Hoi,
Reasonator is at this stage at best and at most as good as bot generated
articles. Generally they suck but provide a service. Reasonator does not
provide adequate service. Try this [1] for instance. Reasonator will not
create proper texts for many if not most languages because Wikidata does
not have the information to do that properly. It can be done and it should
be done but that is a completely different story and will have a gestation
period of years not months.
The fact that Magnus pulled a rabbit out of a hat is just that. It is a
hack, a wonderful hack and it is possible to hack around this whole issue
but true text generation on the appropriate level is NOT what Wikidata
currently does. What Reasonator does in stead is provide adequate
information where Wikidata provides unstructured data.
Jimmy is right when he says that at this stage on the fly creation of
articles is impossible.
This whole story has the grant of the Knight Foundation as its flashpoint.
It is only that and sadly so. The point is that many people in the
community do not trust the Wikimedia Foundation to do good. This is not a
recent thing. We have always had people insist on some crackpot idea. An
old one is the insistence that old skins should still work. That all
information should be possible in a text only browser. Commons cannot be
trusted with public domain pictures. Many people and ideas like this are
alive and well and sour our relations.
People advocated for a different board. They got it and the result is
disappointing. What makes it bad is that the diplomatic skills of Jan-Bart
are sorely missed. What makes it bad that the flash point is mistaken for
the issue. What makes it bad is that bad faith is assumed.
My experience is that what the community spouts is worse than what the WMF
does. It actively undermines what we stand for and at the same time it is
not even open to consider issues around quality of Wikipedia or Wikidata
that are not the same old old.
Really do consider what you want and what the real issue is. Forget about
this grant because it is not about search, it is not about automatically
generated articles. What it is about is "share in the sum of all knowledge"
and how we are going to accomplish this together.
Thanks,
GerardM
[1]
On 16 February 2016 at 01:26, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Here is another such example. Jimmy Wales has tonight
told[1] a volunteer
---o0o---
First the idea that Wikidata could be used to "construct articles" with
"no
need for editors to edit actual article content" is pretty absurd from a
technological point of view. Major breakthroughs in AI would be
necessary. That isn't what is intended at all, obviously.
---o0o---
So "major breakthroughs in AI" are necessary? This is 2016, and the page
"API:Presenting Wikidata knowledge"[2] on MediaWiki specifically points
out:
---o0o---
* Reasonator[3] and Autodesc[4] are tools that create machine-generated
articles and short descriptions about Wikidata items.
---o0o---
Both the Reasonator and Autodesc pages feature what seem to be examples of
such articles:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc?q=Q1339&links=wikipedia&lang=en&…
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339
The just concluded strategy consultation[5] specifically highlighted the
idea to "Explore ways to scale machine-generated, machine-verified and
machine-assisted content."
Now, I've got nothing against these ideas in principle. However, like Pete,
I am absolutely astonished at the sheer number of self-contradictory
messages coming from the WMF with regard to all of this.
Could this please stop?
Andreas
[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=p…
[2]
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Presenting_Wikidata_knowledge#See_also
[3]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/
[4]
https://tools.wmflabs.org/autodesc
[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/2016_Strategy/Knowledge
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Lila,
The confusion, as you will surely agree, is understandable given the
scattershot and often contradictory information provided by WMF to
differing audiences. Above all, I hope the next volley of communication
will address the central contradictions between what you and Jimmy Wales
publicly stated prior to the publication of the grant application, and
the
words in the application itself.
I will quote these below, but first to underscore the importance: when
Siko
questioned the integrity of the organization,
these are the apparent
willful lies that came to mind for me.
-Pete
[[User:Peteforsyth]]
Quotes:
"To make this very clear: no one in top positions has proposed or is
proposing that WMF should get into the general "searching" or to try to
"be
google". It's an interesting
hypothetical which has not been part of any
serious strategy proposal, nor even discussed at the board level, nor
proposed to the board by staff, nor a part of any grant, etc. It's a
total
lie." -J. Wales, Feb. 1
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=p…
"Let’s all treat each other withcivility
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Civility> and etiquette
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Etiquette>, and see if we can
collaborate
to build a consensus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:Consensus> on the
WMF’s project direction to help readers discover the high quality content
and knowledge our editors are creating." - L. Tretikov, Feb. 1
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LilaTretikov_(WMF)&a…
"Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia is a federated knowledge engine that will
give users the most reliable and most trustworthy public information
channel on the web, applying fundamentals of transparent Wiki-based
systems
to surfacing the most relevant and important
information." Grant
application, August 2015
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-02-10/In_fo…
On Feb 15, 2016 2:35 AM, "Lila
Tretikov" <lila(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hi Gnangarra,
>
> Thank you for forwarding, the authors of the article seem to be
confused
about the
nature of the project. Our Comms team is working to clarify
this.
> Please expect to see something from us in next few days.
>
> Lila
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:51 PM, Gnangarra <gnangarra(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
FYI making main stream media
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-15/wikimedia-foundation-aims-to-take-…
>
> On 14 February 2016 at 00:49, Anthony Cole <ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> > Anne, we're talking about almost the same thing, but not exactly. I
say
>
"advised" you say "consulted". "Consulted" implies
soliciting or
expecting
> some kind of response or engagement - probably
> approval/disapproval/critique/input. "Advised" means they got the
memo. I
> > think "advised" is enough, and if the board wants more engagement,
they
> > can
> > > initiate it - presuming the notification is clear and
comprehensive,
of
> > course.
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Risker <risker.wp(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> >
> > > Well, I'm not sure about that, Anthony. By "consulted", I
would
mean
> >
something to the effect of "We're looking at applying to XX for a
grant
> > of
> > > $YYY to do ZZZ" and asking the Board if they would be likely to
agree
> > to
> > > > accept such a grant if the application is successful. The grant
> > > > application, evaluation and approval process is costly in both
time
> and
> > > > resources, and for both the applicant and the grantmaker. Being
> > informed
> > > > that a grant has been approved sounds more like a fait accompli
> > situation
> > > > for the Board - they look petty and ungrateful if they say no,
even
if
> they
> > don't think it was a reasonable grant application. In this case,
we're
> > only dealing with $250,000. What if
this was $1 million? $10
million?
> >
> > I think it is healthier for everyone if the Board is properly
consulted
> > before the application is submitted.
(And again, I note that we
don't
> > know
> > > how much was actually requested in this case, only what was
granted.)
> > > >
> > > > Risker/Anne
> > > >
> > > > On 12 February 2016 at 21:23, Anthony Cole
<ahcoleecu(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anne, regarding:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Since the Board must approve acceptance of any donations
over
> > $100,000
> > > > > USD, it seems to be obvious that they should be consulted and
> > possibly
> > > > > should actively approve any grant applications where the dollar
> value
> > > > > sought is higher than that amount."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure that the board should be *consulted* ahead of
such
> > > > > applications' or should prior-approve all such applications.
That
> > > seems a
> > > > > bit like micromanagement. But it makes sense to me for the
board
to
> be
> > > > *advised
> > > > *of such applications and when they're being actively
contemplated
> or
> > > > > prepared.
> > > > >
> > > > > Anthony Cole
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 9:11 PM, Risker
<risker.wp(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry to hear that you feel this way, Gerard. I
personally
would
> > like
> > > > to feel more assured that the WMF is looking into the longer
future
> > and
> > > > > actively plannning for the day that donations no longer
support a
> > > large
> > > > > > staff doing lots of things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am concerned today that the team specifically tasked to
work
> > > closely
> > > > > with
> > > > > > so many elements of the community has lost 7% of its staff,
and
> 30%
> > > of
> > > > > its
> > > > > > leaders, in a single week. This should be a concern in any
> > > > organization.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With respect to the Knight grant - I know that many times
grant
> > > > > > applications are
made for considerably more than is given,
and
I
am
> > > > > interested to know how much the WMF requested in the first
place.
> > I
> > > > > would
> > > > > > also like to know whether or not the Board was formally
advised
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > request before it was submitted. Since the Board must
approve
> > > > acceptance
> > > > > > of any donations over $100,000 USD, it seems to be obvious
that
> > they
> > > > > should
> > > > > > be consulted and possibly should actively approve any
grant
> > > > applications
> > > > > > where the dollar value sought is higher than that amount.
I
> don't
> > > > > believe
> > > > > > the current policies require advance approval or even
advance
> > > > > notification,
> > > > > > though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Risker/Anne
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 03:54, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > > I am not complaining. I point out that all this huha
does
not
> get
> > > us
> > > > > > > anywhere. I am not afraid to give an opinion and I am
not
> afraid
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > contrarian when I think it makes sense. Yes, things
happened
> that
> > > > were
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > beautiful. They are not what upset me. What upsets me
is
that
> > > people
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > Siko and Anna are leaving. Because they are part of
"my"
> > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > Foundation. What upsets me is that I routinely use
Magnus's
> tool
> > > and
> > > > > > > process hundreds of thousands of records and am to
understand
> > that
> > > > > > official
> > > > > > > query is stunted and does not allow for this
"because it
was
not
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > design" and it is then pointed out that it takes money
to
solve
> > > this...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My point is that baying for blood is not what helps us
forward.
>
What
> > I
> > > do
> > > > > know is that when sheer negativity is not coupled with an
ability
> to
> > > stop
> > > > > and move forward, we will get in a downward spiral. I fault
Pine
> > for
> > > > not
> > > > > > being able to stop. What I wish for is for people like Anna
and
> > > Siko
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > money for our environment and not for an endowment.
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > GerardM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:35, Michel Vuijlsteke <
> > wikipedia(a)zog.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Gerard,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was waiting for this mail. For me personally,
your
> > complaining
> > > is
> > > > > > > > achieving exactly the opposite of what you
think.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It sounds as if you'd much rather prefer to
stick your
head
in
> > the
> > > > sand
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > hope things will blow over. "Move along, nothing
to see
here
> --
> > > oh
> > > > > > look!
> > > > > > > > something positive over there!" is not going
to solve
> anything.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michel
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 09:24, Gerard Meijssen
<
> > > > > > gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > > > > Pine as you are talking about "self
inflicting wounds"
I
> take
> > > it
> > > > > you
> > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > not talking in your personal capacity. When
is it
enough
> for
> > > you?
> > > > > > When
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > you going to talk about positive things,
things that
will
>
move
> > us
> > > > > > > forward.
> > > > > > > > Why ask for blood and more blood? What is it that
you
hope
to
> > > > > achieve?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who do you represent in this unending litany of
negativity
and
> > what
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > you achieved in this way? When Lila was engaged in her
role,
> > she
> > > > was
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > direct in a different direction and she is doing
that.
You
> may
> > > not
> > > > > like
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > and that is ok.
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > GerardM
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 12 February 2016 at 08:43, Pine W <
wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Dariusz, thanks for continuing to
engage here.
Besides
the
> > good
> > > > > > > questions
> > > > > > > > > that others have asked, I'll add a few:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. If the Knowledge Engine is such an
important
project,
> why
> > is
> > > > it
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > mentioned in
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2015-16
> > > > > > > > > ?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 2. I realize that as a percentage of
the WMF budget,
> $250k
> > > is a
> > > > > > > > > relatively
> > > > > > > > > > small number. As others have said, this
is not a
reason
> for
> > > > > opacity
> > > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > it, nor a reason for not having a
conversation with
the
> > community
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > something so strategically important as a
decision to
explore
> > the
> > > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > of "Would users go to Wikipedia if it were
an open
channel
> > > beyond
> > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > encyclopedia?" It's one thing to
have a blue-sky
exercise
> > > > thinking
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > possibilities, and another thing to take a
$250k step
in
> > that
> > > > > > > > direction,
> > > > > > > > > > especially without consulting the
community.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 3. I am getting tired about seeing bad
news in
general
>
about
> > > WMF
> > > > > > > > > governance, planning, and turnover. I am
curious how
you
> plan
> > > to
> > > > > > > address
> > > > > > > > > those issues. Like you, I would rather that
we be
talking
> > > about
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > movement plans for the next 10 years.
However, it's
> > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > conversations when WMF is making so
many
self-inflicted
> > > wounds.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > recent
> > > > > > > > > > round of resignations is of respectable
people from
the
WMF
> > staff
> > > > is
> > > > > > > making
> > > > > > > > the situation that much more concerning and that
much
more
> > > > > difficult
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > recover from. It seems to me that WMF
leadership has
lost
> > > > control
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > situation, and I'd like to hear
what the recovery
plan
> is.
> > > > > > > Personally,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > feel that we need leadership that can
build good
> > > relationships
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > staff and community, is transparent by
default, and
is
> capable
> > of
> > > > > > > restoring
> > > > > > > > the credibility of the organization's
planning,
execution,
> and
> > > > > > goodwill.
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think that we may need new leadership to make
that
happen.
> I
> > am
> > > > > > > > interested
> > > > > > > > > to hear your thoughts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Pine
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Dariusz
Jemielniak <
> > > > > > darekj(a)alk.edu.pl
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 11.02.2016 10:23 PM "SarahSV"
<
sarahsv.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> >
> > napisał(a):
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > Hi
> > > > > > > > > > Dariusz,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > T
> > > > > > > > > > he grant application doesn't
restrict the search
engine
> to
> > > > > > Wikimedia
> > > > > > > > > projects. It says that the "Knowledge
Engine by
Wikipedia
> > [is
> > > > a]
> > > > > > > system
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > discovering reliable and trustworthy
public
information
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Internet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > My understanding is that the top
range could
> potentially
> > be
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > open/public
> > > > > > > > > > > resources, but this is the far
stretched total
goal,
and
> > still
> > > > not
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > general search engine of all content
including
commercial
> > one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And a rrasonable realistic outcome can be
just
improving
> > our
> > > > > > searches
> > > > > > > > > > across projects.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I can't comment on the initial
ideas or goals, as I
was
> > not
> > > > on
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > Board
> > > > > > > > > > > before August 2015, but this is
what I understand
we
> > build
> > > > now.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The document says the
"Search Engine by
Wikipedia"
budget
> > for
> > > > > > > 2015–2016
> > > > > > > > > ($2.4 million) was approved by the board.
Can you
point
> us
> > > to
> > > > > > which
> > > > > > > > > board
> > > > > > > > > > meeting approved it and what was
discussed there?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I dont recall this specifically, and
I'm going to
elude
> > this
> > > > > > question
> > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > going to sleep (and hoping someone
better informed
may
> > > pick).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Good night!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dj
> > > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list,
guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > >
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > > New messages to:
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ,
> >
> > > > > > > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > > > > New messages to:
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > > > >
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > > New messages to:
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > GN.
> > President Wikimedia Australia
> > WMAU:
http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > Photo Gallery:
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
--
Lila Tretikov
Wikimedia Foundation
*“Be bold and mighty forces will come to your aid.”*
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>