Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Дана Saturday 13 June 2009 18:20:36 picus-viridis написа: IMHO automatic translations into Polish are useless, as they only allow rough orientation in the contents of an article. It concerns not only How is rough orientation in the contents of an article useless? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
2009/6/21 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: Дана Saturday 13 June 2009 18:20:36 picus-viridis написа: IMHO automatic translations into Polish are useless, as they only allow rough orientation in the contents of an article. It concerns not only How is rough orientation in the contents of an article useless? It's not useless, but it's not all that useful. I find when translating from other Wikipedias to add to the English version of an article that it's the subtle and important details that get mashed to uncertainty. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
It also depends on the language pair. For Chinese to English, I wouldn't even bother with such a process (having a machine translate and then correct the errors); for Spanish to English I do this very frequently and it's a great timesaver. Mark skype: node.ue On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:05 AM, David Gerarddger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/21 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu: Дана Saturday 13 June 2009 18:20:36 picus-viridis написа: IMHO automatic translations into Polish are useless, as they only allow rough orientation in the contents of an article. It concerns not only How is rough orientation in the contents of an article useless? It's not useless, but it's not all that useful. I find when translating from other Wikipedias to add to the English version of an article that it's the subtle and important details that get mashed to uncertainty. - d. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Hoi, The quality of the translations will vary. There are many reasons for it and one of the things that will make a difference is the number of people using the translate tool as a rough first pass. Once this is done, using the translation functionality will help Google to improve the quality of the code. This has been said before, there is no news here. What is relevant however is that in order to support the languages that have not been supported so far, there is a need for people actually using this tool to build the translation corpus that gets you this first pass functionality. Translation is not something where a silver bullet will provide an instant on - high quality experience and it is the languages that are currently not supported that have the highest need for tools like this. Thanks, GerardN 2009/6/13 picus-viridis picus-viri...@o2.pl Let me disagree. Hungarian is not in the same group by far, and the results make it possible to understand more than 50% of the text (sometimes I'd say above 90%). While this is far from proper translation it is by no means _useless_, since its obvious use is to understand a completely foreign text to some extents. IMHO automatic translations into Polish are useless, as they only allow rough orientation in the contents of an article. It concerns not only translations from Hungarian (in which part of the words whose Polish counterparts were unknown to the automatic translator were left untranslated or translated into English), but even translations from German. (I was trying articles on the children's literature ;-) Picus viridis ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven: Hoi, The quality of the translations will vary. There are many reasons for it and one of the things that will make a difference is the number of people using the translate tool as a rough first pass. Once this is done, using the translation functionality will help Google to improve the quality of the code. This has been said before, there is no news here. What is relevant however is that in order to support the languages that have not been supported so far, there is a need for people actually using this tool to build the translation corpus that gets you this first pass functionality. Translation is not something where a silver bullet will provide an instant on - high quality experience and it is the languages that are currently not supported that have the highest need for tools like this. This is interesting. I did not know it's possible to train new languages. Is there any available information on the requirements? What requirements need to be met, to make Google support them (so they can be selected in the drop-down at the translator toolkit)? _How much_ text do they need as a basis to finally enable the translation function? (My personal experience with the collaboratetiveness of Google is a bad one. Although Google is a multi-billion dollar company and [in a fair world] should actually _pay_ people for things like translating their interface in as much languages as possible [as Google with its 80% search engine market share is one of the most important internet access vectors and not having a search engine in your language is a big accessibility barrier] they rather choose to go the cheap way and let volunteers translate it. That not enough, they have the chutzpa to _reject_ adding any further languages [no additions since at least 2007, although they still support Elmer Fudd, bork bork bork, Klingon and pirate speak...]. At the moment Google supports the languages of roundabout 85 to 90% of the world's population and it seems, they don't care about the rest.) Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Hoi, One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. For general availability, the expectation for the quality is quite high. To me this seems to be one reason why Google did not add more languages. Another reason why many corpora are not big enough is because of the problem of identifying a text for the language it is written in. When you consider that a few years ago I learned that only a small percentage of Internet content has the metadata for the language that is used.. When you then consider that something like 75% is actually wrong... Given that Google actually supports MediaWiki, it may be that they are willing to support our language. The problem however is that many of our language have illegal and even wrong codes. The consequence is that it is not obvious to just support our language. This issue will not be resolved because people are under the impression that the community has the final word about the names of our languages. This is naive as well as problematic because it prevents the ease of the argument for Google to support our languages.. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/15 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org Gerard Meijssen hett schreven: Hoi, The quality of the translations will vary. There are many reasons for it and one of the things that will make a difference is the number of people using the translate tool as a rough first pass. Once this is done, using the translation functionality will help Google to improve the quality of the code. This has been said before, there is no news here. What is relevant however is that in order to support the languages that have not been supported so far, there is a need for people actually using this tool to build the translation corpus that gets you this first pass functionality. Translation is not something where a silver bullet will provide an instant on - high quality experience and it is the languages that are currently not supported that have the highest need for tools like this. This is interesting. I did not know it's possible to train new languages. Is there any available information on the requirements? What requirements need to be met, to make Google support them (so they can be selected in the drop-down at the translator toolkit)? _How much_ text do they need as a basis to finally enable the translation function? (My personal experience with the collaboratetiveness of Google is a bad one. Although Google is a multi-billion dollar company and [in a fair world] should actually _pay_ people for things like translating their interface in as much languages as possible [as Google with its 80% search engine market share is one of the most important internet access vectors and not having a search engine in your language is a big accessibility barrier] they rather choose to go the cheap way and let volunteers translate it. That not enough, they have the chutzpa to _reject_ adding any further languages [no additions since at least 2007, although they still support Elmer Fudd, bork bork bork, Klingon and pirate speak...]. At the moment Google supports the languages of roundabout 85 to 90% of the world's population and it seems, they don't care about the rest.) Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven: Hoi, One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. For general availability, the expectation for the quality is quite high. To me this seems to be one reason why Google did not add more languages. Another reason why many corpora are not big enough is because of the problem of identifying a text for the language it is written in. When you consider that a few years ago I learned that only a small percentage of Internet content has the metadata for the language that is used.. When you then consider that something like 75% is actually wrong... Given that Google actually supports MediaWiki, it may be that they are willing to support our language. The problem however is that many of our language have illegal and even wrong codes. The consequence is that it is not obvious to just support our language. This issue will not be resolved because people are under the impression that the community has the final word about the names of our languages. This is naive as well as problematic because it prevents the ease of the argument for Google to support our languages.. Thanks, GerardM Your old ISO code hobby horse ;-) I guess, if Google wanted to, they would be able recognize the languages of our projects. Just like all our users do too. One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. Yes, that was basically my main question: What is sufficiently? How much pages or MB of text? At least the order of magnitude. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Hoi, The proper use of language codes is indeed a recurring theme. Calling it a hobby horse gives the impression that it does not have a real world application. It does have a real world application and one of the problems with language is that it is truly hard to recognise languages confidently. Suggesting that Google can because of its size is too easy. I am sure they would have if they could. Thanks, GerardM 2009/6/15 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org Gerard Meijssen hett schreven: Hoi, One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. For general availability, the expectation for the quality is quite high. To me this seems to be one reason why Google did not add more languages. Another reason why many corpora are not big enough is because of the problem of identifying a text for the language it is written in. When you consider that a few years ago I learned that only a small percentage of Internet content has the metadata for the language that is used.. When you then consider that something like 75% is actually wrong... Given that Google actually supports MediaWiki, it may be that they are willing to support our language. The problem however is that many of our language have illegal and even wrong codes. The consequence is that it is not obvious to just support our language. This issue will not be resolved because people are under the impression that the community has the final word about the names of our languages. This is naive as well as problematic because it prevents the ease of the argument for Google to support our languages.. Thanks, GerardM Your old ISO code hobby horse ;-) I guess, if Google wanted to, they would be able recognize the languages of our projects. Just like all our users do too. One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. Yes, that was basically my main question: What is sufficiently? How much pages or MB of text? At least the order of magnitude. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi,
The proper use of language codes is indeed a recurring theme. Calling it a
hobby horse gives the impression that it does not have a real world
application. It does have a real world application and one of the problems
with language is that it is truly hard to recognise languages confidently.
Suggesting that Google can because of its size is too easy. I am sure they
would have if they could.
Thanks,
GerardM
Let's assume Google wants to build an Alemannic translation tool. They
are searching for an Alemannic text corpus. Will they fail to find the
Alemannic Wikipedia cause 'als' stands for a form of Albanian? I don't
think so.
Don't understand me wrong, I am _pro_ the use of correct codes and I
would reject the opinion, that projects have the right to decide to
stick to a wrong code. But I also reject to switch projects to codes
that don't match the project ('gsw' for example is no proper substitute
for 'als') and I reject code switches that do harm to the projects (that
means that the old code has to be a redirect to the new code at least
for several years).
And most importantly I think, that the question of ISO codes is not
related to Google's operations. If Google wants to use Wikipedia content
to improve their tools it should be really easy for them to do the code
mapping (e.g. 'no'-'nb').
So does anybody know how big a corpus must be to be helpful to Google?
Marcus Buck
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
It depends on how much a priori knowledge you have about the languages. For the moment people tend to go into two camps, those who want to use statistical engines and those who want to go for rule based engines. According to one person there are some activity to include rules into statistical engines and vica verca but it still needs a lot of work. Identifying a language isn't that difficult in itself, most search engines are quite good at that. Many engines can even be told to interpret the text according to a specific language so the problem is basically non existent for us. Still, because our articles has a lot of text that isn't part of a single language, and in addition there are also specialized markup, there should be done some kind of parsing before the translation engine starts processing the text. After some discussions last winter I am quite sure a rule based engine work best for small languages, but that a working solution should use some kind of self learning mechanism to refine the translation or at least identify errors. Our idea was to use statistics to identify cases where existing rules failed, and let people define the new rules. Failing rules would be detected by checking which translated sentences got changed afterwards. Actually it is a bit more difficult than this,.. ;) And no, I'm not a linguist... John One of the most important things that is needed for adding languages to a technology like this is having a sufficiently sized corpus. Yes, that was basically my main question: What is sufficiently? How much pages or MB of text? At least the order of magnitude. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Actually, Google added... Pirate and Montenegrin. Mark On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Marcus Buckm...@marcusbuck.org wrote: Gerard Meijssen hett schreven: Hoi, The quality of the translations will vary. There are many reasons for it and one of the things that will make a difference is the number of people using the translate tool as a rough first pass. Once this is done, using the translation functionality will help Google to improve the quality of the code. This has been said before, there is no news here. What is relevant however is that in order to support the languages that have not been supported so far, there is a need for people actually using this tool to build the translation corpus that gets you this first pass functionality. Translation is not something where a silver bullet will provide an instant on - high quality experience and it is the languages that are currently not supported that have the highest need for tools like this. This is interesting. I did not know it's possible to train new languages. Is there any available information on the requirements? What requirements need to be met, to make Google support them (so they can be selected in the drop-down at the translator toolkit)? _How much_ text do they need as a basis to finally enable the translation function? (My personal experience with the collaboratetiveness of Google is a bad one. Although Google is a multi-billion dollar company and [in a fair world] should actually _pay_ people for things like translating their interface in as much languages as possible [as Google with its 80% search engine market share is one of the most important internet access vectors and not having a search engine in your language is a big accessibility barrier] they rather choose to go the cheap way and let volunteers translate it. That not enough, they have the chutzpa to _reject_ adding any further languages [no additions since at least 2007, although they still support Elmer Fudd, bork bork bork, Klingon and pirate speak...]. At the moment Google supports the languages of roundabout 85 to 90% of the world's population and it seems, they don't care about the rest.) Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Mark Williamson hett schreven: Actually, Google added... Pirate and Montenegrin. Mark I first asked them in 2007 to add my language. They told me, no further languages would be added at the moment and they would inform me, if that changed. I asked them again in 2008 and 2009. One time they answered not at all and the other time they said nothing had changed. Pirate of course is an important addition... And Montenegrin surely was a good measure to endear oneself to the Montenegrin government. Marcus Buck ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) B. -Original Message- From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Peter Gervai Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 1:28 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 00:54, mastimast...@gmail.com wrote: current level of sophistication of translation tools, especialy of languages that do not belog to the same group as english, german, french, etc. is completely useless. Let me disagree. Hungarian is not in the same group by far, and the results make it possible to understand more than 50% of the text (sometimes I'd say above 90%). While this is far from proper translation it is by no means _useless_, since its obvious use is to understand a completely foreign text to some extents. And I'd like to second that the quality has been really improving, whether the state of the art linguistic science backs its theory up or not. This is observation, and not theory. But I see this is an exaggeration contest, so I'll go back to the shadow. :-) grin ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l __ ESET Smart Security - Vmrusdefinmciss adatbazis: 4143 (20090610) __ Az |zenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenorizte. http://www.eset.hu __ ESET Smart Security - Vírusdefiníciós adatbázis: 4143 (20090610) __ Az üzenetet az ESET Smart Security ellenorizte. http://www.eset.hu ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Also, if you were to translate [[Bird species 1]], [[Bird species 2]], [[Bird species 3]], I think you would get some very useful suggestions for translating [[Bird species 4]]. Best, Bence Damokos On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:38 PM, Bennó benn...@freemail.hu wrote: and totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 14:46, Bence Damokosbdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Maybe, but at the very best case it can work for very short passages. Two or three sentences at most. And it would be taken out of context. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 14:46, Bence Damokosbdamo...@gmail.com wrote: What I see as a great feature in the toolkit is the translation memory: in practice (after you switch of the machine translation), common phrases in Wikipedia articles - like external links, notes, history, early life etc. - are pretranslated once a human has already translated them; if more then one people start working on the same article separately, they can make use of the other users' translations and build upon them (without having to explicitly 'collaborate' or 'share' for this function to work). Maybe, but at the very best case it can work for very short passages. Two or three sentences at most. And it would be taken out of context. If you were working on the very same article, it would obviously be in context...; and the short phrases tend to be common, especially, considering that Google treats the target of the links separately which allows for creating a sort of glossary. Best, Bence ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Bennó wrote: Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ray Saintonge sainto...@telus.net wrote: Bennó wrote: Let me agree with it completely (out of the shadow ;). This feature's aim is obviously to help understand totally alien texts to a certain [at least minimal?] extent. This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with 'translation/interpretation' in it's proper sense. It's a pair of crutches for those, who are otherwise helpless. ;) Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
Brian wrote: I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. I don't disagree with that point, but I often note in real life that many people who seek help want to substitute that help for any exercise of their own little grey cells. I have no problem with using a machine translation as a starting point because these translations are uncopyrightable beyond pre-existing copyrights. Ec On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote: Sure, but even with 90% accuracy (which is still very low) one needs to remain aware of the limitations of machine translation. Seeing it as a crutch is a healthy approach. What needs to be discouraged is the dangerous techno-pop attitude that there is a machine solution for every situation, and that machines can find the magic substitute for common sense. Ec ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Google Translate now assists with humantranslations of Wikipedia articles
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 20:01, Brianbrian.min...@colorado.edu wrote: I would just like to point out that every single critic has ignored the premise that I started this thread with: This is a great example of machines helping people help machines help people. That, again, would be Wikipedia, not Google. No-one knows how these Google algorithms work, so i can't really know how helpful i am. -- אמיר אלישע אהרוני Amir Elisha Aharoni http://aharoni.wordpress.com We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace. - T. Moore ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
