Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump (technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's decision to invest in reliability. Reliability, I'm discovering, is the thing that must not be named. "We tried fixing reliability. Remember Nupedia? Hahahahahahaha."
Magnus: I think we agree both ratios (Wikipedia's and Wikidata's) have a long way to go. :o) TTS: Yes. Why not? A simple button that smoothly reads an article to me, like a podcast, with fast forward and rewind or skip, while I do the dishes would be cool. I hope they're not going to try to re-invent JAWS, though. Anthony Cole On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading > function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now? > > Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially > given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually > make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one > statement per sentence ;-) > > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this: > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example > > > > > > Anthony Cole > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> 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/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=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=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> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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=unsubscribe>
