Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Durova wrote: > Hm. > 31K, start-class > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought > 79K, featured: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson > That probably explains it, Fred. > -Durova > Well, to be fair, "history of Western thought" has a number of problems in its very premise that make it disinteresting for modern young people to deal with: 1) It uses the "east west" dichotomy, which automatically attaches to it certain qualitative assumptions and connotations about its distinctiveness from "eastern thought." 2) Taking active participation in the cementation of such concepts in the modern mind, when people really just want them obliterated and relegated to a pre-hyperconnected world's history, is anathema to the emergent collective mind. 3) And besides its a bit redundant; the concept of "western thought" is historical and needs not be qualified as "history." 4) And worse, the word "history" innately implies that the concept that any particularly "western" anything likewise has a similarly particular future, which violates 2. And anyway Bart Simpson is just plain freakin' timeless, regardless of his novelty. Ah- the interesting dichotomy between relevant and historical information, and (corollary) the dichotomy between the crusty old wiki encyclopedia and the flashy new hyperintuitive one. -Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
Hm. 31K, start-class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_thought 79K, featured: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_Simpson That probably explains it, Fred. -Durova On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > > > Fred Bauder wrote: > >> Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not > >> only > >> quote from the decision, but actually link to it. > >> > >> Fred > >> > > > > That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, > > and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits > > coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently > > it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or > > sites being hackedsplashy stuff that often is more about the > > sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the > > Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting > > of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have > > been ignored or sensationalizedinstead, it's a regular story, > > reported upon as if it were a local court ruling. > > > > I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of > > 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it. > > There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years > from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in > ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and > Wikipedia. > > Fred > > > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > -- http://durova.blogspot.com/ ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Fred Bauder wrote: >> Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not >> only >> quote from the decision, but actually link to it. >> >> Fred >> > > That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, > and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits > coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently > it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or > sites being hackedsplashy stuff that often is more about the > sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the > Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting > of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have > been ignored or sensationalizedinstead, it's a regular story, > reported upon as if it were a local court ruling. > > I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of > 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it. There is more coming, if you could look at a history written 20,000 years from now, there will be a short section on intellectual developments in ancient times and two developments will be mentioned, Plato's Academy and Wikipedia. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Fred Bauder wrote: > Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only > quote from the decision, but actually link to it. > > Fred > That was part of what interested me; the way that events on Wikipedia, and decisions made there, are now newsworthy events...stuff that merits coverage. Of course that has happened in the past, but most frequently it's been coverage of teens sexting, or men picking up 13-year-olds, or sites being hackedsplashy stuff that often is more about the sensation than actual relevance. This got noticed because of the Scientology angle, but it's otherwise low-key enough, simple reporting of a news event that might impact the reader. 5 years ago, it would have been ignored or sensationalizedinstead, it's a regular story, reported upon as if it were a local court ruling. I actually find that really refreshing, and an interesting measure of 'we have arrived'. It's not That Time yet, but it's an intimation of it. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkognbcACgkQdLl4k9IYqZo+KQCePEi3UZpM+5Jpn4cUM8AlKqLI KasAn0V1Ni2JNXLwylB9JUQKgrvRttsY =9lAi -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967.html > > Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting > that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered > notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, > as their 'lead' Media story. > > S. Actually, pretty good, aside from the misleading headline. They not only quote from the decision, but actually link to it. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
2009/5/30 Stephanie Clarkson : > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967.html > Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting > that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered > notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, > as their 'lead' Media story. It was on Fox News and in the Daily Mail. It's a mainstream story now. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] "Wikipedia Bans Scientology From Site" - Huffington Post
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/wikipedia-bans-scientolog_n_208967.html Aside from the atrocious and misleading headline, I find it interesting that the Huffington Post published this, and that it is considered notable enough to get feature billing on their main page, with an image, as their 'lead' Media story. S. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoggQMACgkQdLl4k9IYqZrzMwCgnXCJuBnjOpzh26P4VPzRTwfx jEQAoIDKqAB2uJxuo6pL6AIAXlJjcwr9 =bey5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On 29/05/2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: > Thomas Dalton wrote: >> And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day. >> >> _ > Touche! :-DDD And more remarkably she even survived 8 years of the wikipedia, that well-known deadly website, but only because it was suitably censored of course. > Jussi-Ville Heiskanen -- -Ian Woollard "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/5/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > >> Actually my life experience using wikipedia for self medication >> does not bear that out. There have been situtations where I was >> in dire straits, and without a doctor within easy reach, where >> simply consulting wikipedia provided me with the necessary >> information of which medicines I had been prescribed for >> completely different ailments, was a multipurpose drug >> workable in the situation I found myself. >> and that is a fact. I am sure there >> are phone-line services I could >> have consulted, but wikipedia >> worked ok. >> > > And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day. > > _ Touche! :-DDD Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
2009/5/29 Ian Woollard : > And what about the potential uses of information that could save > people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this > is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm. For the sake of the record, I've ended up using a Wikipedia article to check a prescription - I'd been given an antibiotic which I'd seen mentioned as used in treatment of the condition, but at a dosage about eight times lower. It turned out - and our article explained quite clearly and with detail - that there were two treatment regimes; one is basically a "short sharp shock", and the other runs over a week. I'd been placed on the second, but had only seen reference to the first. Score one to Wikipedia; I felt quite reassured knowing that. I can think of a number of cases where we could pose much more immediate risk to someone using Wikipedia as a quick-reference - household wiring, for example! "Oh, live is *blue*, right..." To be honest, this worry seems a bit presumptive about the suggestibility of our users. On the whole, people are much more likely to ring up a pharmacy and say "excuse me, are you sure this instruction is right?" than they are to decide the writing on the bottle was clearly wrong and they should take twenty tablets each morning rather than two... do people *really* decide to self-medicate based entirely on one thing they read on the internet, and go off and acquire the medication and so on without ever noticing anything to the contrary? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
> on 5/29/09 9:06 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >> Interactions between less than perfect people and less than perfect >> organizations are complex. We can do our best to be as compassionate as >> possible in all interactions, but there can be a great deal of pain >> regardless. That is one reason to try to keep the door open even with >> editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. >> > I agree with everything you say here, Fred. I was just stumbling over the > use of the word "suicide" in this context. As far as the Project dealing > "compassionately" with human interaction, I see no evidence of that. This > brings up the old question: What is more important, the product or the > people who create it? This Project has not successfully resolved that > question. > > Marc That attitude is an ideal for both administrators and arbitrators, and ultimately comes from Jimbo, who is very patient and forgiving with troublesome behavior. While there are massive failures, I do see lots of evidence of patience and forgiveness. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Perfection
< I hav been placed on moderation for feeding a troll. > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM, wrote: > I don't remember it that way. Maybe you could expand on that a bit. On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:14 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > Please don't. This list is not for discussions about the list, or its > participants. > Or its trolls, either. :) -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
2009/5/28 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen : > Actually my life experience using wikipedia for self medication > does not bear that out. There have been situtations where I was > in dire straits, and without a doctor within easy reach, where > simply consulting wikipedia provided me with the necessary > information of which medicines I had been prescribed for > completely different ailments, was a multipurpose drug > workable in the situation I found myself. > and that is a fact. I am sure there > are phone-line services I could > have consulted, but wikipedia > worked ok. And my grandmother is 100 years old and has smoked 40 a day. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On 29/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go > to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn. Likewise, chances are > low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an > aircraft. The chances that somebody will solely consult the wikipedia for prescription information is very low also. The chances that somebody will be vandalising the article at the same time is enormously lower still, and that the prescribing person doesn't notice that it has been vandalised is lower again. Even if that happens, it cannot be said that it is the wikipedia is at fault. We do not condone vandalism, nor do we condone using information based solely on the wikipedia in life-threatening scenarios; and I don't think that any other encyclopedia is different in this. This is a ridiculous over-reaction to something that has never happened in real life, and is extremely unlikely to occur, and even if it did happen would not be the responsibility, in any sensible way, of the wikipedia. > This is where the common sense comes in: some types of information are more > likely than others, *in practice*, to be used in situations where someone > can get hurt. Is there such thing as a situation where somebody cannot get hurt? And what about the potential uses of information that could save people's lives? One of the uses is to *check* a prescription, and this is a valid use that is much less likely to cause harm. -- -Ian Woollard "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On Fri, 29 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: > >> Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, > >> information from the wikipedia is common sense again? > > > > Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend > > on whether it's publically available, legal, or verifiable. > > You didn't answer the question. I want to know why legal information > that can be googled up in a minute or so shouldn't be in the > wikipedia. Because that's like saying "if everyone else litters, why shouldn't I litter, too". We have an obligation to avoid harm caused by us, even if other people may cause similar harm. And anyway, the other Googleable sites * are much less prone to vandalism and errors * are less trusted by Internet users * are much less *prominent*. > > (And anyway, it's only verifiable under ideal circumstances. > Straw man. It's not a straw man. You wanted to know why we should remove verifiable information. The answer is that if we have this particular verifiable information we will have time periods where it's vandalized (and therefore not verifiable at that moment). > > If we have it, it will get vandalized. > Unlike... the rest of the wikipedia? And nobody ever checks for and > removes vandalism of course. If it gets vandalized and the vandalism is fixed, there's an interval of time when the vandalism is in existence. This is an acceptable cost if the article is about George Washington's birthdate; it's not an acceptable cost when someone could get hurt. Moreover, the time it takes to fix vandalism can vary greatly, and several factors make it more likely that vandalism will stick around on drug articles than on, say, the Obama artlcle. > So on that 'logic' we should remove all information that even > theoretically could be harmful from the wikipedia immediately, because > ummm... it might get vandalised! > So I think we should start with the hydrogen article. Knowledge of > hydrogen could get people killed! It's an EXPLOSIVE GAS We should > definitely remove the flammability limits- it's heinous that people > should know how much hydrogen you need to burn it!!! People could die. Chances are very low that someone who wants to burn hydrogen is going to go to Wikipedia to find out how much they need to burn. Likewise, chances are low that someone's going to use Wikipedia's information to build an aircraft. This is where the common sense comes in: some types of information are more likely than others, *in practice*, to be used in situations where someone can get hurt. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Perfection
> I don't remember it that way. Maybe you could expand on that a bit. Please don't. This list is not for discussions about the list, or its participants. Steve ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? >>> -- -Ian Woollard >> >> on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >>> I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by >>> users, >>> not readers... >>> >> If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be >> careful >> with that thought. >> >> Marc Riddell on 5/29/09 9:06 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > > Interactions between less than perfect people and less than perfect > organizations are complex. We can do our best to be as compassionate as > possible in all interactions, but there can be a great deal of pain > regardless. That is one reason to try to keep the door open even with > editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. > I agree with everything you say here, Fred. I was just stumbling over the use of the word "suicide" in this context. As far as the Project dealing "compassionately" with human interaction, I see no evidence of that. This brings up the old question: What is more important, the product or the people who create it? This Project has not successfully resolved that question. Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
> >>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you >>> know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? >> >>> -- >>> -Ian Woollard >>> > > on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by >> users, >> not readers... >> > If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be > careful > with that thought. > > Marc Riddell Interactions between less than perfect people and less than perfect organizations are complex. We can do our best to be as compassionate as possible in all interactions, but there can be a great deal of pain regardless. That is one reason to try to keep the door open even with editors that are troublesome and be forgiving of human weakness. Fred Bauder ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
>> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you >> know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? > >> -- >> -Ian Woollard >> on 5/29/09 8:30 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by users, > not readers... > If you are serious here, Fred, that is quite a statement. Please be careful with that thought. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
> Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you > know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? > -- > -Ian Woollard > I'm pretty sure we're partially to blame for a suicide or two, by users, not readers... Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Docs look to Wikipedia for condition info: Manhattan Research
On 28/05/2009, Ken Arromdee wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009, Ian Woollard wrote: >> Please explain how removing publicly available, legal, verifiable, >> information from the wikipedia is common sense again? > > Because whether it's common sense to remove the material doesn't depend > on whether it's publically available, legal, or verifiable. You didn't answer the question. I want to know why legal information that can be googled up in a minute or so shouldn't be in the wikipedia. > (And anyway, it's only verifiable under ideal circumstances. Straw man. > If we have it, it will get vandalized. Unlike... the rest of the wikipedia? And nobody ever checks for and removes vandalism of course. > The vandalized version, of course, won't be verifiable, but it's still going > to stick around for a while.) So on that 'logic' we should remove all information that even theoretically could be harmful from the wikipedia immediately, because ummm... it might get vandalised! So I think we should start with the hydrogen article. Knowledge of hydrogen could get people killed! It's an EXPLOSIVE GAS We should definitely remove the flammability limits- it's heinous that people should know how much hydrogen you need to burn it!!! People could die. Then there's all the metals. A lot of those are poisonous! Copper, lead, cadmium; somebody could poison somebody! People could die. And the articles on flight, somebody might try to build an aircraft, and die!!! Aircraft pages need to go! People could die. Do you want to do the AFDs or should I? I reckon we should have maybe 10-20% of the wikipedia left before we've finished, flower arranging (without using any of those dangerous pins though, you could prick your finger and get an infection and die) and so forth. I think we need to do away with all the geology articles, people might throw rocks at each other. Maybe drawing and stuff about crayons can stay, provided we can prove that people usually don't eat too many. In fact, perhaps we need to just shut the whole wikipedia down- somebody could choke on the crayons. People could die. >> I think this is madness. And further, I don't have to follow it >> anyway. You're espousing censorship, but it's a *core value* that the >> wikipedia is *not* censored. > > IAR is a core value, and supersedes all other core values. It's never > legitimate to say "we should ignore common sense because our core values > don't allow for it". Common sense is the *lowest* level of intelligence. Has anyone you know, actually died or got injured from the wikipedia, ever? The wikipedia itself is not common sense. -- -Ian Woollard "All the world's a stage... but you'll grow out of it eventually." ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] September 11, 2001 coverage
> > I have had the opportunity to read, and to review, all of the > English Wikipedia articles, materials, and various lists related to the > September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States; and I want to > thank, and to congratulate, everyone who contributed. Wonderful job! It is > an excellent example of what a truly collaborative community can do. I would agree that the coverage is excellent, but turbulence does emerge upon occasion (for example, on the Controlled demolition theories 9/11 article). Our progress on the subject area can only continued if our contributors maintain their levels of professionalism and if the project's administrators continue to be vigilant for problematic conduct. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
