Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-02-25 11:15 AM, Edward Saperia wrote:

I'm not sure you've understood correctly. In my proposed system, people
propose projects and these projects are advertised on the centralnotice
banners.


Ah, I indeed hadn't.  My understanding was that you wanted to substitute 
for the grants process(es) but that the actual source of funding would 
remain the WMF coffers.


In which case I need to reclassify your idea from "intriguing" to 
"horrifying" in my opinion.  Not because I find anything fundamentally 
objectionable to crowdfunding (I do not, and have indeed thrown money at 
a number of cool crowdfunded projects in the past) but because - as 
FloNight noted - this is an invitation to formalize and cement systemic 
bias to an insane degree.  "All the knowlegde" - not "all the knowledge 
someone is willing and able to afford".


Beyond which is the simple reality that many things you'll find no 
shortage of agreement that they need to be done are, fundamentally, 
unsexy and unimpressive.  You would be hard-pressed to make a workable 
"marketing campaign" for them, and quickly find that the boring stuff 
gets underfunded no matter how important.


I still think there is something to the idea of trying to work in more 
"crowdsourcing" to the project financing processes - being able to 
create a lightweight and attractive way of getting a vast number of 
community members to weigh in on the relative desirability of ways to 
spend money towards the projects /is/ a laudable objective.


-- Marc


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Edward Saperia]

Well, you could create a guideline that said "In the interest of
innovation, we should try and fund a diversity of projects" and then with
the community hash out what dimensions you care about for diversity in this
context, and how far from equality you are happy to go without artificial
interference, and then what interference should happen if you go outside
that boundary.

Let's say we've decided that we care about a diversity in where project
leads come from. Then you'd create a way to record from where successful
projects are from, and if there is a lack of diversity then this will be
obvious - like how it works with rotating Wikimania around different
continents: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania/past

I actually imagine that while this list would rarely be empty, the
individual items on it would be burned through very fast; it'd be like the
front page of Reddit. Most projects would be looking for small amounts of
money, so they'd either get fully funded in hours, or are shown to have a
low conversion rate and get kicked back down the queue - unless we're
holding them there because we think funding them is critical.

Also presumably we'd have an empirically derived "cut-off" conversion rate;
if after x thousand views, fewer than 0.???% of viewers donate on a
proposed project then it gets removed from the queue. If there are no
projects in the queue then we don't show any banners at all. So if people
are complaining that we show too many banners, they can instead try and
quantify how much by arguing to raise this cut-off rate by a certain amount.

*Edward Saperia*
email  • facebook  •
 twitter  • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

On 25 February 2015 at 16:24, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> In your scheme, items would not get moved up to be considered if they are
> not popular enough, right?  From my experience working on wikimedia global
> committees, it would be likely that the volume of requests would be much
> larger than the capacity of the wikimedia movement to evaluate them. People
> join the movement primarily to create content with a smaller part being
> willing to do administrative website work. And an even smaller group being
> willing to do work around evaluation. Reader come to read content.
>
> So well populated parts of the movement would have a huge advantage over
> less populated areas.
> Right now a small user group has a fair chance of getting funds to do a
> project that might be over shadowed by larger groups that had a constant
> flow of requests coming in.
>
> How do you propose that we make sure that funds are give out in a way that
> supports more diversity not less?
>
> Sydney
>
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Edward Saperia 
> wrote:
>
> > Of course you're very correct that there are many projects sitting around
> > asking for scrutiny - the difference here is the (potential of) funding
> > would be default yes instead of default no, with the discussion just
> around
> > the priority. I expect that would attract a lot more attention very
> quickly
> > indeed.
> >
> > *Edward Saperia*
> > email  • facebook <
> http://www.facebook.com/edsaperia>
> > •
> >  twitter  • 07796955572
> > 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
> >
> > On 25 February 2015 at 15:38, Sydney Poore 
> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm pretty concerned that the systematic biases in the wikimedia
> movement
> > > would be continued if there was no organized effort to do a
> comprehensive
> > > review of all proposals to see where we are lacking diversity. I'm in
> > favor
> > > of having more focused funding calls like the Inspire Gender Gap
> > campaign.
> > >
> > > A large part of the work of the community grant committees..IEG, PEG,
> > > FDC...is evaluating the feasibility of the projects, the impact of
> work,
> > > and giving feedback. This work needs the assistance of paid staff to
> make
> > > sure all the information needed to make decision is available. Then
> > > volunteers to look at the information and give a recommendation. I'm
> not
> > > clear on how the work flow you suggest would get the important aspects
> of
> > > the work accomplished.
> > >
> > > I'm not opposed to a group outside of WMF taking over this type of
> work.
> > > But there was a huge vacuum in the movement around Learning and
> > Evaluation
> > > until recently.  The WMF began doing this work for lack of anyone else
> > > doing it well. At this point, I can't see an independent organization
> > being
> > > feasible.
> > >
> > > Instead of small Project and Event Grants, micro grants, or travel
> > grants,
> > > many organizations are asking for unrestricted funds to pay for staff,
> > > offices, equipment, specialized staff for software development. They
> want
> > > to have funds to make long term plans with GLAM partner organizatio

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Sydney Poore]

In your scheme, items would not get moved up to be considered if they are
not popular enough, right?  From my experience working on wikimedia global
committees, it would be likely that the volume of requests would be much
larger than the capacity of the wikimedia movement to evaluate them. People
join the movement primarily to create content with a smaller part being
willing to do administrative website work. And an even smaller group being
willing to do work around evaluation. Reader come to read content.

So well populated parts of the movement would have a huge advantage over
less populated areas.
Right now a small user group has a fair chance of getting funds to do a
project that might be over shadowed by larger groups that had a constant
flow of requests coming in.

How do you propose that we make sure that funds are give out in a way that
supports more diversity not less?

Sydney


Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Edward Saperia 
wrote:

> Of course you're very correct that there are many projects sitting around
> asking for scrutiny - the difference here is the (potential of) funding
> would be default yes instead of default no, with the discussion just around
> the priority. I expect that would attract a lot more attention very quickly
> indeed.
>
> *Edward Saperia*
> email  • facebook 
> •
>  twitter  • 07796955572
> 133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG
>
> On 25 February 2015 at 15:38, Sydney Poore  wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty concerned that the systematic biases in the wikimedia movement
> > would be continued if there was no organized effort to do a comprehensive
> > review of all proposals to see where we are lacking diversity. I'm in
> favor
> > of having more focused funding calls like the Inspire Gender Gap
> campaign.
> >
> > A large part of the work of the community grant committees..IEG, PEG,
> > FDC...is evaluating the feasibility of the projects, the impact of work,
> > and giving feedback. This work needs the assistance of paid staff to make
> > sure all the information needed to make decision is available. Then
> > volunteers to look at the information and give a recommendation. I'm not
> > clear on how the work flow you suggest would get the important aspects of
> > the work accomplished.
> >
> > I'm not opposed to a group outside of WMF taking over this type of work.
> > But there was a huge vacuum in the movement around Learning and
> Evaluation
> > until recently.  The WMF began doing this work for lack of anyone else
> > doing it well. At this point, I can't see an independent organization
> being
> > feasible.
> >
> > Instead of small Project and Event Grants, micro grants, or travel
> grants,
> > many organizations are asking for unrestricted funds to pay for staff,
> > offices, equipment, specialized staff for software development. They want
> > to have funds to make long term plans with GLAM partner organizations.
> The
> > evaluation of these large grant requests is extremely time consuming. Our
> > current method of asking a group of volunteers to be available to this
> type
> > of work a set period of time, and having it also open for other community
> > comment seems to the best approach to make sure every project get a fair
> > look.
> >
> > Today there are dozens of ideas for projects on meta waiting for people
> to
> > comment and offer assistance of some type. I'm in favor of doing more to
> > encourage members of the wikimedia movement to come to meta and join in
> > working on them.
> >
> > IdeaLab.  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> >
> > Wikipedian in Residence
> > at Cochrane Collaboration
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Edward Saperia 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This reminds me of a slightly heretical idea I had a while ago while
> > > thinking about crowdfunding and WMF fundraising...
> > >
> > > Currently the WMF raises money via site banners, and spends these on
> > > programmes and disburses them via grants, which go to all kinds of
> > projects
> > > - education, outreach, development, Wikimedians in Residence, etc etc.
> > > Despite the relative openness of the WMF as an organisation, this is
> > still
> > > a very centralised, top down method of handling (the disbursement of)
> > these
> > > funds. If we're truly going down the "everything open, everything
> > community
> > > driven" route, the more consistent approach would be something like the
> > > following:
> > >
> > > The community submit funding proposals for projects they want to do, of
> > any
> > > kind. Each has a campaign page with a description of the project (much
> > like
> > > a kickstarter page, with project milestones, background, team etc), a
> > > monetary target they're trying to raise, and a banner design. These
> > > projects compete for advertising time on the site banner via a

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Edward Saperia]

I'm not sure you've understood correctly. In my proposed system, people
propose projects and these projects are advertised on the centralnotice
banners. When clicked on, readers are taken to the individual project pages
and donate to them directly, rather than donating into a central pot.


> (a) people put forth their own money, and therefore assume the element of
> risk themselves.
>

Not sure what you mean here? Readers will donate their own money to
individual projects.


> (b) people who participate in crowdfunding do so with highly variable
> amounts - from a few dollars to several thousands - according to how much
> interest they have, and that's an important dynamic of the funding process.
>

Nothing stopping donors donating different amounts directly to projects.

(c) many (most?) of the people who contribute to campaigns of this nature
> do so for the perks, or contribute /more/ to the funding because of the
> perks.
>

Well, Wikipedia is successfully crowdfunded at the moment without perks.
This just breaks it down into individual projects instead of crowdfunding
the entire entity in one go. Intuition would suggest that we'd raise more
money this way rather than less, because of the variety of campaigns, and
the effectiveness of a community at evolving campaign designs over time.

Of course, there's nothing stopping projects from offering perks either.
Wikipedia swag perhaps? All the fulfilment logistics are already there via
the official shop.
___
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, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Edward Saperia]

Of course you're very correct that there are many projects sitting around
asking for scrutiny - the difference here is the (potential of) funding
would be default yes instead of default no, with the discussion just around
the priority. I expect that would attract a lot more attention very quickly
indeed.

*Edward Saperia*
email  • facebook  •
 twitter  • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

On 25 February 2015 at 15:38, Sydney Poore  wrote:

> I'm pretty concerned that the systematic biases in the wikimedia movement
> would be continued if there was no organized effort to do a comprehensive
> review of all proposals to see where we are lacking diversity. I'm in favor
> of having more focused funding calls like the Inspire Gender Gap campaign.
>
> A large part of the work of the community grant committees..IEG, PEG,
> FDC...is evaluating the feasibility of the projects, the impact of work,
> and giving feedback. This work needs the assistance of paid staff to make
> sure all the information needed to make decision is available. Then
> volunteers to look at the information and give a recommendation. I'm not
> clear on how the work flow you suggest would get the important aspects of
> the work accomplished.
>
> I'm not opposed to a group outside of WMF taking over this type of work.
> But there was a huge vacuum in the movement around Learning and Evaluation
> until recently.  The WMF began doing this work for lack of anyone else
> doing it well. At this point, I can't see an independent organization being
> feasible.
>
> Instead of small Project and Event Grants, micro grants, or travel grants,
> many organizations are asking for unrestricted funds to pay for staff,
> offices, equipment, specialized staff for software development. They want
> to have funds to make long term plans with GLAM partner organizations. The
> evaluation of these large grant requests is extremely time consuming. Our
> current method of asking a group of volunteers to be available to this type
> of work a set period of time, and having it also open for other community
> comment seems to the best approach to make sure every project get a fair
> look.
>
> Today there are dozens of ideas for projects on meta waiting for people to
> comment and offer assistance of some type. I'm in favor of doing more to
> encourage members of the wikimedia movement to come to meta and join in
> working on them.
>
> IdeaLab.  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
>
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Edward Saperia 
> wrote:
>
> > This reminds me of a slightly heretical idea I had a while ago while
> > thinking about crowdfunding and WMF fundraising...
> >
> > Currently the WMF raises money via site banners, and spends these on
> > programmes and disburses them via grants, which go to all kinds of
> projects
> > - education, outreach, development, Wikimedians in Residence, etc etc.
> > Despite the relative openness of the WMF as an organisation, this is
> still
> > a very centralised, top down method of handling (the disbursement of)
> these
> > funds. If we're truly going down the "everything open, everything
> community
> > driven" route, the more consistent approach would be something like the
> > following:
> >
> > The community submit funding proposals for projects they want to do, of
> any
> > kind. Each has a campaign page with a description of the project (much
> like
> > a kickstarter page, with project milestones, background, team etc), a
> > monetary target they're trying to raise, and a banner design. These
> > projects compete for advertising time on the site banner via a community
> > curated queue; When they're at the top of this queue, they're displayed
> on
> > the banners, which lead to their project pages; if they hit their
> > fundraising target, they're taken down; if they have a low conversion
> rate
> > (% of views that lead to donations), they're demoted down the queue and,
> if
> > persistently low, rejected entirely.
> >
> > The criteria for prioritisation of projects in the queue and the vetting
> of
> > project quality is done organically by the community, who would create
> and
> > evolve guidelines and policies. The actual handling of the queue could be
> > done algorithmically via an openly editable algorithm, or even done
> > manually like with e.g. WP:ITN - you'd just need a widget that tells you
> > how much a given project has raised so far and what the conversion rate
> is.
> > If the community is concerned about people being shown too many banners,
> we
> > dial down the number of people being shown banners, or raise the bar in
> > terms of acceptable conversion rates.
> >
> > If a project raises money and is ultimately considered a failure, then
> > hopefully the community will learn from this and provide more support /
> be
> > more care

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Sydney Poore]

I'm pretty concerned that the systematic biases in the wikimedia movement
would be continued if there was no organized effort to do a comprehensive
review of all proposals to see where we are lacking diversity. I'm in favor
of having more focused funding calls like the Inspire Gender Gap campaign.

A large part of the work of the community grant committees..IEG, PEG,
FDC...is evaluating the feasibility of the projects, the impact of work,
and giving feedback. This work needs the assistance of paid staff to make
sure all the information needed to make decision is available. Then
volunteers to look at the information and give a recommendation. I'm not
clear on how the work flow you suggest would get the important aspects of
the work accomplished.

I'm not opposed to a group outside of WMF taking over this type of work.
But there was a huge vacuum in the movement around Learning and Evaluation
until recently.  The WMF began doing this work for lack of anyone else
doing it well. At this point, I can't see an independent organization being
feasible.

Instead of small Project and Event Grants, micro grants, or travel grants,
many organizations are asking for unrestricted funds to pay for staff,
offices, equipment, specialized staff for software development. They want
to have funds to make long term plans with GLAM partner organizations. The
evaluation of these large grant requests is extremely time consuming. Our
current method of asking a group of volunteers to be available to this type
of work a set period of time, and having it also open for other community
comment seems to the best approach to make sure every project get a fair
look.

Today there are dozens of ideas for projects on meta waiting for people to
comment and offer assistance of some type. I'm in favor of doing more to
encourage members of the wikimedia movement to come to meta and join in
working on them.

IdeaLab.  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Ideas

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight

Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 9:37 AM, Edward Saperia  wrote:

> This reminds me of a slightly heretical idea I had a while ago while
> thinking about crowdfunding and WMF fundraising...
>
> Currently the WMF raises money via site banners, and spends these on
> programmes and disburses them via grants, which go to all kinds of projects
> - education, outreach, development, Wikimedians in Residence, etc etc.
> Despite the relative openness of the WMF as an organisation, this is still
> a very centralised, top down method of handling (the disbursement of) these
> funds. If we're truly going down the "everything open, everything community
> driven" route, the more consistent approach would be something like the
> following:
>
> The community submit funding proposals for projects they want to do, of any
> kind. Each has a campaign page with a description of the project (much like
> a kickstarter page, with project milestones, background, team etc), a
> monetary target they're trying to raise, and a banner design. These
> projects compete for advertising time on the site banner via a community
> curated queue; When they're at the top of this queue, they're displayed on
> the banners, which lead to their project pages; if they hit their
> fundraising target, they're taken down; if they have a low conversion rate
> (% of views that lead to donations), they're demoted down the queue and, if
> persistently low, rejected entirely.
>
> The criteria for prioritisation of projects in the queue and the vetting of
> project quality is done organically by the community, who would create and
> evolve guidelines and policies. The actual handling of the queue could be
> done algorithmically via an openly editable algorithm, or even done
> manually like with e.g. WP:ITN - you'd just need a widget that tells you
> how much a given project has raised so far and what the conversion rate is.
> If the community is concerned about people being shown too many banners, we
> dial down the number of people being shown banners, or raise the bar in
> terms of acceptable conversion rates.
>
> If a project raises money and is ultimately considered a failure, then
> hopefully the community will learn from this and provide more support / be
> more careful with that kind of project in the future. However, one hopes
> that this will also allow for bolder project ideas to get off the ground,
> and also allow for a much larger amount of small funding to go to many
> small projects, as there is no centralised grants body that has to process
> them all.
>
> In order to pay for its own programmes, then, the WMF itself would have to
> submit projects into this queue. Nobody would have to go to any centralised
> body for money - all funds would be raised and disbursed via this one
> channel. Operationally I suppose the WMF would provide the infrastructure
> to actually receive and send out the money.
>
> You could even start getting clever with e.g. show

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-02-25 09:37 AM, Edward Saperia wrote:

if they hit their
fundraising target  [...]


Your idea is provocative, and intriguing, but I think that - at least in 
this form - it is doomed to fail because it actually steps around what 
makes kickstarter-like crowdfunding work.


(a) people put forth their own money, and therefore assume the element 
of risk themselves.


(b) people who participate in crowdfunding do so with highly variable 
amounts - from a few dollars to several thousands - according to how 
much interest they have, and that's an important dynamic of the funding 
process.


(c) many (most?) of the people who contribute to campaigns of this 
nature do so for the perks, or contribute /more/ to the funding because 
of the perks.


Nevertheless, the idea of having the communities themselves "fund" some 
of the projects is intriguing.  I'm just unconvinced the crowdsourcing 
model is the one to gun for.


-- Marc




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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wikimediameta-l] An alternative model for grant funding

[Edward Saperia]

This reminds me of a slightly heretical idea I had a while ago while
thinking about crowdfunding and WMF fundraising...

Currently the WMF raises money via site banners, and spends these on
programmes and disburses them via grants, which go to all kinds of projects
- education, outreach, development, Wikimedians in Residence, etc etc.
Despite the relative openness of the WMF as an organisation, this is still
a very centralised, top down method of handling (the disbursement of) these
funds. If we're truly going down the "everything open, everything community
driven" route, the more consistent approach would be something like the
following:

The community submit funding proposals for projects they want to do, of any
kind. Each has a campaign page with a description of the project (much like
a kickstarter page, with project milestones, background, team etc), a
monetary target they're trying to raise, and a banner design. These
projects compete for advertising time on the site banner via a community
curated queue; When they're at the top of this queue, they're displayed on
the banners, which lead to their project pages; if they hit their
fundraising target, they're taken down; if they have a low conversion rate
(% of views that lead to donations), they're demoted down the queue and, if
persistently low, rejected entirely.

The criteria for prioritisation of projects in the queue and the vetting of
project quality is done organically by the community, who would create and
evolve guidelines and policies. The actual handling of the queue could be
done algorithmically via an openly editable algorithm, or even done
manually like with e.g. WP:ITN - you'd just need a widget that tells you
how much a given project has raised so far and what the conversion rate is.
If the community is concerned about people being shown too many banners, we
dial down the number of people being shown banners, or raise the bar in
terms of acceptable conversion rates.

If a project raises money and is ultimately considered a failure, then
hopefully the community will learn from this and provide more support / be
more careful with that kind of project in the future. However, one hopes
that this will also allow for bolder project ideas to get off the ground,
and also allow for a much larger amount of small funding to go to many
small projects, as there is no centralised grants body that has to process
them all.

In order to pay for its own programmes, then, the WMF itself would have to
submit projects into this queue. Nobody would have to go to any centralised
body for money - all funds would be raised and disbursed via this one
channel. Operationally I suppose the WMF would provide the infrastructure
to actually receive and send out the money.

You could even start getting clever with e.g. showing different campaigns
to readers from different geographical regions, or particular campaigns to
readers looking at articles from particular wikipedia categories, and I
imagine that kind of thing would start to evolve on its own.

It really struck me that the discussions around the centralnotice
fundraising banners fell into a classic pattern; one centralised team doing
their best, but being overwhelmed by feedback from a large community. This
model puts all this attention to good use.

*Edward Saperia*
Conference Director for Wikimania 2014 
email  • facebook  •
 twitter  • 07796955572
133-135 Bethnal Green Road, E2 7DG

On 24 February 2015 at 18:54, Sage Ross 
wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Austin Hair  wrote:
>
> > With more and more Wikimedians engaging in crowdfunding, I suppose we
> > can talk about whether the mailing list for Wikimedia movement
> > organization is the place to advertise in this way. For my part, I
> > don't think a simple (i.e., without any additional context) "please
> > check out this Indiegogo" is any different from "hey, check out my
> > blog," so when the last one came through the queue I rejected it
> > without much thought. It certainly wasn't done with any prejudice.
> >
>
> For my part, I always like to see crowdfunding pitches from
> Wikimedians. There haven't been *that* many of them (maybe 8 or 10?),
> and so far they've all (that I've seen) come from prolific
> contributors.
>
> These crowdfunding pitches generally take a lot more effort to put
> together than a blog post does, and they are also easy and satisfying
> to act on. If I can take 3 minutes and a few dollars to simultaneously
> say thanks to a great contributor and help them make even better
> contributions, I'm grateful for that opportunity.
>
> -Sage
>
> ___
> 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,
>