Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Guillaume Paumier]

Hello,

2017-05-17 10:08 GMT-07:00 David Cuenca Tudela :

> Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
>


> Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, and an
> open inclusive environment?
>

"Truth, free knowledge, and an open inclusive environment" is already a
pretty big commitment :)

From a numbers perspective, USD/EUR 1 billion isn't that much of a stretch.
Consider that the combined funds raised by the Wikimedia Foundation [1] and
Wikimedia Deutschland [2] last year amount to approximately $85 million
[3]. We're currently developing a movement-wide strategy using the 2030
time horizon [4], meaning 13 years from now.

If we're very conservative and assume no increase at all in funds raised
across the movement during that period, that's still a low estimate of $85
million × 13 years ≈ $1.1 billion.

Of course, I'm not advocating against having big dreams. We can certainly
do a lot more if we manage to accelerate our efforts and find new ways to
finance them. My point is that it's less about the numbers, and more about
what we decide to focus on (what we use the money for), and how committed
we are to that goal (how quickly we get it).

This thread is a useful thought exercise because it helps us think big
about what we really care about. The good thing is that now is the perfect
time for everyone to share their thoughts on what they care about and what
they think we should focus on over the next decade. The goal of the
movement strategy discussions is precisely that. [4].

So I encourage everyone to participate in those discussions and make their
voice heard. Because if we put our minds to it and agree on what to use it
for, getting that $/€ 1 billion isn't unrealistic at all, and we can get it
long before 2030.


[1] https://annual.wikimedia.org/2016/financials.html
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Jahr
esbericht_Wikimedia_Deutschland_2016.pdf
[3] This is a low estimate that doesn't include funds raised by other
organizations. WMF and WMDE were the easiest to find.
[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017

-- 
Guillaume Paumier
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Rogol Domedonfors]

One billion dollars, judiciously invested, is an income of present-day
value around 20 to 30 million dollars a year for ever.  That would buy any
of the following

* One reasonably expensive book per month for every one of the 30,000 most
active content contributors for ever
* 300 full-time permanent employees -- programmers, fact-checkers,
old-style editors, translators, innovators, researchers
* 200 ongoing Ph.D-level research projects in data science, knowledge
management, knowledge delivery, artificial intelligence, machine translation
* Fully-paid bursaries to Wikimania every year for ten people from each of
the 250 largest projects;
* JSTOR subscription for ever for the 30,000 most active content
contributors;
* Local travel bursaries to Wikimedia meetups and conferences for everyone
who ever contributes to the project;

HTH
"Rogol"

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:51 AM, James Salsman  wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, FRED BAUDER 
> wrote:
>
> > I think we could hire professional fact checkers and target articles that
> > have gotten off track. I don't think a great deal of money would be
> > necessary to set an example, and illustrate some of our notorious
> problems.
>
>
> This is what the AROWF system from last year's Google Summer of code was
> supposed to show how to support:
>
> https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/
>
> This
> year the CMUSphinx project is building an interactive voice-response
> computer-aided instruction system which teaches people how to use the AROWF
> system (and in the process tries to teach how to resolve NPOV disputes, out
> of date statements, and a few other backlog categories it tracks) while at
> the same time remediating spoken English pronunciation. I am currently
> consulting at a company in Beijing which has 23 million customers in
> China's K-6 public schools, They have offered to help collect some of the
> data required to build this system, and the GSoC student assigned to it has
> been doing pretty well.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[HaeB]

2017-05-17 10:38 GMT-07:00 Amir E. Aharoni :
> Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> dollars some time around 2006.
That question was about a hundred million, actually:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-10-16/Copyright#.24100_million_copyright_fund_provokes_discussion

Many of those suggestions are interesting to read a decade later:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_wishlist (and talk page)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2006-October/thread.html#27850

Some of the proposals have become reality since 2006, e.g.:

* sheet music - the Petrucci library/IMSLP, founded that year, seems
to be doing a fairly good job here, at least regarding PD classical
music (using MediaWiki no less)

* free maps and geodata - OSM

* all academic papers in JSTOR that are public domain - by JSTOR
itself (but only partially, and not before Aaron Swartz became
involved)

* Happy Birthday - via legal means (exposed as copyfraud via academic
research and subsequently freed by lawsuit)

Regards, HaeB (T. Bayer)

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[James Salsman]

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, FRED BAUDER  wrote:

> I think we could hire professional fact checkers and target articles that
> have gotten off track. I don't think a great deal of money would be
> necessary to set an example, and illustrate some of our notorious problems.


This is what the AROWF system from last year's Google Summer of code was
supposed to show how to support:

https://priyankamandikal.github.io/posts/gsoc-2016-project-overview/

This
year the CMUSphinx project is building an interactive voice-response
computer-aided instruction system which teaches people how to use the AROWF
system (and in the process tries to teach how to resolve NPOV disputes, out
of date statements, and a few other backlog categories it tracks) while at
the same time remediating spoken English pronunciation. I am currently
consulting at a company in Beijing which has 23 million customers in
China's K-6 public schools, They have offered to help collect some of the
data required to build this system, and the GSoC student assigned to it has
been doing pretty well.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Peter Southwood]

I like the idea. That is one big knowledge gap to be filled, but it could be 
started.
Cheers,
Peter

-Original Message-
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Lionel Allorge
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 10:32 PM
To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B 
dollars/euros?

Hi,

> Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask 
> donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?

In many areas we lack good secondary sources. Some times we don't even have any 
secondary sources. I did some work at the National Manufacture of Ceramics of 
Sèvres in France[1]. They have knowledge there that is not in any book. It is 
transmitted directly from master to student...

My idea would be to create a publishing company that would hire specialists to 
write monographs on subjects where we lack good secondary sources. The compagny 
would regularly ask the wikimedians about which subjects they need sources.

Those works would be published under a Free Licence but independantly from the 
Wikipedias so there would be no risk for the Wikimedia Foundation to be seen as 
doing paid editing.
Wikipedians would then be free to use those sources to improve the Wikipedias.

Regards.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacture_nationale_de_S%C3%A8vres

--
Lionel Allorge
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 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] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[geni]

On 17 May 2017 at 18:08, David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
> Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?


Space program. A billion should get you a couple of dawn clones and if
you focus on flybys rather than orbits you can visit a bunch of
asteroids.



-- 
geni

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Andrea Zanni]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:18 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> I love it, although I suspect that 1B wouldn't be enough. The industry of
> for-profit academic publishing is probably worth much more than that, and
> it won't give up easily.
>
> Not that I don't support the general idea, but the resistance will be hard.
>

I agree with you, but we're not starting from scratch.
It's more than 30 years that the Open Access movement is pushing for a new
scholarship, a lot of battles
have been won, and there is a huge amount of literature, documentation and
experience, about that.
1B is nothing, compared to the billions of profit made by the company.
But I reckon it would be enough, properly spent, to push a single point of
failure of the system.
Of course, I don't know it yet, and I don't have a plan right now.
But I'm quite confident that 1B $ could do the trick.

Aubrey
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Lionel Allorge]

Hi,

> Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?

In many areas we lack good secondary sources. Some times we don't even
have any secondary sources. I did some work at the National Manufacture
of Ceramics of Sèvres in France[1]. They have knowledge there that is
not in any book. It is transmitted directly from master to student...

My idea would be to create a publishing company that would hire
specialists to write monographs on subjects where we lack good secondary
sources. The compagny would regularly ask the wikimedians about which
subjects they need sources.

Those works would be published under a Free Licence but independantly
from the Wikipedias so there would be no risk for the Wikimedia
Foundation to be seen as doing paid editing.
Wikipedians would then be free to use those sources to improve the
Wikipedias.

Regards.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacture_nationale_de_S%C3%A8vres

-- 
Lionel Allorge
Wikimedia France : http://wikimedia.fr

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[James Heilman]

We have built up an amazing amount of good will. When we raise money we
spend some of that good will. Unless we have something worth spending it
on, no need to do so. We already have a lot of professional fact checkers.
I for example am a professional and check a lot of facts :-) Cochrane has
also just hired someone to help me.

With respect to what could benefit from more money:

1) Our readers want rich content. We need a team working on tools that
allow our communities to create the rich content our readers have
requested. I know this was something Yuri was working on but the team has
unfortunately been disbanded.

2) The community tech team does great work. They have way more great ideas
than they can solve. Would be good to see that team either doubled or
tripled in size. Part of it could dedicated to issues from the Global south
/ language issues.

3) We have a partnership with Translators Without Borders and thus access
to 1,000s of translator volunteers. Most do not want to learn and will not
learn how to edit Wikipedia.  I was personally paying a coordinator to
manage the project however he now has a full time job as a high school
teacher. I am looking for someone to replace him.

Our communities already donate to us billions of dollars worth of value a
year (would be interesting to actually calculate this number if it has not
been already calculated). Uptodate, another online medical encyclopedia,
brings in about 2 billion dollars a year through subscriptions.

James

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:18 AM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> I love it, although I suspect that 1B wouldn't be enough. The industry of
> for-profit academic publishing is probably worth much more than that, and
> it won't give up easily.
>
> Not that I don't support the general idea, but the resistance will be hard.
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> 2017-05-17 21:02 GMT+03:00 Andrea Zanni :
>
> > With that amount of money,
> > we could probably put an end on closed science in less than a decade, and
> > make open access and open science the new standard.
> > There's already a lot of efforts going on, but incumbent publishers are
> > much more rich and resourceful.
> > Lobbying, advocacy, outreach could do a lot, from our part.
> > We are probably better equipped to coordinate bottom-up efforts
> > (hackathons, tools and whatnot), and we would be better suited for the
> > whole diplomatic/political/top-down side of it.
> >
> > Making open science the new standard would be a goal to itself and
> leverage
> > for other results.
> > We'd end up with a lot more free content for Wikimedia projects, probably
> > better advocacy and outreach for us in Universities and research centers.
> > We would spread and promote the Mertonian norms of science¹, which are
> > already our values.
> > Also, there's a fair chance for this new open science standard to sustain
> > itself, as in the current system scientists and researchers *already* do
> > research, publish and review for free.²
> > A new paradigm for science and research could also be very important for
> > developing countries, in which
> > scientists are often required to adequate to mainstream science (eg. they
> > are not able to research areas which would benefit their local community,
> > like local diseases).
> >
> > Aubrey
> >
> >
> > ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms
> > ² of course they are paid by their institutions, but the "act of
> > publishing" and the whole scholarship workflow is "embedded" and already
> > paid for.
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a
> million
> > > dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
> > >
> > > What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act
> > together
> > > and become a true leader in software and content localization.
> Currently
> > we
> > > are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is
> > probably
> > > translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
> > >
> > > 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become
> > the
> > > industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is
> it
> > > important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> > > isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites,
> > platforms,
> > > and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> > > community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> > > surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English,
> > and
> > > is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> > > localization better for everybody will 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

I love it, although I suspect that 1B wouldn't be enough. The industry of
for-profit academic publishing is probably worth much more than that, and
it won't give up easily.

Not that I don't support the general idea, but the resistance will be hard.


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2017-05-17 21:02 GMT+03:00 Andrea Zanni :

> With that amount of money,
> we could probably put an end on closed science in less than a decade, and
> make open access and open science the new standard.
> There's already a lot of efforts going on, but incumbent publishers are
> much more rich and resourceful.
> Lobbying, advocacy, outreach could do a lot, from our part.
> We are probably better equipped to coordinate bottom-up efforts
> (hackathons, tools and whatnot), and we would be better suited for the
> whole diplomatic/political/top-down side of it.
>
> Making open science the new standard would be a goal to itself and leverage
> for other results.
> We'd end up with a lot more free content for Wikimedia projects, probably
> better advocacy and outreach for us in Universities and research centers.
> We would spread and promote the Mertonian norms of science¹, which are
> already our values.
> Also, there's a fair chance for this new open science standard to sustain
> itself, as in the current system scientists and researchers *already* do
> research, publish and review for free.²
> A new paradigm for science and research could also be very important for
> developing countries, in which
> scientists are often required to adequate to mainstream science (eg. they
> are not able to research areas which would benefit their local community,
> like local diseases).
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms
> ² of course they are paid by their institutions, but the "act of
> publishing" and the whole scholarship workflow is "embedded" and already
> paid for.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> > dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
> >
> > What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act
> together
> > and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently
> we
> > are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is
> probably
> > translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
> >
> > 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become
> the
> > industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
> > important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> > isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites,
> platforms,
> > and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> > community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> > surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English,
> and
> > is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> > localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
> > world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> > corporations.
> > 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of
> the
> > world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
> > stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
> > scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> > dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
> > programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published
> book;
> > this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> > religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be
> done
> > with an encyclopedia.
> > 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
> > should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> > localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs
> resources.
> > See
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> > and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> > 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
> >
> > > Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> > > donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
> > >
> > > Do we have the guts to do so?
> > >
> > > Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
> > > soon?
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Jane Darnell]

I am pretty sure we already have the Bible translated in all the languages
(don't know because I didn't check). You inspired me though to think about
the benefits of interlinking it down to the word level and how that might
benefit Wikidata in achieving a level playing field in basic terminology
for everyday terms like "tree" "book" etc. We are still missing so many
labels on Wikidata. Sigh

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:14 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> (I'm not sure I was understood correctly... I didn't mean translating the
> Bible to yet more languages, but translating an encyclopedia to more
> languages.)
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> 2017-05-17 21:11 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell :
>
> > That is an interesting idea! Maybe we should be working on modelling the
> > Bible better on Wikidata and cross-referencing it to dictionaries and all
> > other religious texts. If it is so important for literacy, it may help
> > unite efforts on labelling in Wikidata. I have no idea how many words are
> > used in the Bible, but hopefully it will cover a lot of basic ground in
> any
> > language.
> > If the 2bn falls through I bet we could ask the Vatican for a grant to
> > Wikidatafy the entire Catholic encyclopedia.
> >
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> > amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> >
> > > Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a
> million
> > > dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
> > >
> > > What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act
> > together
> > > and become a true leader in software and content localization.
> Currently
> > we
> > > are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is
> > probably
> > > translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
> > >
> > > 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become
> > the
> > > industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is
> it
> > > important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> > > isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites,
> > platforms,
> > > and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> > > community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> > > surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English,
> > and
> > > is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> > > localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the
> whole
> > > world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> > > corporations.
> > > 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of
> > the
> > > world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities
> need
> > > stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation
> and
> > > scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> > > dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing,
> literacy
> > > programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published
> > book;
> > > this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> > > religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be
> > done
> > > with an encyclopedia.
> > > 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but
> we
> > > should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> > > localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs
> > resources.
> > > See
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > > movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> > > and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> > >
> > > 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
> > >
> > > > Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we
> ask
> > > > donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
> > > >
> > > > Do we have the guts to do so?
> > > >
> > > > Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get
> there
> > > > soon?
> > > >
> > > > Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as
> > > much
> > > > resources as needed?
> > > >
> > > > Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?
> > > >
> > > > Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry
> > most
> > > > would crumble under our own eyes?
> > > >
> > > > Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
> > > > struggle always a positive answer against the 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Jane Darnell]

I saw a very interesting documentary about a South American country
(Brazil? Argentina?) where they were already ignoring Western copyright law
in order to free up collaboration in science. I have no idea what the legal
repercussions are of doing something like that and from what I have seen on
English Wikipedia, it still looks like Big Pharma rules the medical world.
If we could somehow talk universities into daring to do open research,
sharing data from the beginning, then that would be key moving forward. Now
it seems to be a race in the dark to see who gets to publish first and the
data is always reverse-engineered later. Sad.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Andrea Zanni 
wrote:

> With that amount of money,
> we could probably put an end on closed science in less than a decade, and
> make open access and open science the new standard.
> There's already a lot of efforts going on, but incumbent publishers are
> much more rich and resourceful.
> Lobbying, advocacy, outreach could do a lot, from our part.
> We are probably better equipped to coordinate bottom-up efforts
> (hackathons, tools and whatnot), and we would be better suited for the
> whole diplomatic/political/top-down side of it.
>
> Making open science the new standard would be a goal to itself and leverage
> for other results.
> We'd end up with a lot more free content for Wikimedia projects, probably
> better advocacy and outreach for us in Universities and research centers.
> We would spread and promote the Mertonian norms of science¹, which are
> already our values.
> Also, there's a fair chance for this new open science standard to sustain
> itself, as in the current system scientists and researchers *already* do
> research, publish and review for free.²
> A new paradigm for science and research could also be very important for
> developing countries, in which
> scientists are often required to adequate to mainstream science (eg. they
> are not able to research areas which would benefit their local community,
> like local diseases).
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms
> ² of course they are paid by their institutions, but the "act of
> publishing" and the whole scholarship workflow is "embedded" and already
> paid for.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> > dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
> >
> > What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act
> together
> > and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently
> we
> > are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is
> probably
> > translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
> >
> > 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become
> the
> > industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
> > important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> > isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites,
> platforms,
> > and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> > community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> > surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English,
> and
> > is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> > localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
> > world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> > corporations.
> > 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of
> the
> > world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
> > stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
> > scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> > dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
> > programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published
> book;
> > this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> > religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be
> done
> > with an encyclopedia.
> > 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
> > should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> > localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs
> resources.
> > See
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> > and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> > 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
> >
> > > Are there any activities that 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

(I'm not sure I was understood correctly... I didn't mean translating the
Bible to yet more languages, but translating an encyclopedia to more
languages.)


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2017-05-17 21:11 GMT+03:00 Jane Darnell :

> That is an interesting idea! Maybe we should be working on modelling the
> Bible better on Wikidata and cross-referencing it to dictionaries and all
> other religious texts. If it is so important for literacy, it may help
> unite efforts on labelling in Wikidata. I have no idea how many words are
> used in the Bible, but hopefully it will cover a lot of basic ground in any
> language.
> If the 2bn falls through I bet we could ask the Vatican for a grant to
> Wikidatafy the entire Catholic encyclopedia.
>
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
> amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
>
> > Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> > dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
> >
> > What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act
> together
> > and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently
> we
> > are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is
> probably
> > translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
> >
> > 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become
> the
> > industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
> > important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> > isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites,
> platforms,
> > and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> > community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> > surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English,
> and
> > is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> > localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
> > world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> > corporations.
> > 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of
> the
> > world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
> > stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
> > scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> > dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
> > programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published
> book;
> > this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> > religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be
> done
> > with an encyclopedia.
> > 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
> > should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> > localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs
> resources.
> > See
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> > movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> > and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
> >
> >
> > --
> > Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> > http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> > ‪“We're living in pieces,
> > I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> >
> > 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
> >
> > > Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> > > donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
> > >
> > > Do we have the guts to do so?
> > >
> > > Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
> > > soon?
> > >
> > > Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as
> > much
> > > resources as needed?
> > >
> > > Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?
> > >
> > > Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry
> most
> > > would crumble under our own eyes?
> > >
> > > Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
> > > struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?
> > >
> > > Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge,
> and
> > an
> > > open inclusive environment?
> > >
> > > Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?
> > >
> > >
> > > Micru
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Jane Darnell]

That is an interesting idea! Maybe we should be working on modelling the
Bible better on Wikidata and cross-referencing it to dictionaries and all
other religious texts. If it is so important for literacy, it may help
unite efforts on labelling in Wikidata. I have no idea how many words are
used in the Bible, but hopefully it will cover a lot of basic ground in any
language.
If the 2bn falls through I bet we could ask the Vatican for a grant to
Wikidatafy the entire Catholic encyclopedia.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
>
> What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act together
> and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently we
> are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is probably
> translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
>
> 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become the
> industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
> important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites, platforms,
> and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English, and
> is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
> world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> corporations.
> 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of the
> world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
> stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
> scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
> programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published book;
> this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be done
> with an encyclopedia.
> 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
> should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs resources.
> See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
>
> > Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> > donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
> >
> > Do we have the guts to do so?
> >
> > Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
> > soon?
> >
> > Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as
> much
> > resources as needed?
> >
> > Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?
> >
> > Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry most
> > would crumble under our own eyes?
> >
> > Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
> > struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?
> >
> > Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, and
> an
> > open inclusive environment?
> >
> > Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?
> >
> >
> > Micru
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Andrea Zanni]

With that amount of money,
we could probably put an end on closed science in less than a decade, and
make open access and open science the new standard.
There's already a lot of efforts going on, but incumbent publishers are
much more rich and resourceful.
Lobbying, advocacy, outreach could do a lot, from our part.
We are probably better equipped to coordinate bottom-up efforts
(hackathons, tools and whatnot), and we would be better suited for the
whole diplomatic/political/top-down side of it.

Making open science the new standard would be a goal to itself and leverage
for other results.
We'd end up with a lot more free content for Wikimedia projects, probably
better advocacy and outreach for us in Universities and research centers.
We would spread and promote the Mertonian norms of science¹, which are
already our values.
Also, there's a fair chance for this new open science standard to sustain
itself, as in the current system scientists and researchers *already* do
research, publish and review for free.²
A new paradigm for science and research could also be very important for
developing countries, in which
scientists are often required to adequate to mainstream science (eg. they
are not able to research areas which would benefit their local community,
like local diseases).

Aubrey


¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mertonian_norms
² of course they are paid by their institutions, but the "act of
publishing" and the whole scholarship workflow is "embedded" and already
paid for.

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Amir E. Aharoni <
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:

> Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
> dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?
>
> What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act together
> and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently we
> are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is probably
> translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:
>
> 1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become the
> industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
> important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
> isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites, platforms,
> and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
> community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
> surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English, and
> is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
> localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
> world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
> corporations.
> 2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of the
> world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
> stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
> scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
> dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
> programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published book;
> this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
> religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be done
> with an encyclopedia.
> 3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
> should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
> localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs resources.
> See
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_
> movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_
> and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology
>
>
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
>
> 2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :
>
> > Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> > donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
> >
> > Do we have the guts to do so?
> >
> > Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
> > soon?
> >
> > Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as
> much
> > resources as needed?
> >
> > Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?
> >
> > Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry most
> > would crumble under our own eyes?
> >
> > Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
> > struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?
> >
> > Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, and
> an
> > open inclusive environment?
> >
> > Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?
> >
> >
> > Micru
> > 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[Amir E. Aharoni]

Heh, I remember Mr Wales asking what could the movement do with a million
dollars some time around 2006. Is anything on the horizon?

What could we do? Many things; one of them would be to get our act together
and become a true leader in software and content localization. Currently we
are proud about maintaining MediaWiki, a piece of software that is probably
translated to more languages than any other, and that is great, but:

1. Our software localization tooling, excellent as it is, didn't become the
industry standard, even though it could with better packaging. Why is it
important? Because a Wikipedia in a given language doesn't exist in
isolation—it exists in an environment of other programs, sites, platforms,
and media. There was a (relatively) thriving software localization
community in the Catalan language already in the 1990s (!), so it's not
surprising that Catalan Wikipedia was the first to start after English, and
is among the most successful Wikimedia projects now. Making software
localization better for everybody will bring computer usage to the whole
world, and we can be the leaders in it, rather than leaving it to the
corporations.
2. We have the theoretical ability to write articles in any language of the
world, but not everybody actually does it. Some language communities need
stronger nudges than others to get going: Training about translation and
scientific writing, developing terminology, developing spelling
dictionaries, developing keyboards that allow convenient typing, literacy
programs, etc. In a lot of languages the Bible is the only published book;
this happened thanks to donations from people who want to spread their
religion around the world. If it can be done with the Bible, it can be done
with an encyclopedia.
3. We are influencing public policy in the area of copyright law, but we
should be influencing public policy around the whole world to make
localized computing and content more accessible. Lobbying needs resources.
See
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Cycle_2/A_Truly_Global_Movement#Governments_and_computer_vendors:_Accessibility_to_localization_technology


--
Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
http://aharoni.wordpress.com
‪“We're living in pieces,
I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬

2017-05-17 20:08 GMT+03:00 David Cuenca Tudela :

> Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we ask
> donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?
>
> Do we have the guts to do so?
>
> Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get there
> soon?
>
> Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for as much
> resources as needed?
>
> Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?
>
> Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry most
> would crumble under our own eyes?
>
> Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
> struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?
>
> Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, and an
> open inclusive environment?
>
> Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?
>
>
> Micru
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Naive questions: what could do the movement with 1B dollars/euros?

[FRED BAUDER]

I think we could hire professional fact checkers and target articles 
that have gotten off track. I don't think a great deal of money would 
be necessary to set an example, and illustrate some of our notorious 
problems. In general more money, however, draws flies even better than 
shit.


Fred Bauder

On Wed, 17 May 2017 18:08:08 +0100
 David Cuenca Tudela  wrote:
Are there any activities that could have a meaningful impact if we 
ask

donors for such amount of seed money? Are there reasons to do so?

Do we have the guts to do so?

Do we have the organizational capital to handle it? Or can we get 
there

soon?

Do we have the moral right to take a lead in the world and ask for 
as much

resources as needed?

Is our leader and our members willing to take big undertakings?

Are most of us ready to live in fear while the values that we cherry 
most

would crumble under our own eyes?

Would it matter much if we as a movement would disappear? Or is it a
struggle always a positive answer against the shadows in the world?

Can we offer anything else in this world than truth, free knowledge, 
and an

open inclusive environment?

Would you take best wishes from a stranger like me?


Micru
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,