Talk:Unionization in the tech sector

Content creator unions
Some example of content creator unions include the following:
 * United States SAG-AFTRA expanded membership criteria to include content creators NYTimes influencers union


 * Germany IG Metall and Youtube Union launch Fairtube in 2019. In 2021, Fairtube becomes a registered eV (non profit) with membership due structure. FairCrowd article


 * United Kingdom The Creator Union, [Hart] laments that, as an influencer, her job is too “niche” for unionisation. Launch of the creator union

Thoughts? This is partly media, part platforms and partly due to exclusion of digital media/work in typical media/creative unions until recently. Shushugah (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

On Listing New Union Announcements from the Source
Hi there! I used to edit many years ago, and am only recently getting back into it, so I want to say upfront I'm very much learning and new to things, and would appreciate any guidance and extra advice!

I suppose my question is primarily to, but if anyone can help, I'd appreciate it.

I recently added a table of US based tech industry / tech worker unions. For some they had clearly independent press coverage that was easy to cite. For others there might not have been a article to use, but the source themselves announced their creation or certification.

I understand self-published sources are generally to be avoided, but I thought the Wikipedia:Verifiability page says that self-published sources can be used under certain conditions, that I felt were met.

[|This section] in particular is what I'm referencing:

"Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the subject on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook."

These sources don't seem to make any claims about third parties, I see no reasonable doubt about authenticity, and the article itself is very much not based on self-published sources, simply a few examples are.

I believe even smaller tech / digital worker units are notable and should be listed in this context, but am I misunderstanding the guidelines?

Any help appreciated! Thanks! Wikiprole (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Wikiprole There are a number of potential issues we should be mindful. Sometimes a tweet can be made to make a claim about others, for example whether an employer grants recognition or not, is not the same as confirming WP:ABOUTSELF. It also is potentially WP:PRIMARY and WP:Original research and letting journalists analyze these tweets is much more worthwhile. We're not WP:NOTNEWS. The main source of info, that could be useful I think is what local a unit is affiliated with, which is seldom included in news reports and has no deep reason to not believe it. Other claims, should require higher sourcing quality. So in general, not a fan of relying on self published tweets. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Shushugah's comments, and would add that since a union is TRYING to achieve recognition, they themselves shouldn't be trusted to state whether they did or not, that is a decision from the NLRB, and would then be stated in a newspaper article: an Independent Source: WP:IS.


 * Also, as both WP:NOTNEWS and WP:IS talk about, not every "event" or as you are describing "smaller tech / digital worker units" are important enough to deserve mention in Wikipedia; for example with crime, my city newspaper publishes every murder, but not every armed robbery or theft, whereas larger scale organized thefts like looting did make the papers.


 * As an unrelated comment, I looked again at this article, and I believe that some of what I deleted as unsourced from the table might have Independent Sources in a section that I had not read when I removed the table entries; if so than we can restore those table entries and include the sources for each. Sorry I didn't notice this in my quick recent visit to this article. --- Avatar317 (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you both @Avatar317 @Shushugah SO much this was incredibly helpful! Especially the example of requesting voluntary recognition is a matter that includes the company, where as local affiliation doesn't involve the company. I hadn't thought about it in that way before, super helpful!


 * @Avatar317 Yes I believe several had 3rd party sources on the campaigns I listed, I'm not sure how to revert changes myself, so if you'd like to do that, or if I should manually add them again, happy to do whatever is useful! Wikiprole (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)