure, such as holding it against people which side they've taken, are in my opinion generally non-constructive, and are more likely to be ruled as against policy; at the same time, anyone supporting a strike should be aware of the inescapable reality that some things of this nature would occur, much as they do at contentious policy discussions and RfAs already, and that, while a strike would in some ways be an opportunity for the community to come together, in other ways it would increase division. I say that not as a threat, but because I think it's important to be transparent about the reality of social dynamics during a strike.

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.

Would a strike be a good thing?

No, not in itself. A strike at any workplace (or here, volunteer project) will hurt the product being made (our encyclopedia), the "workers" (our editors), "management" (our site host), and the "customer" (our readers). If a strike doesn't do that, I would argue it's not really a strike. The fact that strikes aren't good for anyone involved is what makes them work. They are something that workers (or editors) threaten against management (or host) to avoid an even worse outcome.

I think it's reasonable to oppose any strike on the basis of the harm it would cause. It's also reasonable to be okay with the idea of a strike in some cases, but to think that the good done through WWU solidarity wouldn't be worth the harm. I would of course prefer that people support the conditional pledge for a solidarity strike, but that should be an informed decision that is conscious of the realities of what strikes do.