Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Oliver: I mean I'm working on a comprehensive answer to your question (singular). Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: Thank you for your thoughtful replies. Oliver: I'm working on a comprehensive answer to your questions. Anders: I, too, am very relieved when I see something from a scholarly society or highly-regarded institution out-ranking us on search engine results for medical queries, and am pleased to see Google relying on such sources and not Wikipedia for their sum of all human knowledge. In case it got lost in the terrible formatting of my opening post, I'd very much like to know if the foundation intends employing staff to oversee the measurement of Wikipedia/-media quality and to nurture strategic initiatives aimed at making Wikipedia more reliable. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: For medical articles we at svwp are very wary as there exist very good webpages issued by the health authorities related to all healthproblems and we certainly do not want our wp pages to contradict those. We encountered severe problems when the English(American) articles were first introduced at svwp, as their recommendation differed from what is recommended here. For example when you have an urinary tract infection, it is here often not treated at all here, as bacteria is seen as normal, not to be taken away. But the big problem was he different recommendation of use of antibiotics and penicillin, which are prescribed much more restricted here then in US. In our case we came to a proper article but only after long discussion, and most of us are laymen in medicin, so not able to check as closely all articles. And actually we at svwp are quite happy that the webpages from the authorities on health is ranked higher then our pages, at least when articles have sections around treatment and recommended prescriptions. Anders Oliver Keyes skrev den 2015-04-05 19:36: Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health issues. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: (I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete that earlier version?) Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it. — Freeman Dyson, How We Know The New York Review of Books, 10 March 2011. (Discussing recent UK survey results.) We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us. — Jimmy Wales, State of the Wiki Wikimania speech, 10 August 2014. The Wikimedia Foundation vision: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. But knowledge of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its knowledge graph. Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on page two. The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading Focus on knowledge community is Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people can trust?* Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links New Scientist 2. Hal Hodson 20
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Thank you for your thoughtful replies. Oliver: I'm working on a comprehensive answer to your questions. Anders: I, too, am very relieved when I see something from a scholarly society or highly-regarded institution out-ranking us on search engine results for medical queries, and am pleased to see Google relying on such sources and not Wikipedia for their sum of all human knowledge. In case it got lost in the terrible formatting of my opening post, I'd very much like to know if the foundation intends employing staff to oversee the measurement of Wikipedia/-media quality and to nurture strategic initiatives aimed at making Wikipedia more reliable. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: For medical articles we at svwp are very wary as there exist very good webpages issued by the health authorities related to all healthproblems and we certainly do not want our wp pages to contradict those. We encountered severe problems when the English(American) articles were first introduced at svwp, as their recommendation differed from what is recommended here. For example when you have an urinary tract infection, it is here often not treated at all here, as bacteria is seen as normal, not to be taken away. But the big problem was he different recommendation of use of antibiotics and penicillin, which are prescribed much more restricted here then in US. In our case we came to a proper article but only after long discussion, and most of us are laymen in medicin, so not able to check as closely all articles. And actually we at svwp are quite happy that the webpages from the authorities on health is ranked higher then our pages, at least when articles have sections around treatment and recommended prescriptions. Anders Oliver Keyes skrev den 2015-04-05 19:36: Has there been work to determine the accuracy of our medical coverage that's found it lacking? All the studies I've seen have said it's pretty good, but that was a while ago, and I know anecdotally that we've got a lot of work to do around, for example, womens' health issues. On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: (I just posted this with bad formatting. Would a moderator please delete that earlier version?) Among my friends and acquaintances, everybody distrusts Wikipedia and everybody uses it. — Freeman Dyson, How We Know The New York Review of Books, 10 March 2011. (Discussing recent UK survey results.) We're trusted slightly more than the BBC. Now, that's a little scary, and probably inappropriate. ... We all know it's flawed. We all know we don't do as good a job as we wish we could do ... People trusted Encyclopedia Britannica - I think it was, like - 20 points ahead of us. — Jimmy Wales, State of the Wiki Wikimania speech, 10 August 2014. The Wikimedia Foundation vision: Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. But knowledge of something implies confidence in its accuracy. While Wikipedia is untrustworthy, it is purveying something other than knowledge. This is a problem for the foundation, since it is failing to realise its vision - and for humankind, who deserves an encyclopaedia it can trust. It is also a critical, existential vulnerability for Wikipedia. Google is factoring trustworthiness into its ranking algorithm.[1][2] It has already stopped using Wikipedia's medical articles in its knowledge graph. Rightly. Soon we'll see Wikipedia's medical content (rightly) demoted from (often) the top search result to 5th or 10th - or oblivion (rightly) on page two. The recently released State of the Wikimedia Foundation 2015 Call to Action [3] lists a set of objectives. One of the items under the heading Focus on knowledge community is Improve our measures of community health and content quality, and fund effective community and content initiatives. The quality parameter that most needs measuring and improving is reliability/trustworthiness - if we take the survival of Wikipedia as an important goal. *Will the Foundation be funding any staff positions whose purpose is to measure the quality of the encyclopedia and nurture strategic initiatives specifically aimed at making Wikipedia an encyclopedia people can trust?* Five years ago the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan [4] resolved to measure and measurably improve the quality of our offering, and no resources were allocated and it did not happen. 1. Hal Hodson 28 February 2015 Google wants to rank websites based on facts not links New Scientist 2. Hal Hodson 20 August 2014 Google's fact-checking bots build vast knowledge bank New Scientist 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/State_of_ the_Wikimedia_Foundation#2015_Call_to_Action 4.
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
With respect to the SV medical content issue: 1) Urinary tract infections are treated with antibiotics in Sweden. I have check with a Swedish speaking medical professional 2) Asymptomatic pyuria is NOT a urinary tract infection. They are not to be treated with antibiotics in either Sweden or any were else (unless a person is pregnancy) It would be good to stop confusing the two. Something appears to have been lost in translation somewhere. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well. For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact. This 2010 review in Hepatology states Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Thanks Lane. Bloody Mayo Clinic. Google can dump them, too, in my opinion. Has anyone told Google? Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: James: Google obviously made a bad choice of source there, or a good source got something catastrophically wrong. That does not mean Google (or anyone) should rely on Wikipedia's systemically unreliable content. Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: James: Wow. Like wow. Do you have screen shots of that Google Hep C thing? That's appalling. Is there any indication of what the source was? My mate runs the local Hep C council and that particular canard is something they fight very hard to debunk. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well. For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact. This 2010 review in Hepatology states Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
James: Google obviously made a bad choice of source there, or a good source got something catastrophically wrong. That does not mean Google (or anyone) should rely on Wikipedia's systemically unreliable content. Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:40 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: James: Wow. Like wow. Do you have screen shots of that Google Hep C thing? That's appalling. Is there any indication of what the source was? My mate runs the local Hep C council and that particular canard is something they fight very hard to debunk. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 8:36 PM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: While Wikipedia's medical content is far from perfect, Google knowledge graphs however have issues as well. For example they say that Hepatitis C is MAINLY spread by sexual contact. This 2010 review in Hepatology states Regarding heterosexual transmission, the weight of evidence is that there is no increased risk of sexual transmission of HCV among heterosexual couples in regular relationships WHO says it is a less common method. The main methods of transmission are injection drug use and unscreened blood transmission. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Q on the 2013 elections re voter breakdown
Thanks, Katie, James, yes, the list on vote.wikimedia.org was quite useful for a first check. What I was looking for was exactly such a list, but annotated with which requirements they fulfilled, but as James says, it can be surmised mostly. I was curious whether staff and contractors of the Foundation or the MediaWiki developers had a particularly large impact on the results, especially considering that the number of voters have declined so much last time, but looking through that list it does not seem like that. Thank you for the help, Denny On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:25 PM James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote: Aye, as Katie said we do not keep track of who voted under what requirements (and many of them are, indeed, eligible under multiple requirements). You can see a list at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/290 and probably surmise some of it from there but once they voted, if they were eligible, they went into one giant bucket. James Alexander Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Katie Chan k...@ktchan.info wrote: On 06/04/2015 18:14, Denny Vrandečić wrote: Hi, regarding the Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013, I was trying to find a breakdown of the voters, i.e. how many voted based on which requirements, i.e. as editors, developers, staff and contractors, and board members, but I could not find anything. I would appreciate a pointer to that data. As far as I can remember, that's not something that's collected. A list of eligible voters are created and fed to the software, which either let or don't let someone vote. All votes are recorded the same regardless of how someone is qualified to vote, which may of course be via more than one way. Katie -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. http://www.avast.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
On related points concerning the accuracy level and overall usefulness of Wikipedia as compared with other resources, people may be interested in my posting here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#A_reference_librarian_reviews_Wikipedia and the second half of my book review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-07-30/Book_review Regards, Newyorkbrad/IBM On 4/7/15, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote: It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Back in 1989-90 I was working in a telecom company. We then said mobile phones can never really challange fixed phone as it is not at all reliable compared with fixed phone and will never be of the same quality. We then learnt reliable enough for the purpose it it used for as an explanation for the explosive use of mobiles for almost all usages I use to to say Wikipedia consists of a number, say 1000, encyclopedias on different subject areas. And I would say for something like 80% of these wp is reliable enough and in many cases outstanding compared to competitors. In many subject areas there does not even exist an alternative. But in some areas, say 20% of total there exist good alternatives if we look at content, and in some cases (like health) I see the demand for reliability and quality so high that perhaps wp can not be seen as the best alternative. (and the Hot line still rely on the fixed phone...) I am proud to (again) be part of a movement that wins the world by producing products that are being reliable enough for its purpose at the same time being extremely easy to access and useful Anders Anthony Cole skrev den 2015-04-07 19:16: It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
That's a really good point, Anders. I agree 100%. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 2:37 AM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se wrote: Back in 1989-90 I was working in a telecom company. We then said mobile phones can never really challange fixed phone as it is not at all reliable compared with fixed phone and will never be of the same quality. We then learnt reliable enough for the purpose it it used for as an explanation for the explosive use of mobiles for almost all usages I use to to say Wikipedia consists of a number, say 1000, encyclopedias on different subject areas. And I would say for something like 80% of these wp is reliable enough and in many cases outstanding compared to competitors. In many subject areas there does not even exist an alternative. But in some areas, say 20% of total there exist good alternatives if we look at content, and in some cases (like health) I see the demand for reliability and quality so high that perhaps wp can not be seen as the best alternative. (and the Hot line still rely on the fixed phone...) I am proud to (again) be part of a movement that wins the world by producing products that are being reliable enough for its purpose at the same time being extremely easy to access and useful Anders Anthony Cole skrev den 2015-04-07 19:16: It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping. Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote: Wikipedia should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters . That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so. Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your research there. -- Marc ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] Regarding knowledge
Wikipedia has been, is, ever shall be a work in progress. I don't think
anyone is denying that any Wikimedia project is imperfect nor is anyone
suggesting that there is no room for improvement. Regarding
trustworthiness, *Доверяй, но проверяй* [Trust, but verify
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify]. One should always go to
the citation sources. A Wikipedia will always be a summary of information,
not the be-all or end-all.
Anthony, if your comments were on on Wiki, I might have posted {{Uw-sofixit
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Uw-sofixitredirect=no}}
on your talk page. Please, we need you help. If you see something wrong,
please be bold fix it. Sometimes Wikipedia can only be improved one
article one edit at a time.
Yours,
Peaceray
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able
to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need to get that through your
heads or you'll wake up one morning soon and find Wikipedia on page 2 of
Google and you out of a job. This is the most important issue facing
Wikipedia. Denial isn't helping.
Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
wrote:
On 15-04-07 12:51 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
Wikipedia
should not be trusted for anything - least of all health matters .
That's a perfectly true, but perfectly vacuous assertion. Wikipedia
should be trusted exactly as much as any other single source may be
trusted, for exactly the same reason. Striving to find the most
reliable sources is fraught with pitfalls whether you attempt do to it
yourself or rely on the collective efforts of Wikipedia editors to do so.
Wikipedia is a giant collection of summaries and overview of topics, and
it never pretendend to be anything else. If you *end* your reasearch
there for anything of importance, then you commit as sin no graver (nor
lighter) than picking any other random book on the topic and ending your
research there.
-- Marc
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [US media] Wikimedia on US television program 60 Minutes tonight
If I may, I’d like to offer some tips into the optimal use of Twitter to both thank 60 Minutes and increase the impact of the report for Wikimedia via your followers: - Don’t start your tweet with either @saferCBS or @jschieberg. When you start a tweet with an @ address, generally speaking, only people who follow both you will see it. - Include a photo for maximum engagement by others. Ideal aspect ratio is 2/1. I have created several for anyone to use: https://www.yousendit.com/download/UlRRZUNnQ3R6NElPd3NUQw. Note: I don’t know what the issues are about taking a screenshot. - Include the link to the CBS website. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-cameras-go-to-wikimania/ Everybody benefits from more people viewing this. - Repeat your tweet. Believe it or not, most of my tweets are repeated 3 x eight hours apart. Each time, the click throughs are the same. So as an illustrative example, my first tweet was: “ Thanks for the great coverage @saferCBS and @jschieberg. Loved http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-cameras-go-to-wikimania/ The final result is: https://twitter.com/GuyKawasaki/status/585111806403674112 Then I repeated at the end of the day: “ Thanks for the great coverage @saferCBS and @jschieberg of Wikipedia. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-cameras-go-to-wikimania/ “ This looked like this: https://twitter.com/GuyKawasaki/status/585253520774836224 Anyway, food for thought. Guy On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 6:14 PM, Sam Klein sjkl...@hcs.harvard.edu wrote: It was really quite good. Worth watching for those who can find copies. They do all follow Twitter closely, even if the spinoff _140 Seconds_ hasn't been so popular.SJ On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 4:16 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Very nice piece, if a little hazy on details. Katherine, how would you suggest that we thank _60 Minutes_? We can tweet to them, although there may be better ways. Cheers, Pine On Apr 5, 2015 11:30 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Excellent, thanks Katherine. I'll check the 60 Minutes segment to see if they have ideas that I can reuse for the video productions that some of us are working on this year. It sounds like their intended audience is different, more aimed at educating readers than educating potential editors or researchers, so it remains to be seen how much overlap there will be. I look forward to watching the episode. Pine On Apr 5, 2015 4:17 AM, Katherine Maher kma...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi everyone, For the past year, the US television program* 60 Minutes*[1] has been working on a segment on Wikimedia. We learned that it will air today Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST, and will be available for streaming on the* 60** Minutes* website (http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/), reportedly without any geo IP restrictions, shortly after it airs. We wanted to let you know in case you are interested in watching. *60 Minutes *doesn't allow subjects to preview their scripts, but here's what we expect: *BASICS* Title: Wikimania Host: Morley Safer Length: 13-17 minutes Audience: ~12 million, US, general interest, mature audience. Time: Sunday, April 5, at 7 p.m. EST/PST Availability: Streaming at the* 60** Minutes*/site shortly after airdate; no geo IP restrictions *THEMES* *60** Minutes* prides itself in making complicated realities easily understandable. It will be a high-level introduction for a general audience, and may even seem simplistic for a community member. We expect the segment to be positive, focusing on how Wikipedia is created by volunteers from all over the world, and emphasizing how unusual the projects are. In terms of negatives, the feature may include some stale stereotypes about Wikimedians as socially awkward, the gender gap, and inaccuracies. The segment will feature: - Interviews with Jimmy, Sue, and Lila - A short profile of Jimmy as founder. - Storytelling from Wikimania London. - Examples of people involved with Wikipedia including: Dumi Ndubane and Bobby Shabangu of Wikimedia ZA; Dorothy Howard leading a GLAM editathon at the Frick museum in NY; and an interview with NYC Wikipedian Amanda Levendowski. - Notable facts and figures about Wikipedia, its global popularity, depth, and user support. You can currently find preview clips here: http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/ Thanks to everyone for your support and participation! Katherine [1] *60 Minutes* is one of the most popular television shows in the Unites States, reaching an audience of as many as 15 million people each week. Morley Safer, the journalist, is one of the best known hosts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_Safer -- Katherine Maher Chief Communications
[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ask questions, give feedback on six annual plan grant proposals for the FDC!
tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30! Hello Wikimedians, Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding. This year (2014-2015), the FDC has USD $6 million to allocate to movement organizations to help advance our strategic goals. In Round 1, $3,817,956 was allocated to movement organizations, [3] leaving $2,182,044 for Round 2. In mid-May, the Funds Dissemination Committee will meet face-to-face, prior to the Wikimedia conference, to deliberate on and then make recommendations to the WMF Board of Trustees about how to grant funds to these organizations, in order to achieve mission-related impact. We invite you and all other community members to review any or all of the proposals, and to share your thoughts and ask questions on the discussion pages of the proposals. General questions or comments can also be made in the General comments section. [4] The community review period lasts until April 30, 2015. Applicants are also expected to respond to comments and questions during this period, although they are not able to change the proposal form itself after the submission date. The FDC will review the discussion pages and will use the questions and comments as one of their many inputs into the decision-making process. To join other community consultations, visit the noticeboard. [5] You can join in by reviewing the proposals [2] and adding your comments on the discussion pages. Proposals are available in English, but comments and questions can be made in any language. As a member of the Wikimedia community, your review helps make the grantmaking process more transparent, collaborative and robust. Feedback and questions from the community are an important input into the proposal review process, and the FDC considers them seriously. The major milestones for the rest of this round is as follows: [6] * Community review: 1 April 2015 - 30 April 2015 * Staff assessments published: 8 May 2015 * FDC deliberations: 12-14 May 2015 * FDC recommendation published: by 1 June 2015 * Appeals or complaints submitted: by 8 June 2015 * Board of Trustees decision: by 1 July 2015 * Start of new grant terms: 1 July 2015 Please let us know if you have any questions, concerns, or feedback about the process. You can reach the FDC staff at fdcsupp...@wikimedia.org Warm regards, Katy Love Senior Program Officer Funds Dissemination Committee Wikimedia Foundation [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2 [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/FDC_portal/FDC_recommendations/2014-2015_round1 [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2/Community_review#General_comments [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Current_community_consultations [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information#Calendar ___ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ask questions, give feedback on six annual plan grant proposals for the FDC!
APGs are the way that chapters and thorgs request funding from the Wikimedia Foundation. Usergroups are ineligible. See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-23/News_and_notes On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:09 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Katy Love wrote: tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30! Hello Wikimedians, Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding. Hi. I've looked through some of this briefly and I'm still unclear what an annual plan grant is, exactly. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG and your e-mail directed me to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information, but I'm still not totally sure I get it. Are annual plan grants open to anyone or just affiliated groups? I took a look at this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2. It seems like annual plan grants are (mostly?) for certain types of Wikimedia chapters? Are the grants considered one-time or recurring? Perhaps more specifically: how are the funds distributed throughout a year? I also thought annual plan grant might mean that the money is specifically intended to fund annual plans of other organizations, but I'm struggling to find a clear definition on Meta-Wiki at the moment. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
[Wikimedia-l] WMF office location and remodel
Hi Garfield, I'm asking this on Wikimedia-l because a number of Wikimedians have noted the expensiveness of the San Francisco area including its high cost of living for staff, employer competition for engineering talent, and associated high salaries for WMF employees. I see on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/8a/RFP_for_Real_Estate_Services.pdf that WMF is considering relocating its offices when its current main office lease expires. Questions: What happens to the remodel expenses that WMF is paying for at its current location? If WMF vacates the premesis, will it be compensated for the remodel by the building owner? I hope that WMF is contemplating fully exiting the San Francisco market area in order to economize, get better value for our donors' funds, have less competition for talent, and lower costs of living for staff. Is this being considered? Thanks very much, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] WMF office location and remodel
Postscript (sorry): this isn't a time-sensitive question, so please respond at your convenience. Thanks (: Pine On Apr 7, 2015 9:58 PM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Garfield, I'm asking this on Wikimedia-l because a number of Wikimedians have noted the expensiveness of the San Francisco area including its high cost of living for staff, employer competition for engineering talent, and associated high salaries for WMF employees. I see on http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/8/8a/RFP_for_Real_Estate_Services.pdf that WMF is considering relocating its offices when its current main office lease expires. Questions: What happens to the remodel expenses that WMF is paying for at its current location? If WMF vacates the premesis, will it be compensated for the remodel by the building owner? I hope that WMF is contemplating fully exiting the San Francisco market area in order to economize, get better value for our donors' funds, have less competition for talent, and lower costs of living for staff. Is this being considered? Thanks very much, Pine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ask questions, give feedback on six annual plan grant proposals for the FDC!
Katy Love wrote: tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30! Hello Wikimedians, Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding. Hi. I've looked through some of this briefly and I'm still unclear what an annual plan grant is, exactly. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG and your e-mail directed me to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information, but I'm still not totally sure I get it. Are annual plan grants open to anyone or just affiliated groups? I took a look at this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2. It seems like annual plan grants are (mostly?) for certain types of Wikimedia chapters? Are the grants considered one-time or recurring? Perhaps more specifically: how are the funds distributed throughout a year? I also thought annual plan grant might mean that the money is specifically intended to fund annual plans of other organizations, but I'm struggling to find a clear definition on Meta-Wiki at the moment. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] Ask questions, give feedback on six annual plan grant proposals for the FDC!
This page explains the eligibility. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Eligibility Sydney On Apr 8, 2015 12:09 AM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: Katy Love wrote: tl;dr:[0] Please join the community review for six annual plan grant proposals requesting USD $1.5 million in movement funds. Add your questions and comments to the proposals until April 30! Hello Wikimedians, Round 2 of the Annual Plan Grants program [1] is underway, and the Community Review process is open for your comments and questions. In this round, six proposals were submitted to the Funds Dissemination Committee, by the Centre for Internet and Society, Wikimedia Armenia, Wikimédia France, Wikimedia Italia, Wikimedia Norge, and Wikimedia ZA -- with total requests of USD $1,531,687. [2] These six proposals, developed based on the organizations' annual plans, include programmatic and operational costs, and are requests for general funding. Hi. I've looked through some of this briefly and I'm still unclear what an annual plan grant is, exactly. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG and your e-mail directed me to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Information, but I'm still not totally sure I get it. Are annual plan grants open to anyone or just affiliated groups? I took a look at this page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2. It seems like annual plan grants are (mostly?) for certain types of Wikimedia chapters? Are the grants considered one-time or recurring? Perhaps more specifically: how are the funds distributed throughout a year? I also thought annual plan grant might mean that the money is specifically intended to fund annual plans of other organizations, but I'm struggling to find a clear definition on Meta-Wiki at the moment. MZMcBride ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
