WikiEN-l February 2011

wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org

59 participants
46 discussions

Rating the English wikipedia
by Fences&Windows 31 Jul '11

31 Jul '11

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 03:16:12 +0000 From: Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Rating the English wikipedia >This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. >This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for >B-Class status: <snip> >2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million >of an estimated 4.4 million articles) <snip> You think there are only 4.4 million possible topics? Based on what criteria? Stevertigo also thought this in the essay Wikipedia:Concept limit, which I tagged as [citation needed]. There are probably tens of millions of potentially notable topics, if not hundreds of millions. However, we're better at deleting new articles than writing them and writing a new article that will survive these days requires more detailed research than in years gone by.

12 31

editing wikipedia by thought
by WereSpielChequers 27 Feb '11

27 Feb '11

I'm all for disability access, but why specifically to Wikimedia as opposed to The Internet or computing in general? There are some things that we could and in my view should be doing to make our sites more open to people with disabilities. Colour schemes in templates maps and so forth should be designed to give contrast that works for various forms of colour blindness, and there are still lots of images in wikipedia that need alt text for people using text readers. WereSpielChequers > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:35:18 +0000 > From: Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com> > Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikipedia, coming to a pen near you. > To: English Wikipedia <wikien-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <AANLkTikUP7XWMf6Gqe1F+jB=Y4Qvub-PMXvT4Nb3b3Gm(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > How about a pen that you can use to *edit* Wikipedia? No, wait, that > takes longer than typing doesn't it? > > I'm waiting for the app that let's you edit Wikipedia just by > *thinking* (or indeed any application that you can use just by > thinking - some are sort of available already for paraplegics, but the > technology is still in its infancy). > > http://www.technoscan.com/tracking.php?ID=15 > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_interaction > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroprosthetics > > None of those seem to cover eyeball movement technology. > > This does, but not the application to paraplegics: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_tracking > > Here's an interesting page (and an interesting wiki site as well): > > http://abilitynet.wetpaint.com/page/Eye+Pointing > > The closest I could get to anything similar on Wikipedia was one line here: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assistive_technology > > But I'm probably searching using the wrong terms. > > Carcharoth >

3 2

Wikipedia, coming to a pen near you.
by Tony Sidaway 26 Feb '11

26 Feb '11

Is this even possible? Apparently you write the word on a piece of paper, and then the pen displays the article from a memory dump containing the top 100,000 English Wikipedia articles. It's very cheap, too, so it would make a neat novelty gift to the Wikipedian who already has the mugs and t-shirts. http://www.livescribe.com/store/20070723002/wikipedia-en/p-545.htm

4 3

Announcement: Survey study on the categorization of contributors to Wikipedia
by Jeroen Kleijn 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Dear all, I'm a Master student and currently busy with my thesis concerning Wikipedia. This survey is part of a Master Thesis research project which investigates the effects of the increasing participation at reliability of Wikipedia. The survey is designed to collect information that will help me to identify the contributors to Wikipedia. I would like to invite you to answer my online survey, which is available at: http://freeonlinesurveys.com/rendersurvey.asp?sid=ag5flewr68z06ay867574 To be eligible for this investigation you should be an user of Wikipedia who has contributed to the website by creating or editing an article. The questionnaire will take approximately 5 minutes to complete. To allow for reliable results, I hope that as many contributors as possible complete the questionnaire. You would especially help me if you could link to the questionnaire or forward this e-mail to people who don't regularly read this list. Your support would be greatly appreciated! With regards, Jeroen Kleijn

4 9

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Do you want to write pages that thousands of people see every day?
by Elias Friedman 22 Feb '11

22 Feb '11

Okay then, let me ask how do you intend to measure "start them editing"? Raw edit counts? Over what period of time? Will what namespace matter? Frankly I'm not as interested in getting new people *started* editing as I am I in *keeping* them editing. Many new editors get frustrated because they don't understand basic rules like proper sourcing and citation. Many are not good at reading our written rules - that's why I was excited to see those tutorial videos. I really think they can bridge the gap for the majority of people who don't do well with just RTFM. That's why I say that at least a link to those videos should be on *every* version of that landing page. Sent from my Droid2 Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo(a)gmail.com On Feb 20, 2011 6:33 PM, "Lennart Guldbrandsson" <wikihannibal(a)gmail.com> wrote:

10 16

Re: [WikiEN-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay
by Fences&Windows 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

>Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 15:40:35 +0100 >From: Mike Dupont <jamesmikedupont(a)googlemail.com> >Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Missing Wikipedians: An Essay > >Well this is a similar problem I am having with adding details to, or new >articles about Kosovo, even my attempts are getting deleted. Mike, certainly this would be a systemic bias issue, but some of your editing needs refining to avoid running into problems. >Having problems even getting the Turkish, Bosnian or Albanian alternative names >added without being deleted, even if sources Why should all these alternate names by included in the English Wikipedia? I've seen you raising these name disputes repeatedly on this list and at various noticeboards; you need to stop forum-shopping and instead open an RfC so this can be centrally discussed. You're looking a bit like a single-purpose account on this issue and such issues have been taken to ArbCom before, see [[WP:ARBMAC]]. Tread carefully. >let alone a coverage of members of parliament (list of them deleted as not >notable). That list was 1) formatted in a very unusual way, with each person having a heading and with almost no wikilinks 2) almost entirely unsourced. It wasn't deleted as non-notable, it was deleted as being a directory. If you want lists of living people to stay you need to format them according to the manual of style for lists and source them properly. Particularly for such a controversial area as Kosovan politics we cannot be cavalier about making claims to do with living people. I have restored the history to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mdupont/List_of_politicians_… and I have begun cleanup. If you want such a list back in mainspace, it needs formatting and sourcing properly. >Also local pop-stars who are not notable by English newspapers are deleted, even >if they are well know and unavoidable. If you can provide reliable sources in non-English languages, such articles can certainly be kept. I've done so before. The key is to actually provide the sources and not merely assert notability. p.s. The format of my emails tends to come out weird on this list - sorry.

2 1

Points to Ponder
by Marc Riddell 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

All, Familiar points to ponder. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21civility.html?nl=todaysheadl ines&emc=tha23 Marc

1 0

Points to Ponder
by Marc Riddell 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

All, Familiar points to ponder. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/us/politics/21civility.html?nl=todaysheadl ines&emc=tha23 Marc

1 0

FW: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia
by Marc Riddell 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

---------- From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:51:38 -0500 To: Gendergap List <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: FW: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia ---------- From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:34:48 -0500 To: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia > On 20 February 2011 14:24, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> Sue, as you know, this is the area of my greatest concern regarding the >> future of the Wikipedia Project. The gender gap is a part of the larger >> problem you described above: That of a combative, hostile and defensive >> culture that presents an unchecked arena for Community Member harassment and >> abuse - that prevents the type of healthy, intelligent and productive >> collaboration that can, and will, improve and maintain the quality of the >> Project. Is there, are there, plans to mount a similar initiative to tackle >> this larger problem? To approach it as a gender-neutral problem? > on 2/20/11 5:46 PM, Sue Gardner at sgardner(a)wikimedia.org wrote: > Yes, absolutely. And it's not just plans: people are actively working > on the issue, today. This is the primary work of the Community > department at the Wikimedia Foundation -- the staff there are > currently working with community members on a bunch of projects and > activities to help make the Wikimedia projects more inclusive. A lot > of that is happening on the outreach wiki -- for example, the Account > Creation improvement project, the Bookshelf project, the Ambassador > program, support for student campus associations, and so forth. > > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program > http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_student_clubs > > There's also some outreach-related/outreach-supportive activities that > have been announced on the Wikimedia blog: > > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/01/12/new-wikimedia-fellow/ > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikim… > a-commons/ > http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/30/two-new-community-department-fello ws> / > > I agree with you Marc that our central challenge is the need for deep > culture change, to help Wikimedia be more inclusive and open. I think > the gender challenge is part of that, but it's obviously not the whole > story: we need more women, and we also need more editors from outside > North America and Europe, as well as other underrepresented groups. > And we want current editors to be having better, more positive > experiences on the projects, as well. > > Thanks, > Sue Thank you, for this, Sue. And, at the most basic level, we a faced with the reality that this cultural change can only begin, and grow, at the most basic level: The individual. Sue, there are key persons in the Project that, by virtue of their official position or, simply because they are more frequently vocal on the various Project conversation sites, who must lead by example. Each one must be actively working toward this healthier culture. They, and all of us, must set the tone. I truly believe that if the climate is healthy, the culture will be also. Marc

1 0

Somebody must correct this
by michael west 21 Feb '11

21 Feb '11

How on earth can we have an un-sourced article on the founder of the PPP? The whole article is outlandish. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulfikar_Ali_Bhutto a complete re-write of history, anybody with any knowledge on Pakistan help me correct it?

3 4

Re: [WikiEN-l] Fwd: [Foundation-l] Do you want to write pages that thousands of people see every day?
by Elias Friedman 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Definitely NOT the "bookshelf" version! Whatever version you go with, DO include the link to those instructional videos. I didn't even know we had those! Sent from my Droid2 Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo(a)gmail.com On Feb 20, 2011 5:28 PM, "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

2 1

Do you want to write pages that thousands of people see every day?
by Lennart Guldbrandsson 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Hello, Just a quick note from the Account Creation Improvement Project: Tomorrow we will start testing the pages that newcomers see once they have created their accounts. So far we have six new versions of the landing pages, but we would very much like your input and your help. You can check out the pages we have already (and make changes to them - and of course, create new ones) here: * Original version - this is the one we have now: http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * Redesign version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * Version based on Polish version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * 'Options' version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * Video version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * Easy steps version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… * Bookshelf version - http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project/Tes… If you don't like them, that's fine! In fact, make your own version. We want as many Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians as possible to create their versions and improve the versions we have. Tomorrow, February 21st, we will start testing all these pages live on Wikipedia to see which ones make the newcomers more likely to start editing. And every day thousands of newcomers will see some of these versions. (By the way, if you're not familiar with the Account Creation Improvement Project and what we've done so far, go to http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project for more background.) Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson -- Lennart Guldbrandsson, Fellow of the Wikimedia Foundation and chair of Wikimedia Sverige // Wikimedia Foundation-stipendiat och ordförande för Wikimedia Sverige

2 1

Template:Outdent freezing my browser
by Elias Friedman 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Hello all; I'm hoping you can help me. Any page where Template:Outdent is used more than once is causing my Android's browser to freeze-up. This includes the template page itself and all the on-wiki fora (VPT, ANI, etc.) where I might bring up my problem, which is why I'm posting here. I was having no problems just the other day, so I figure something must have changed recently. Thanks for your help! [[User:Elipongo]] Sent from my Droid2 Elias Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo(a)gmail.com

1 0

Missing Wikipedians: An Essay
by aude 20 Feb '11

20 Feb '11

Heather Ford, a former Wikimedia advisory board member and researcher/writer in South Africa has written an essay, "The Missing Wikipedians" about systematic bias on English Wikipedia (especially) against new users and topics pertinent to Africa and other diverse places/people. As an example, she cites the English Wikipedia article [[Makmende]] and the deletion request made, biting the newbie. http://hblog.org/2011/02/16/the-missing-wikipedians/ Please read and discuss. What might we do to help make Wikipedia a more welcoming place for newbies and for such diverse topics? Cheers, Katie (@aude)

4 3

List of includipedias
by David Gerard 18 Feb '11

18 Feb '11

Every now and then something gets nominated for deletion and fans of it go feral and say "I'm going to start an inclusionist fork! No notability policy!" Do we have a list of these anywhere? - d.

3 2

Accessibility of technical articles
by Carcharoth 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

There has been some interesting debate on the site about technical articles. There has been some (fairly heated) discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:FAC#Some_thoughts_from_an_FA-ne… (That discussion is mostly over, so best not to stir it up again). And more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Make_technical_articles_underst… And the section immediately below it. I found it ironic that when I discussed a particular article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CBM#Mathematics_article_I_found_diff… The edit that was made to make the article more accessible (to me, at least), was reverted: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poincar%C3%A9_conjecture&diff=pre… With the edit summary: "It's a boundary not a surface--but no need to put in the lede, people can follow the link)". Unfortunately, following the link didn't really help me. "In mathematics, a 3-manifold is a 3-dimensional manifold. The topological, piecewise-linear, and smooth categories are all equivalent in three dimensions, so little distinction is made in whether we are dealing with say, topological 3-manifolds, or smooth 3-manifolds." I found the edit made to the original article much clearer, in that it said that the 3-sphere is the "the surface of the [[unit ball]] in four-dimensional space." I suppose adding the word "informally" might soothe mathematicians who insist on precise language. Carcharoth

6 12

Effect on the parser of large navboxes
by Carcharoth 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

I just read this mini-essay here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemis… It is about the effect on the parser of large navboxes (and of other templates). It is a bit technical, but I thought it might be of interest. And I don't know how I ever missed this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overlink_crisis It really is worth reading all that essay and its talk page. Carcharoth

3 3

Fwd: Accessibility of technical articles
by David Gerard 17 Feb '11

17 Feb '11

(to list as well) On 17 February 2011 18:37, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 February 2011 17:52, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> That said, the trouble with obsessive nerds who want things 100% right >> is that articles become hideous unreadable thickets of subclauses. But >> then, research appears to be a more widely available skill than good >> writing. > Or is it because writing well is difficult, and writing accurately is > difficult, and writing well AND accurately is difficulty squared? I believe that was precisely what I said in the quoted paragraph, yes. > Nah, that would be ridiculous, it's just obsessive nerds who are broken; of > course. At this point you're reading things inside your own head rather than things I wrote. - d.

1 0

Third Opinion wanted on Alternative names and Ottoman History
by Mike Dupont 16 Feb '11

16 Feb '11

HI, I am trying to add inthe missing ottman history of Prizren and getting into some petty dispute. please help advise on how to procede, in the city of Prizren the official languages are Serbian, Albanian and Turkish, and there is a large Bosnian and Gorani population, if there are alternative names for mosques (and webpages) in those languages, we should list them, no? How will people who want to research more be able to find the, it took me a long time to do the research and find references, and now they are just being removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prizren#Not_all_Viewpoints_Third_opinion please help, mike -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org

1 0

Two stories from Lorcan Dempsey
by Liam Wyatt 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

Interesting post in Lorcan Dempsey's blog (influential librarian-blogger) relates two interesting stories (neither of which are unique/new to us, but interesting nevertheless): "Using Wikipedia" February 13: http://orweblog.oclc.org/archives/002155.html Story one. "Edward Glaeser includes a reference to Wikipedia in the acknowledgements to his new book, *Triumph of the city <http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/650211168>* : 'Following common practices, Wikipedia is not listed in the bibliography or citations, because any Wikipedia fact was verified with a more standard source. But I still have a great debt to the anonymous toilers of Wikipedia who made my research much easier at many points in time. I apologize if any phrases from that, or any other source, crept into my prose - one research assistant was assigned the explicit task of purging such inadvertent borrowing - but mistakes do sometimes get through. [272-273]' " Story two. "My daughter (a sophomore in high school) was given an assignment to introduce errors into Wikipedia. Presumably, the intention was to demonstrate that entries could be 'unreliable'. Now, she chose a popular page, and had her changes corrected almost straightaway, to the extent that it was not possible to complete the assignment as given. In fact, she ended up being barred from editing pages as her behavior was seen as unacceptable." >From which he goes on to say... "Wikipedia is a collection. ... One cannot summarily judge its value in the way that one might have done when deciding whether or not to buy or recommend a reference book. Judgements about 'authority' and utility have to be made at the article level, and who has the time and expertise to flag individual articles in this way? Rather than continuing a tedious Wikipedia good/Wikipedia bad conversation, we should recognize the attraction it has as an addressable knowledge base, understand the variety of uses to which it is put, and remind folks of the judgments they need to make depending on those uses." Nice. -Liam wittylama.com/blog Peace, love & metadata

1 0

Rating the English wikipedia
by Ian Woollard 15 Feb '11

15 Feb '11

This encyclopedia has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. This encyclopedia has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: 1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met (many common articles are not adequately referenced) 2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met (currently 3.5 million of an estimated 4.4 million articles) 3. Structure: criterion met (seems to be reasonably well structured) 4. Grammar and style: criterion met (mostly good enough, but would not please a purist) 5. Supporting materials: criterion met (multiple wikis surround and support it) I therefore award the Wikipedia class C: The Wikipedia is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The Wikipedia should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. The Wikipedia is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Useful to a casual reader, but would not overall provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. -- -Ian Woollard

9 16

[ResourceLoader] JavaScript may break on your wiki: Fix it before that happens
by Guillaume Paumier 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

Greetings, As you may know, the Wikimedia teach team has started to upgrade MediaWiki on some wikis. MediaWiki is the software that runs all Wikimedia wikis. The most visible change for Wikimedia users will be the deployment of ResourceLoader [1]. ResourceLoader optimizes the use of JavaScript in MediaWiki, speeding up its delivery by compressing it sometimes, and cutting down on the amount of unused JavaScript that gets delivered to the browser in the first place. The installation of ResourceLoader may cause compatibility issues with existing JavaScript code. Trevor Parscal and Roan Kattouw, the main developers of ResourceLoader, will be available on IRC [2] on Monday, February 14th, at 18:00 (UTC) [3], to answer questions and help fix issues related to ResourceLoader. *If you maintain JavaScript code on your home wiki, please attend.* Don't wait until your wiki's JavaScript is all broken. Please spread this information as widely as possible; it's critical to reach as many local JavaScript maintainers as possible. Logs of the session will be published publicly. [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/ResourceLoader [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours [3] All timezones: http://ur1.ca/3819u -- Guillaume Paumier Product manager - Wikimedia Foundation Support free knowledge: http://donate.wikimedia.org

1 1

Wikipedia proofing its bias again
by Raphael Wegmann 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

Hi, a cartoon illustrating Western double-standard in 2005th Muhammad Cartoon controversy got speedy deleted on 2011-01-30 under WP:CSD "F6: Non-free file with no non-free use rationale: invalid fair-use tag" which is wrong, because it had a {{Non-free use rationale}} template. Apparently it doesn't matter at all because on its WP:DRV now it's claimed, that this cartoon is not contextual significant enough for [[Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy]]. Why is Wikipedia trying so hard to proof this cartoon to be correct? How can you remove this cartoon http://www.alghad.com/images_comic/1000/1079.jpg while keeping the 12 Muhammad cartoons under the very same Non-free use rationale? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_February_12 Best Regards -- Raphael Wegmann User:Raphael1

1 1

A Mormon Persective from the Deseret News
by Fred Bauder 14 Feb '11

14 Feb '11

10 controversial Wikipedia topics: http://www.deseretnews.com/top/97/10-controversial-Wikipedia-topics.html Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Wikipedia: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/ Fred

2 1

Re: [WikiEN-l] Tabloid sources (was Wikipedia leadership})
by Daniel R. Tobias 13 Feb '11

13 Feb '11

On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:25:17 +0000 (GMT), wikien-l-Andreas Kolbe wrote: > and she admits she thought it was a weird religion - - until she > met Cruise. "I'm not saying that I'm not a Scientologist because I > think something's wrong with Scientology -- I want to be really > clear about that," Jada says. But, she adds, "In knowing Tom, I > realize it is a religion just like other religions. And a religion always stops being weird when you have a good friend who's in it. Personally, I find all religions to be superstitious nonsense, regardless of whether any friends or family of mine are in them. -- == Dan == Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/ Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/ Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

WikiEN-l February 2011