[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[Guettarda]

On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 3:02 PM Yair Rand  wrote:

> I'm going to strongly disagree with this.
>
> People are allowed to have outside interests. Being incidentally
> interested in blockchain tech is not a disqualifying attribute. Having
> worked in large technology companies is not a disqualifying attribute.
> Neither of these things should even be counted negatively.
>

It's not about outside interests. NFTs and crypto are widely viewed as
inherently scammy (and, of course, environmentally destructive). And
working for a tech start-up trying to disrupt housing - when the activities
of tech companies like Zillow are already seen as making housing even more
unaffordable for people - is really bad optics.

Neither of these mean that he's a bad candidate. He might have an amazing
background in non-profit governance that he will bring to the Board. He
might be someone really dedicated to our mission. The problem is that these
details haven't been shared. The diff posting [1] includes some kind
platitudes, but that's it.

It may just be a messaging failure. Coming so soon after the kerfuffle with
Jimmy's proposed NFT sale, and just after Molly White opened an RFC on
crypto, ans coming in the middle of a housing crisis, I find it worrying
that the only message seems to be "trust us".

Ian

[1]
https://diff.wikimedia.org/2022/01/12/luis-bitencourt-emilio-joins-wikimedia-foundation-board-of-trustees/



> If the Board has ascertained that the new trustee fits the relevant needs
> of expertise, experience, values, and level of commitment, as well as
> furthering the Board's goals of having a diverse set of backgrounds and
> competencies, then wonderful. The idea that a trustee's background interest
> in NFTs (which, if I may remind people, is something the general public has
> by-and-large never even *heard of*, let alone have strong opinions on) will
> affect Wikimedia's reputation is, frankly, beyond silly.
>
> Welcome to Wikimedia, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio. Apologies for the
> less-than-ideal reception.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ה׳, 13 בינו׳ 2022 ב-13:53 מאת ‪Lane Chance‬‏ <‪
> zinkl...@gmail.com‬‏>:‬
>
>> Dariusz, Chair of the BGC: "Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a
>> factor here – the Governance Committee, and then the Board, were
>> considering other things..."
>>
>> This is so wrong it's painful to read. The fundamental job of the
>> Governance Committee is to ensure that appointed trustees do not come with
>> the potential to cause harm to the Wikimedia 'brand' and the community.
>>
>> A WMF trustee that promotes Bitcoin and NFTs? Compare with the WMF
>> statement "We at the Wikimedia Foundation strive to ensure that our work
>> and mission support a sustainable world" - now in the bin as it lacks any
>> credibility from here on, as the governance committee and therefore the
>> board of trustees does not believe in these values. This is not a
>> successful appointment, Luis Bitencourt-Emilio is not welcome as they are a
>> controversial and damaging addition to the board.
>>
>> Ref:
>> https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/09/19/how-the-wikimedia-foundation-is-making-efforts-to-go-green
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2022 at 13:40, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Dan,
>>>
>>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>>
>>> The search for a trustee with an expertise in product and technology
>>> began a few months ago. One of the problems we identified was that the
>>> Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not
>>> staying for a long period of time, and then there was also a CPO (Chief
>>> Product Officer) transition. It was also important that the new CEO (Chief
>>> Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience
>>> and leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with
>>> the understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work
>>> together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
>>>
>>> The other critical factor was diversity – the search was prioritizing
>>> candidates with experience outside of Silicon Valley, in non-English
>>> speaking countries, preferably from the Global South.
>>>
>>> And, of course, we also needed a commitment to spend enough time on the
>>> Board work – to be engaged and present. For example, Luis met online and
>>> offline with Wikimedia volunteers from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking
>>> communities, he is eager to help us with his knowledge and experience.
>>> Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a factor here – the Governance
>>> Committee, and then the Board, were considering other things Luis brings to
>>> the table, the needed expertise, diversity and commitment.
>>>
>>> I personally am not particularly fond of cryptocurrencies, even though I
>>> appreciate blockchain as a technology, and support e.g. decentralized
>>> science (https://decentralized.science/). We as a movement have not had
>>> a uniform stand on this, and I’m not sure if we should, though.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Luis Bitencourt-Emilio Joins Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

[Guettarda]

Crypto + NFTs + {tech startup + disrupt + housing market} sounds like
*just* the kind of person WMF needs on its board!

Luis Bitencourt-Emilio might be a great person, and just who we need on the
Board right now, but the optics seem terrible. Maybe I've been spending too
much time in the wrong parts of the internet, but this collection of
attributes seems like a cherry-picked collection of what's wrong with the
world.

Ian


On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 10:05 AM GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you for the further details, Dariusz. What is his experience with
> free software or open knowledge communities such as ours?
>
> I would also love to hear from him directly to know more about whether he
> feels cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and such technologies have a place in the
> Wikimedia mission. Do you know if he plans to join the conversation?
>
> Sincerely,
> Molly White (User:GorillaWarfare)
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorillaWarfare
> she/her
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, 8:41 AM Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Dan,
>>
>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>
>> The search for a trustee with an expertise in product and technology
>> began a few months ago. One of the problems we identified was that the
>> Wikimedia Foundation CTOs (Chief Technology Officer) are usually not
>> staying for a long period of time, and then there was also a CPO (Chief
>> Product Officer) transition. It was also important that the new CEO (Chief
>> Executive Officer) would like to have a trustee with relevant experience
>> and leadership in the tech world (as would the Board itself), but also with
>> the understanding and experience of how technology and communities can work
>> together, so, as you said, Reddit experience is very relevant.
>>
>> The other critical factor was diversity – the search was prioritizing
>> candidates with experience outside of Silicon Valley, in non-English
>> speaking countries, preferably from the Global South.
>>
>> And, of course, we also needed a commitment to spend enough time on the
>> Board work – to be engaged and present. For example, Luis met online and
>> offline with Wikimedia volunteers from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking
>> communities, he is eager to help us with his knowledge and experience.
>> Cryptocurrency and blockchains were not a factor here – the Governance
>> Committee, and then the Board, were considering other things Luis brings to
>> the table, the needed expertise, diversity and commitment.
>>
>> I personally am not particularly fond of cryptocurrencies, even though I
>> appreciate blockchain as a technology, and support e.g. decentralized
>> science (https://decentralized.science/). We as a movement have not had
>> a uniform stand on this, and I’m not sure if we should, though.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Dariusz (chair of the BGC)
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 1:40 PM Dan Garry (Deskana) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the update, Nataliia. Knowledge and expertise in product and
>>> technology is a skill set that has been lacking on the Board, and it's
>>> great to see the Board addressing this by co-opting product and technology
>>> leaders. Luis's experience, such as his time at reddit, will likely be very
>>> applicable to our movement.
>>>
>>> However, I'm surprised that the Board chose to co-opt someone who seems
>>> to have such a public focus on technology like blockchains and
>>> cryptocurrency, and that this focus of his was omitted from this
>>> announcement.
>>>
>>> It would be helpful if we could hear from Luis how he intends to use his
>>> knowledge and expertise to contribute to the movement as a Board member,
>>> and to what extent he considers blockchain and cryptocurrency to factor
>>> into that.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2022 at 17:20, Nataliia Tymkiv 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Dear All,

 Please join me in welcoming Luis Bitencourt-Emilio to the Wikimedia
 Foundation Board of Trustees. Luis was unanimously appointed to a 3-year
 term and replaces a board-selected Trustee, Lisa Lewin, whose term ended in
 November 2021 [1].

 Currently based in São Paulo, Luis is the Chief Technology Officer at
 Loft, a technology startup in the real-estate industry. He brings product
 and technology experience from a globally diverse career that has spanned
 large technology companies including Microsoft, online networking sites
 like Reddit, and a series of entrepreneurial technology ventures focused in
 the USA and Latin America. Luis has led product and technology teams across
 Latin America, the United States, Europe and Asia. He is passionately
 involved in building and promoting the entrepreneurial ecosystem for Latin
 American-based startups.

 Luis has more than two decades of experience across product
 development, software engineering, and data science. At Microsoft, he led
 engineering teams shipping multiple Microsoft Office products. At 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Guettarda]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 4:26 AM Todd Allen  wrote:

> Sorry I couldn't get back to you until now, as I didn't see this.
>
> Both you and Gerard's response share the same deficiency: Lack of detail.
> This is basically marketese "sounds good" speak, but without any detail.
> Sure, that stuff sounds good, but that's not anything to vote on. How do
> you plan to actually do that stuff? What particular steps will you take to
> reach those goals?
>
> Plans are detailed, not feel-good "We think this stuff sounds nice".
> Exactly what is it you are proposing to do? That is what the proposal is
> missing. Otherwise, you're basically asking us to write you a blank check.
> What EXACTLY are you proposing to do, step by step and detail by detail?
>

I feel like this is what the movement charter drafting committee is
supposed to do - translate these into something practical. I think that's
the point - to have community-selected people actually draft the movement
charter. It's better to have this process led by a group other than WMF
(deserved or not, there are a lot of people in the community who have
limited trust in WMF).

On one hand, limiting candidates to a 400-word statement makes it
impossible for people to address specifics in their candidate statements.
On the other hand, with 70 candidates, there's far too much to read even
after you've eliminated the candidates you can "quick-fail".

I wish there was space and time for a Q with the candidates where people
could ask specific questions of them. (Of us - just to be clear, I'm one of
those 70 candidates.) I don't think anyone expected this level of interest
in volunteering to do a vast, and almost certainly thankless task. But we
did.

Ian





>
> Regards,
>
> Todd Allen
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 2:34 PM Kaarel Vaidla 
> wrote:
>
>> Dear Todd,
>>
>> Thank you for the feedback!
>>
>> While working on the consolidation of the recommendations coming from the
>> working groups, the writers put a lot of effort into ensuring conciseness
>> of expression for the final recommendations. In some cases it meant that
>> the text became so condensed that It can indeed be somewhat difficult to
>> follow. Regarding the passage related to the Movement Charter, as a
>> non-native English speaker, I do not feel that this is really the case.
>>
>> We do not have a different presentation of the recommendation, but have
>> been using the same text. Perhaps you can point to what exactly is unclear
>> for you in the respective passage, so it could be clarified:
>>
>>
>>- Create a Movement Charter to:
>>   - Lay the values, principles
>>   
>> 
>>  and
>>   policy basis for Movement structures, including the roles and
>>   responsibilities of the Global Council, regional and thematic hubs
>>   
>> ,
>>   as well as other existing and new entities and decision-making bodies,
>>   - Set requirements and criteria for decisions and processes that
>>   are Movement-wide to be legitimate and trusted by all stakeholders, 
>> e.g. for
>>  - Maintaining safe collaborative environments,
>>  - Ensuring Movement-wide revenue generation and distribution,
>>  - Giving a common direction on how resources should be
>>  allocated with appropriate accountability mechanisms.
>>  - Defining how communities work together and are accountable to
>>  each other.
>>  - Setting expectations for participation and the rights of
>>  participants.
>>
>>
>> Wishing you a great continuation to your week!
>> Kaarel
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 8:50 AM Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Dear Todd, thank you for the invite to read up on this document full of
>>> "buzzwords and fury, signifying nothing". I did just that and not find what
>>> you suggested, what I found is a determined effort to bring more equity and
>>> diversity (you can look up the words in Wiktionary or any other dictionary
>>> of your choice). That is a boon for all of us and a necessary departure
>>> from the predominantly text based, English dominated culture we have.
>>>
>>> At this stage children of nine will not use Commons to find pictures for
>>> their schooling because whatever structure is English and search does not
>>> translate for "hond", "kat"of "eenhoorn". It is an example of how a more
>>> diverse and equitable movement leads to different priorities and
>>> effectively leads to more inclusion. Something we need to firmly support.
>>> Thanks,
>>>GerardM
>>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 23:48, Todd Allen  wrote:
>>>
 So, you linked to this:
 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Guettarda]

On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Cool. How do we find those pages from the advertised tools? Were they
> shared here before (sorry if I missed them), or can we still vote on
> them somewhere?
>
>
The underlying problem is that we ended up with 70+ candidates for the
MCDC. We were allowed up to 400 words for our statements, so there is a lot
to work through. In a case like that, there's a tendency to only vote for
people you know, or only based on regional representation, or tenure, or
something similar. The Compass was an imperfect tool, and one that was put
together in response to the problem of too much participation (after all,
there was uncertainty initially as to whether 19 people would actually put
their names forward).

I think there was a week at the end of September when people could
suggest statements (the final tally was 108). After that there was
another week in which people were able to vote for the statements they
wanted the candidates to answer. Not everyone got it right - there were
some responses that made it clear that some people were voting based on
their own opinions about the statement, rather than what they wanted to
hear.

Once they were narrowed down, Cornelius created a Google sheet where the
candidates were able to give our opinions on the statements, based on a
five-point scale. We were also able to add up to 500 characters clarifying
our stances. (These were interesting, because it's obvious that some people
who voted "support" and some who voted "oppose" had pretty much the same
opinion, once you allowed for nuance.

After that the Compass tool was created. But even that output is too much
to parse. I put together a Google sheet for myself, where I could split
people into arbitrary groups - for example, only 54 people gave their
opinions on the compass, so I decided to separate those from the rest of
the group. I also split Europe/US/Canada from the rest of the world because
I want to make sure that I wasn't too biased by *who* I knew well. Being
able to sort people by tenure (thanks to Andrew's table) also allows me to
be more cogniscent of my biases (as an old-timer, I'm likely to gravitate
to people just because I've seen them around for the last 17 years).

Dusan's tool is great because it lets you compare responses to individual
questions, and lets you see the explanatory statements. Again, as I work my
way through the list and try to decide between people it helps me check
responses to individual questions.

I think confirmation bias would be to pick people you know and like (or and
maybe not like so much, but think the committee could use some
bomb-throwers). I'm grateful for the tools and summaries that people have
created. Now if there was only some way to compare pairs of candidate
statements side-by-side

Ian



> Or would it be fairer now to the candidates to let their statements
> stand alone and for people to vote based on those alone, rather than
> trying to provide 'advanced tools' that are intrinsically biased?
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:51:21, Guettarda wrote:
> > Hi Mike
> >
> > The questions were selected from this list:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements
> >
> >
> > People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
> > ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
> > underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data
> >
> >
> > Ian
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  > <mailto:em...@mikepeel.net>> wrote:
> >
> > Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic
> > biases.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> >
> >
> > - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you
> are
> > limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor
> since.
> >
> >
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> > <
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> >
> >
> > - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> > encourages you to vote based on other people's views that deci

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Movement Charter Drafting Committee elections are now open!

[Guettarda]

Hi Mike

The questions were selected from this list:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Statements

People voted and the top ones were chosen. (A few near-duplicates that
ranked at the top were combined by Cornelius, iirc). The raw data
underlying both the Compass and Dusan's tool are here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Election_Compass/Raw_data

Ian


On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 5:45 PM Mike Peel  wrote:

> Both of these seem like a fantastic way to support your intrinsic biases.
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates/Table
> - this supports your language or editor start date bias. Since you are
> limited to ordering by name/username/region/languages/wiki/editor since.
>
>
> https://krehel.sk/Candidates_Drafting_Committee_Movement_Charter_Statements/
> - this seems to support selected question answers (from where?) and
> encourages you to vote based on other people's views that decide on
> their rankings (which aren't publicly available)? (Try ordering by Q2 -
> or looking up where Q6 was posted).
>
> We need better tools to help voters. Neither of these tools do that.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> On 15/10/21 22:32:15, Andrew Lih wrote:
> > To echo Risker, I'd encourage the use of more advanced tools by voters.
> > On meta, I've pointed to the two tools that hopefully help:
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Elections#Tools_for_examining_candidates
> >
> >
> > The links point to:
> > - A table of all the factual information supplied by the candidates in a
> > wiki table, in which each column is sortable.
> > - A browsable interface to all the compass questions and responses,
> > providing much better candidate comparisons. An issue Adam brought up is
> > that there may not be a good understanding of the variance in the
> > answers of candidates. For that reason, this tool is valuable in showing
> > that the following questions had the most diverse responses and are
> > likely to be the most useful for voters to examine directly.
> >
> > 6 - limit the role of WMF to "keep the servers running"
> > 11 - democratic governance structure
> > 20 - new forms of knowledge representation
> > 24 - regional elections
> > 27 - "counter-voice"
> > 45 - "percentage of movement money" to be allocated
> > 92 - ratification from all
> >
> > I'd encourage voters to experiment with these tools.
> >
> > -Andrew
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:39 AM Risker  > > wrote:
> >
> > Adam, you may find the tool discussed here
> > <
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Candidates_Compass:_One_statement,_all_answers
> >
> > to be helpful.  It is created by one of the candidates, is based on
> > the information submitted by candidates for the election compass,
> > and is quite visual.  (Disclosure: I am also a candidate.)
> >
> > I'd also suggest that the written answers illustrate the differences
> > between candidates a little more specifically than the general
> > five-point compass.  Perhaps, also, part of the reason that there's
> > some consensus amongst candidates (at least on the surface) is that
> > they could be representative of a pretty broad consensus throughout
> > the global community on some points.
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Oct 2021 at 09:26, Adam Wight  > > wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 12:02 PM Kaarel Vaidla
> > mailto:kvai...@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Additionally, we are piloting a so-called “Election Compass
> > ” for this
> > election. Click yourself through the tool and respond to the
> > 19 statements, and you will see which candidate is closest
> > to you!
> >
> >
> > Hi, thank you for facilitating this process and for sharing the
> > interesting "election compass" experiment.  After trying the
> > tool, I urge you to take it offline.  Its algorithm is opaque,
> > and in my opinion very unlikely to give a helpful result.  It's
> > explicitly meant to influence how we vote, but without us having
> > done any validation of what it's actually calculating.  If you
> > want to test this tool, you could position it as an "exit poll",
> > to compare the tool's results with how each person actually
> > voted, or you could turn off the "alignment" scoring.
> >
> > My suspicions started with the fact that I answered "strongly
> > support" or "support" to almost every question, which suggests
> > that the axes were not chosen in a 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] What it means to be a high-tech organization

[Guettarda]

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 8:54 PM, Gnangarra  wrote:


> ​
> technology is our tool not our purpose
>
>
This should be printed on a banner and hung on the wall every time the
Board meets.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Congratulations to MediaWiki Farmers User Group for being approved as a Wikimedia User Group

[Guettarda]

I was thinking of ways that farmers might use Wikipedia. Or maybe that a
group of them had gotten together to improve our content in Ag. Or
something. But no such luck...

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 4:59 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:

 *sigh* I was hoping the farmers had united 

 but good luck to the virtual farmers of ~85% men

 On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 10:54 AM, Gregory Varnum
 gregory.var...@gmail.com wrote:
  Greetings,
 
  Please join the Affiliations Committee in congratulating the MediaWiki
  Farmers User Group on their official approval as a Wikimedia User Group:
 
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/MediaWiki_Farmers_User_Group_-_Liaison_approval,_January_2015
 
  The MediaWiki Farmers User Group is A user group of third-party
 developers
  who work on wiki farms. Our mission is to improve and standardize the way
  MediaWiki wiki farms are setup and run.
 
  Anyone interested in more information about the group can visit:
  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:MediaWiki_Farmers_user_group
 
  Again - congratulations on the recognition and best wishes for the
 group's
  future work!
  -greg aka varnent
  Vice Chair, Wikimedia Affiliations Committee
  ___
  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



 --
 John Vandenberg

 ___
 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