Maybe it will become accessible with future technology, in which case your work would not be wasted. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Anthony Cole Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 9:06 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't accessible by the sight impaired. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood < peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > That would be a useful feature in the long term Cheers, Peter > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > Behalf Of Anthony Cole > Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske > > Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically > discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." > Check out the first paragraph and its references here: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral. > > Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your > MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what > each reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting > the supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip. > > I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that > screen readers can read it. > > Anthony Cole > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske < > magnusman...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those > > > at the end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of > > > references at the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are > missing my point. > > Many > > > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a > > > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences > > > after > > the > > > last footnote marker. > > > > > > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote > > > marker supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the > > > sentences at the beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be > > > counted as unsourced statements. > > > > > > > Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically > > discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As > > described, my "one sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound > > of statement numbers. So is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you > > can find an article where my statement-to-reference ratio is off > > against WIkipedia; but I believe I could find more instances where > > it is in > favour of Wikipedia. > > > > > > > > > > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just > > doesn't > > > matter which project is more poorly referenced. > > > > > > > Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care > > :-) > > > > My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one > > can't "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor > referencing. > > Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). > > That is all. > > > > Cheers, > > Magnus > > > > > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole > > > <ahcole...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of > > > > you > > only > > > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the > > > > end of paragraphs. > > > > > > > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a > > > > paragraph > > > if, > > > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a > > > > paragraph > > often > > > > supports all statements in the paragraph? > > > > > > > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact? > > > > > > > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in > > > > his response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading > > > > because, provided statements are repeated and supported by a > > > > reliable source in > > > the > > > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in > > > en.Wikipedia > > > > article leads. > > > > > > > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating > > > Wikipedia's > > > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the > > > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia > > > > is appalling. > > > > > > > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia > > > > is > > worse". > > > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's > > > > true but still an invalid argument. > > > > > > > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument. > > > > > > > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding > > > > references > > > is > > > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it > > > > is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more > > > > difficult than adding them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will > > > > you? > > > > > > > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the > > > > media > > viewer > > > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users. > > > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske < > > > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole > > > >> <ahcole...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Magnus. > > > >> > > > > >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to > > > >> > an > > essay > > > >> [1] > > > >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you > > > >> > were > > > >> addressing > > > >> > me. > > > >> > > > > >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. > > > >> > You > > > describe > > > >> a > > > >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by > > > >> > reliable > > > >> sources. > > > >> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each > > sentence > > > >> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of > > > >> > sentences > > > with > > > >> the > > > >> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the > > references > > > >> per > > > >> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving > > > >> > at the > > > RPS > > > >> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS > > > >> > ratios of en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios > > > >> > of their > > associated > > > >> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Correct. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio > > > >> > because > > > >> whole > > > >> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote > > > >> > marker > > > appears > > > >> > only once at the end of the paragraph. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the > > > >> paragraphs, > > not > > > >> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-) > > > >> > > > >> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia > > > >> articles is > > > low > > > >> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first > > > >> sentence at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams > > > >> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last > > > >> name, birth date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, > > > >> and three occupations). > > > >> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence. > > > This > > > >> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but > > > >> the > > number > > > of > > > >> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains > > constant, > > > >> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia. > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a > > > >> > wiki it > > > >> should > > > >> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very > > > >> > valid arguments. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't > > > >> put > > them > > > >> in > > > >> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard > > > >> > and > > > others > > > >> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata > sources. > > > If > > > >> > that is so, you should fix that. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly > > > >> not more difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have > > > >> written bots and drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It > > > >> is a little fiiddly to > > > add > > > >> book references, but still reasoably possible. > > > >> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But > > > >> pick a > > > random > > > >> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can > > > >> be referenced to URLs. But this takes time. > > > >> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, > > > >> Wikidata is referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. > > > >> And if we have > > learned > > > >> one > > > >> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and > > > >> references > > in > > > >> particular, will improve over time. > > > >> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing > > > >> references", I > > > say: > > > >> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK) 2. Patience (it will get even > > > >> better) > > > >> > > > >> Cheers, > > > >> Magnus > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378 > > > >> > > > > >> > Anthony Cole > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels < > > andreeng...@gmail.com> > > > >> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of > > > >> > > the > > "it's > > > >> > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a > > > >> > > crowd exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of > > > >> > > community is behind > > > it, > > > >> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the > > > >> > > community > > who > > > >> > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of > > > >> > > visual editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. > > > >> > > Which I had > > > to > > > >> > > be, because I know you have done many good things. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your > > > >> > > average Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the > > > >> > > software > > > engineering > > > >> > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even > > > >> > > if they > > > did, > > > >> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life > > > >> > > in > > short > > > >> > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining > > > >> > > about > > that, > > > >> > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would > > > >> > > probably > > cause > > > >> > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug > > > >> > > reports etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way > > > >> > > of > > working > > > >> > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case. > > People > > > >> > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those > > > >> > > issues are > > so > > > >> > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they > > > >> > > are resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, > > > >> > > but also forcing the product on them in the period between > > > >> > > the discovery of > > > the > > > >> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my > > opinion > > > is > > > >> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific > > > >> > > issues > > into > > > >> > > resistance against the product as a whole. > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske > > > >> > > <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote > > > >> > > > in > > this > > > >> > > thread. I > > > >> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is > > > >> > > > deserved, > > and > > > I > > > >> do > > > >> > > well > > > >> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early > > > >> > > > incarnation, was > > not > > > >> > quite > > > >> > > up > > > >> > > > to the job. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some > > technical > > > >> or > > > >> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing > > > >> > > > worthless, > > even > > > >> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This > > > >> > > > behaviour, I > > have > > > >> seen > > > >> > > time > > > >> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new. > > > >> > > > And > > > Not > > > >> > Made > > > >> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one. > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole < > > ahcole...@gmail.com > > > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor > > > >> > > >> revolt. A > > > >> couple > > > >> > of > > > >> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. > > > >> > > >> And > > > you're > > > >> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe, > > actually. > > > >> The > > > >> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors. > > Not > > > >> > > newbies. > > > >> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully > > > >> > > >> complete > > an > > > >> edit. > > > >> > > It > > > >> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few > > editors > > > >> were > > > >> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. > > > >> > > >> But > > then > > > >> most > > > >> > > of > > > >> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the > > > >> > > >> community > > > >> arrogantly > > > >> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product > > > >> > > >> as an > > > >> > ignorant, > > > >> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that > > characterisation > > > >> now. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, > > > >> > > >> and they > > > have > > > >> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the > > > >> > > >> developers > > and > > > >> the > > > >> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here > > > >> > > >> and in > > the > > > >> > > concurrent > > > >> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and > > > >> > > >> from > > Denny > > > >> in > > > >> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it > > > >> > > >> seems to > > me > > > >> there > > > >> > > is > > > >> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs > > > >> > > >> addressing, at > > > >> least > > > >> > > over > > > >> > > >> at WikiData. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even > > insultingly, > > > >> about > > > >> > > an > > > >> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in > > > >> > > >> talking > > down > > > to > > > >> > > them or > > > >> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if > > > >> > > >> you can't > > > >> > > distinguish > > > >> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns > > > >> > > >> and > > > >> > well-founded > > > >> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your > > > >> > > >> technical > > > >> > solutions > > > >> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than > > > >> > > >> those > > > WMF > > > >> > > staffers > > > >> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good > > > >> > > >> career > > > move. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of > > > >> > > >> his > > > project, > > > >> and > > > >> > > your > > > >> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the > > > >> > > >> early > > > visual > > > >> > > editor > > > >> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing. > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> Anthony Cole > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske < > > > >> > > >> magnusman...@googlemail.com> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you > > > >> > > >> > do the > > > >> basic > > > >> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at > > > >> > > >> > the > > same > > > >> time. > > > >> > > We > > > >> > > >> do > > > >> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using > > > >> > > >> > our > > > product. > > > >> If > > > >> > we > > > >> > > >> can > > > >> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use > > > >> > > >> > it, it > > > is > > > >> a > > > >> > > >> success > > > >> > > >> > for us. > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-) > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel < > > > >> em...@mikepeel.net> > > > >> > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske < > > > >> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > wrote: > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be > > > >> > > >> > > > overly > > > >> > > >> > enthusiastic. I > > > >> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands > > > >> > > >> > > > better how > > to > > > >> > handle > > > >> > > new > > > >> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic > > > >> > functionality, > > > >> > > but > > > >> > > >> > > > working smoothly first. > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a > > > >> > > >> > > good > > > example > > > >> to > > > >> > > make > > > >> > > >> > > here. :-/ > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > Thanks, > > > >> > > >> > > Mike > > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidel > > > >> > > >> > > in es 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/Guidelin > > > >> > > >> > es 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 > > > >> > > >> 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 > > > >> > > > 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> > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > -- > > > >> > > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com > > > >> > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > >> , > > > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >> > > > > > >> > _______________________________________________ > > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org > > ?subject=unsubscribe> > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubsc > > > >> ri > > > >> be> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscrib > > > e> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11801 - Release Date: > 03/12/16 > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11804 - Release Date: 03/12/16 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
