Technology

Besides, we have seen it work recently. A bunch of local stations took Kimmel off the air, pressuring Disney to cancel his show. So Disney was about to cancel Kimmel, and instead everybody canceled their Hulu/Disney+ memberships, and a couple of days later, Kimmel was back.

and made way for one that will.

I think that's the problem. Have you seen how hard it can be these days to rally volunteers to a common cause? Even if people were to back up and preserve all the content of Wikipedia, WM Commons, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikidata etc., getting enough of the original contributors on board to found some new organisation without a thousand splinter factions pulling away over some issue or other is a long shot.

And in the meantime, for-profit corporations now bereft of their largest, free competitor would rush to fill the void and try to become the "new Wikipedia" (now with ads, spyware, premium features and blatant corruption, selling control of truth to the highest bidder).

WMF is a behemoth, kept moving through its own momentum. Letting it break in hopes of building something new is a dangerous gamble, unless we can get the successor up and ready to step in beforehand

I can't disagree with the points being made in the replies here. It doesn't seem like continuing to give them more money will help the situation, and maybe a funding crunch would be the incentive they need to change course and save the organization. Or maybe it would just accelerate its demise.

I guess I'd rephrase my previous statement to: Wikipedia has been one of the world's greatest free repositories of public knowledge for decades, and it would be a terrible thing for the world to lose that resource. The contributors and employees were always the reason it was such a great resource. If an organization can't exist without exploiting the people that are responsible for its product, then I agree, it should die and make way for something else. But I (perhaps naively) believe that Wikipedia can exist without exploitation, so the present situation is not fundamental to the organization; it's the result of poor leadership. So while I don't want to kill it by withholding funding to send a message, the leadership may kill it anyway by refusing to negotiate with their workers in good faith.

This is yet another case where I can see people in power ruining something I loved, and I don't know what can be done from the outside. From that standpoint, yeah... if Wikipedia is damned if I do and damned if I don't, then it's better to "don't".

They mention in the US they are affiliated with the US branch of Communications Workers of America (CWA). "Separately, the WWU-UK branch has affiliated with United Tech and Allied Workers (UTAW), a national branch of the Communication Workers Union (CWU)." You can see their FAQ for more details.