A few years ago I suggested  comparing Wikipedias and producing lists
of biographies of people who were alive on your version of Wikipedia
but dead on another. A bot writer went away, wrote a bot and at one
point we had reports running in 11 languages using data from 80
language versions.

Sadly the bot writer retired and the project is on hiatus. But it
might resume if another bot writer comes forth.

We fixed thousands of errors, mostly when long retired people were
logged as dead in their own language but not in other languages. But
we also fixed a bunch of anomalies ranging from intrawiki links
combining different people of the same name, category errors where
someone had put the year of birth into a year of death category, and
an assortment of other errors and even use of a fake news site; one of
my few French edits had an edit summary of "death was a hoax" and a
link to a site where the agent assured the fans that the chap was
still alive. French wasn't one of the eleven languages we produced
reports for, but some cross wiki working resulted in edits in a lot of
places.

Three things I remember:

first the error rate was actually quite low, and mostly sins of omission.

Secondly, quality of referencing varies a lot by language. Hence some
ongoing anomalies where we can't change the English version because we
don't have a source to cite, but we weren't confident changing the
other language version either, and judging from the age, the English
version saying the person is still alive might well be the wrong one.

Thirdly there was an interesting cultural difference re assumptions
about the very old. Different projects have different cut offs to
decide whether a sportsperson who hasn't troubled the global press
since they were thirty has shuffled off the mortal coil.


~~~~


WSC

>>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate
>> if
>>>> certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can you
>>> say
>>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>>> language
>>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>>
>>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
>>> our
>>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what"
>>>> quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
>>> error
>>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>> category
>>>> was not correctly linked.
>>>>
>>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only add
>> to
>>>> the current bias in research.
>>>>
>>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
>>> the
>>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>> find
>>>> the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format
>> of a
>>>> language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>        GerardM
>>>>
>>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>>> interesting
>>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error.
>>> I'm
>>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in
>>>> editing
>>>>> is removed.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of interest
>>> to
>>>>> you.
>>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>> "living
>>>>>> people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects.
>> When
>>>> the
>>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata (not
>>> the
>>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>       GerardM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>>> articles?
>>>>> Not
>>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>>> features.
>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of citations,
>>> and
>>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:26:41 +0000
> From: John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
> Message-ID:
>    <cajcmx2nbzec0jtwt-4j-vzfvymmbxib9exkzx1onqghofqt...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Sorry for the sprellig, I write this on a mobile with Norwegian
> spellchecker.
>
> Gerrards last question is about coverage, and bias, which is part of the
> overall quality for the project as such.
>
>
> Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.22 skrev John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>:
>
>> I wrote a proposal a few years ago on how we could identfy some types of
>> bias. The idea was to compare ranking of pageviews, and notify other
>> projects about missing articles. I don't think anyone has done any followup
>> om that
>>
>> Den søn. 16. apr. 2017, 19.12 skrev Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare
>>> the
>>> two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we
>>> satisfied
>>> with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what
>>> we aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all
>>> knowledge.
>>> Thanks,
>>>        GerardM
>>>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_enWP_map_RENDER_small.png
>>> [2]
>>>
>>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCountries.jpg
>>>
>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello John,
>>>>
>>>> Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends
>>>> extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what
>>>> questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very different
>>>> approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask me, only a
>>>> human being can judge an article if it comes to content quality and
>>> textual
>>>> quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate on what are your
>>>> questions?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards
>>>> Ziko
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to appreciate
>>> if
>>>>> certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the same? What can
>>> you
>>>> say
>>>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>>>> language
>>>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>>>
>>>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about all
>>>> our
>>>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what
>>> the
>>>>> quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I fixed an
>>>> error
>>>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>>> category
>>>>> was not correctly linked.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only
>>> add to
>>>>> the current bias in research.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find in
>>>> the
>>>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>>> find
>>>>> the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the format
>>> of a
>>>>> language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>        GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>>>> interesting
>>>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an
>>> error.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary logged-in
>>>>> editing
>>>>>> is removed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of
>>> interest
>>>> to
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>>> "living
>>>>>>> people" the fact of a death should be the same in all projects.
>>> When
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata
>>> (not
>>>> the
>>>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>       GerardM
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>>>> articles?
>>>>>> Not
>>>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>>>> features.
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of
>>> citations,
>>>> and
>>>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:10:12 +0200
> From: "Peter Southwood" <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> To: "'Wikimedia Mailing List'" <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
> Message-ID: <00ce01d2b6e5$156e6c90$404b45b0$@telkomsa.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="utf-8"
>
> Gerard,
> I looked at the two images, but have no idea of what point you are trying to 
> make about them. Could you be a bit more descriptive?
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf 
> Of Gerard Meijssen
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2017 7:11 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality assurance of articles
>
> Hoi,
> Humans are overrated. I saw this answer on Facebook [1] and [2] compare the 
> two and tell me why we accept the bias in our editors. Why are we satisfied 
> with what we write about when there is more to inform about. Remember what we 
> aim to achieve. It does not say text, it says share the sum of all knowledge.
> Thanks,
>        GerardM
>
> [1]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Geotagged_articles_in_enWP_map_RENDER_small.png
> [2]
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/WorldmapGeonamesallCountries.jpg
>
>> On 16 April 2017 at 18:59, Ziko van Dijk <zvand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello John,
>>
>> Article quality is an interesting subject. I guess that it depends
>> extremely on what is the scientific discipline you come from, and what
>> questions you want to be answered. A linguist will have a very
>> different approach than a computer scientist, for example. If you ask
>> me, only a human being can judge an article if it comes to content
>> quality and textual quality, by the way. Maybe you want to elaborate
>> on what are your questions?
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Ziko
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2017-04-16 9:44 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> How can you check for consistency when you are not able to
>>> appreciate if certain facts (like date of death) exist and are the
>>> same? What can you
>> say
>>> about sources when some Wikipedias insist on sources in their own
>> language
>>> and sources in other languages you cannot read? How do you check for
>>> consistency when we have over 280 Wikipedias with possible content?
>>>
>>> Do know that only Wikidata approaches a state where it knows about
>>> all
>> our
>>> projects and we have not, to the best of my knowledge, assessed what
>>> the quality of Wikidata is on interwiki links.. Case in point, I
>>> fixed an
>> error
>>> today about a person that was said to be dead because a Commons
>>> category was not correctly linked.
>>>
>>> When you study the consistency of English Wikipedia only, you only
>>> add to the current bias in research.
>>>
>>> When you want to know about the half life of an error, you can find
>>> in
>> the
>>> history when for instance a date was mentioned for a first time and
>>> find the same date in another language. This is not trivial as the
>>> format of a language is diverse think Thai for instance.
>>> Thanks,
>>>        GerardM
>>>
>>>> On 16 April 2017 at 02:08, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is more about checking consistency between projects. It is
>>>> interesting, but not quite what I was asking about. It is very
>>> interesting
>>>> if it would be possible to say something about half-life of an error.
>> I'm
>>>> pretty sure this follows number of page views if ordinary
>>>> logged-in
>>> editing
>>>> is removed.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 12:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>>>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hoi,
>>>>> Would checking if a date of death exists in articles be of
>>>>> interest
>> to
>>>> you.
>>>>> The idea is that Wikidata knows about dates of death and for
>>>>> "living people" the fact of a death should be the same in all
>>>>> projects. When
>>> the
>>>>> date of death is missing, there is either an issue at Wikidata
>>>>> (not
>> the
>>>>> same precision is one) or at a project.
>>>>>
>>>>> When a difference is found, the idea is that it is each projects
>>>>> responsibility to do what is needed. No further automation.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>       GerardM
>>>>>
>>>>> On 15 April 2017 at 23:50, John Erling Blad <jeb...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Are anyone doing any work on automated quality assurance of
>> articles?
>>>> Not
>>>>>> the ORES-stuff, that is about creating hints from measured
>> features.
>>>> I'm
>>>>>> thinking about verifying existence and completeness of
>>>>>> citations,
>> and
>>>>>> structure of logical arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> 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=unsubscr
>>>>> ibe>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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=unsubscrib
>>>> e>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 157, Issue 43
> ********************************************

_______________________________________________
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>

Reply via email to