[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Àlex Hinojo]

+1

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 07:13, Peter Southwood 
wrote:

> A Wikipedia account *should* be under the control of Wikipedians,
> following the editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the
> technical work if such exists.  WMF can and should run Wikimedia accounts.
> WMF running a Wikipedia account could be misrepresentation.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> *From:* Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 19 January 2023 02:46
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List
> *Cc:* F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the
> Wikipedia Twitter account?
>
>
>
> A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese,
> Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that
> are doing fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and
> curate the main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to
> write (or suggest) the occasional tweet?
>
>
>
> Andreas
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> Hi/Bona nit,
>
>
>
> This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have
> been mentioning in this list during the past days:
>
>
>
>
> https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ
>
>
>
> Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin
> deployed since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on
> their huge contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then
> nor today…). We need to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read
> something like "The new features, which start rolling out on English
> Wikipedia today, were built in collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers
> worldwide."
>
>
>
> If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to
> the English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as
> "English Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?
>
>
>
> Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and
> justified arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to
> trace a joint planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the
> Comms department. Disappointing, I am sad to say.
>
>
>
> Kind regards/Salutacions
>
>
>
> Xavier Dengra
>
>
>
> El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure:
>
> Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
>
> You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only
> from one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for
> a long time, because patterns are here the most important thing.
> Neverthless, there is only one way to know if the point me and some other
> users in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should
> try something: tweeting 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day"
> like tweets, varying timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia
> works (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2
> million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the
> results (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite
> obvious that there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if
> engagement is the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible,
> the current strategy could be validated.
>
>
>
> Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task,
> proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they
> want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the
> same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own
> eyes) and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications
> team to aknowledge this and give a try.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Galder
>
>
> --
>
> *From:* Gnangarra 
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
>
>
> Kaya Galder
>
>
>
> The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of
> those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have
> multiple channels.  What I am saying is that in different communities that
> doesnt and will never hold true.  Using statistics to compare the two is
> the issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the
> same event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the
> channel operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are
> the same and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is
> increasing by many orders of magnitude.
>
>
>
> Boodarwun
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Gnangarra:

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Peter Southwood]

A Wikipedia account should be under the control of Wikipedians, following the 
editorial policy for Wikipedia, but they could let WMF do the technical work if 
such exists.  WMF can and should run Wikimedia accounts. WMF running a 
Wikipedia account could be misrepresentation. 

Cheers,

Peter

 

From: Andreas Kolbe [mailto:jayen...@gmail.com] 
Sent: 19 January 2023 02:46
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Cc: F. Xavier Dengra i Grau
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

 

Dear all,

 

The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the Wikipedia 
Twitter account? 

 

A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese, Basque, 
Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that are doing 
fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and curate the 
main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to write (or 
suggest) the occasional tweet?

 

Andreas

 

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l 
 wrote:

Hi/Bona nit,

 

This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have been 
mentioning in this list during the past days:

 

https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46 

 &t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ

 

Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin deployed 
since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on their huge 
contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then nor today…). We need 
to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read something like "The new 
features, which start rolling out on English Wikipedia today, were built in 
collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers worldwide." 

 

If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to the 
English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as "English 
Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?

 

Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and justified 
arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to trace a joint 
planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the Comms department. 
Disappointing, I am sad to say.

 

Kind regards/Salutacions

 

Xavier Dengra

 

El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
va escriure:

Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,

You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only from 
one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for a long 
time, because patterns are here the most important thing. Neverthless, there is 
only one way to know if the point me and some other users in this thread are 
rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should try something: tweeting 6-7 
times a day, with varied topics, "on this day" like tweets, varying timezones 
and even curiosities about how Wikipedia works 
(https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2 million 
impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the results 
(engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite obvious that 
there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if engagement is 
the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible, the current 
strategy could be validated.

 

Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task, 
proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they want 
help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the same 
pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own eyes) and 
trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications team to 
aknowledge this and give a try.

 

Sincerely,

Galder

 

  _  

From: Gnangarra 
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter 

 

Kaya Galder

 

The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of those 
audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have multiple 
channels.  What I am saying is that in different communities that doesnt and 
will never hold true.  Using statistics to compare the two is the issue and 
then complaining about different audience responses to the same event being 
caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the channel operators, it's the 
underlying expectation that all audiences are the same and react exactly the 
same way every time even as the audience is increasing by many orders of 
magnitude.

 

Boodarwun

 

On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
wrote:

@Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the English 
audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day 
(https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[The Cunctator]

The reasonable account to compared the official @wikipedia account to is
Depths of Wikipedia, on Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok. On Twitter it was
715K followers has about 10-20 posts a day, and monster engagement.

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023, 7:47 PM Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the
> Wikipedia Twitter account?
>
> A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese,
> Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that
> are doing fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and
> curate the main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to
> write (or suggest) the occasional tweet?
>
> Andreas
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi/Bona nit,
>>
>> This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have
>> been mentioning in this list during the past days:
>>
>>
>> https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ
>>
>> Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin
>> deployed since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on
>> their huge contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then
>> nor today…). We need to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read
>> something like "The new features, which start rolling out on English
>> Wikipedia today, were built in collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers
>> worldwide."
>>
>> If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to
>> the English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as
>> "English Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?
>>
>> Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and
>> justified arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to
>> trace a joint planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the
>> Comms department. Disappointing, I am sad to say.
>>
>> Kind regards/Salutacions
>>
>> Xavier Dengra
>>
>> El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure:
>>
>> Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
>> You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only
>> from one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for
>> a long time, because patterns are here the most important thing.
>> Neverthless, there is only one way to know if the point me and some other
>> users in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should
>> try something: tweeting 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day"
>> like tweets, varying timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia
>> works (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2
>> million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the
>> results (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite
>> obvious that there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if
>> engagement is the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible,
>> the current strategy could be validated.
>>
>> Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task,
>> proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they
>> want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the
>> same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own
>> eyes) and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications
>> team to aknowledge this and give a try.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Galder
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Gnangarra 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
>> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
>> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>>
>> Kaya Galder
>>
>> The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of
>> those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have
>> multiple channels.  What I am saying is that in different communities that
>> doesnt and will never hold true.  Using statistics to compare the two is
>> the issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the
>> same event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the
>> channel operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are
>> the same and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is
>> increasing by many orders of magnitude.
>>
>> Boodarwun
>>
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> @Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the
>> English audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day (
>> https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2022-12-29&excludes=),
>> and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew
>> Ta

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear all,

The obvious question surely is: Why not let volunteers (co-)run the
Wikipedia Twitter account?

A number of Wikipedia language versions (French, Catalan, Portuguese,
Basque, Waray, etc.) seem to have volunteer-managed Twitter accounts that
are doing fine. If volunteers are good enough to write the encyclopedia and
curate the main page of each language version, aren't they good enough to
write (or suggest) the occasional tweet?

Andreas

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 11:20 PM F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi/Bona nit,
>
> This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have
> been mentioning in this list during the past days:
>
>
> https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ
>
> Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin
> deployed since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on
> their huge contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then
> nor today…). We need to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read
> something like "The new features, which start rolling out on English
> Wikipedia today, were built in collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers
> worldwide."
>
> If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to
> the English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as
> "English Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?
>
> Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and
> justified arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to
> trace a joint planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the
> Comms department. Disappointing, I am sad to say.
>
> Kind regards/Salutacions
>
> Xavier Dengra
>
> El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> va escriure:
>
> Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
> You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only
> from one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for
> a long time, because patterns are here the most important thing.
> Neverthless, there is only one way to know if the point me and some other
> users in this thread are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should
> try something: tweeting 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day"
> like tweets, varying timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia
> works (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2
> million impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the
> results (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite
> obvious that there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if
> engagement is the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible,
> the current strategy could be validated.
>
> Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task,
> proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they
> want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the
> same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own
> eyes) and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications
> team to aknowledge this and give a try.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
> --
> *From:* Gnangarra 
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List 
> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> Kaya Galder
>
> The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of
> those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have
> multiple channels.  What I am saying is that in different communities that
> doesnt and will never hold true.  Using statistics to compare the two is
> the issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the
> same event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the
> channel operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are
> the same and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is
> increasing by many orders of magnitude.
>
> Boodarwun
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga <
> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> @Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the
> English audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day (
> https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2022-12-29&excludes=),
> and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew
> Tate. Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so
> it should take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia
> (as pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal
> is *"By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free
> Knowledge on the Internet."*. Not only for US centered people, but by a
> glo

[Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

Hi/Bona nit,

This last tweet from @Wikipedia is a good example of what some of us have been 
mentioning in this list during the past days:

https://twitter.com/wikipedia/status/1615756186640334848?s=46&t=7wB7VI4gwISyFjo-X2jZvQ

Despite the fact that many Wikipedias have already had this new skin deployed 
since months ago as voluntary testers, not a single mention on their huge 
contribution was explained on Twitter (neither back then nor today…). We need 
to go to the 8th tweet of today's publication to read something like "The new 
features, which start rolling out on English Wikipedia today, were built in 
collaboration with Wikipedia volunteers worldwide."

If this is the situation in which the main account is monopolized only to the 
English version and its news/articles, why not specifying it as "English 
Wikipedia" in the profile and in the main link?

Days pass by and we keep sharing to this list proofs, data and justified 
arguments (even collagues offering themselves and willing to trace a joint 
planning!), but still not a word or single thought from the Comms department. 
Disappointing, I am sad to say.

Kind regards/Salutacions

Xavier Dengra

El ds, 14 gen., 2023 a 09:52, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga  
va escriure:

> Egun on Boodarwun/Gnangarra,
> You are righth in one thing: it is very difficult to prove a point only from 
> one puntual statistic. That's why I have been tracking statistics for a long 
> time, because patterns are here the most important thing. Neverthless, there 
> is only one way to know if the point me and some other users in this thread 
> are rising is valid: experimenting. @Wikipedia should try something: tweeting 
> 6-7 times a day, with varied topics, "on this day" like tweets, varying 
> timezones and even curiosities about how Wikipedia works 
> (https://twitter.com/depthsofwiki/status/1614045362985082881 2 million 
> impressions in 9 hours). Then, after -let's say- one month, if the results 
> (engagement, followers, retention) are better, it would be quite obvious that 
> there's a point changing the social media strategy. If not, if engagement is 
> the same, no obvious uprise in followers or RTs is visible, the current 
> strategy could be validated.
>
> Me, personally, I'm ready to help the Communications Team with this task, 
> proposing intercultural items that could be tweeted and promoted. If they 
> want help, they know where to go for it. Again, I think that following the 
> same pattern is a bad communication strategy (as we can see by our own eyes) 
> and trying something new could be better. Is up to the communications team to 
> aknowledge this and give a try.
>
> Sincerely,
> Galder
>
> ---
>
> From: Gnangarra 
> Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2023 6:00 AM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: @Wikipedia losing opportunities in Twitter
>
> Kaya Galder
>
> The assumption that despite there being a wider audience the interests of 
> those audience members is exactly the same, if that was true why have 
> multiple channels. What I am saying is that in different communities that 
> doesnt and will never hold true. Using statistics to compare the two is the 
> issue and then complaining about different audience responses to the same 
> event being caused by those posting to the channel. Its not the channel 
> operators, it's the underlying expectation that all audiences are the same 
> and react exactly the same way every time even as the audience is increasing 
> by many orders of magnitude.
>
> Boodarwun
>
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2023 at 02:06, Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga 
>  wrote:
>
>> @Gnangarra: I would doubt on the idea that Pelé is not relevant to the 
>> English audience, as it was the most visited article by far that day 
>> (https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/topviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&date=2022-12-29&excludes=),
>>  and the second most visited next day, just after the less known Andrew 
>> Tate. Also, the account is not ENGLISH Wikipedia. Is called Wikipedia, so it 
>> should take into account, even if it tweets only about English Wikipedia (as 
>> pointed by @Xavier Dengra) a global audience. Because, again, the goal is  
>> "By 2030, Wikimedia is to become the central infrastructure for Free 
>> Knowledge on the Internet.". Not only for US centered people, but by a 
>> global audience. Even with that in mind, Pelé was the most visited article 
>> in English Wikipedia.
>>
>> @Yaroslav: Basque Wikipedia is not one of the few accounts tweeting about 
>> Pelé, and in perspective, there are more Basque tweeting accounts per 
>> speaker, than there are for other larger languages. We are not competing 
>> with major news outlets; we are competing to be "the central infrastructure 
>> for Free Knowledge on the Internet". Wikipedia is doing well on that: nearly 
>> 2,5 million visits in two days for the article about Pelé only in English. I 
>> think that there

[Wikimedia-l] Help us review the second round of Research Fund proposals

[Emily Lescak]

Hello,

In September, we announced [1] our second call for proposals to the
Wikimedia Research Fund [2]. Our submission deadline was December 16. We
are now in the exciting phase of reviewing submissions and making
recommendations for which proposals to advance to Stage II [3] and we
welcome your input.

We are using a two-phase review process consisting of a technical review
conducted by researchers and an open community process on Meta-Wiki [4]
before advancing to the next stages. On Meta-Wiki, you can read the
proposals under consideration and leave comments using our feedback form
linked from every proposal page.

We will review feedback provided by January 27th (23:59 AoE). If you have
any questions, please contact us at research_f...@wikimedia.org.

Thank you for your time.

Emily, on behalf of the Research Fund Organizing Committee [5]

[1]

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/AIEGBXGQVGMQSCCQ6KOICGBTFHVQ4HSC/

[2]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund


[3]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund#How_we_fund


[4]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund#Review_submissions


[5]

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Programs/Wikimedia_Research_%26_Technology_Fund/Wikimedia_Research_Fund#Organizing_Committee



-- 
Emily Lescak (she / her)
Senior Research Community Officer
The Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/53R3HQMQMMLSEBL5RFWEVPK6C322BLRG/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org