(This press release is also posted on the WMF wiki at
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/WMF_and_STC_partner_on_…)
'''The Wikimedia Foundation and Saudi Telecom (STC) partner to provide
access to Wikipedia free of mobile data charges in the Middle East'''
''Service available immediately to STC customers in Saudi Arabia''
San Francisco, California and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia -- October 14, 2012
-- Saudi Telecom Company (STC) and the Wikimedia Foundation announced
a new partnership today to offer Wikipedia free of data charges on
mobile devices to STC customers in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait.
By making Wikipedia available to its 25 million mobile customers, STC
and the Wikimedia Foundation commit to increasing access to the free
and open knowledge available on Wikipedia. Wikipedia Zero enables
customers to browse the website for free and with high flexibility on
all mobile phones.
This partnership is part of the Wikimedia Foundation's mobile
strategy, which focuses on reaching billions of people around the
world whose primary opportunity to access the Internet is via a mobile
device. This initiative is particularly important, given that the
Foundation has made Arabic language countries a special priority in
its strategic planning.
“We are thrilled that STC has joined us in removing a major barrier to
accessing Wikipedia on mobile phones. Improving access to the
Wikimedia projects in the Arabic speaking world is a strategic
priority for the Foundation, and this partnership is a step forward in
our mission to enable everyone on the planet to access free
knowledge,” said Kul Takanao Wadhwa, Head of Mobile, Wikimedia
Foundation. “With Wikipedia Zero, the Wikimedia Foundation is able to
provide free Wikipedia access to almost 230 million mobile users
around the world. We’re very excited that STC is joining us in this
mission.”
In collaboration with “Intigral”, a company specialized in providing
digital media solutions to telecom operators, STC subscribers can now
access the free service in both Arabic and English by pointing their
mobile browser to m.wikipedia.org. A lightweight, text-only version
optimized for slower connections is also available at
zero.wikipedia.org. The move comes as STC continues to consolidate its
leadership in various fields, especially in social awareness and the
fostering of a knowledge-sharing culture. Wikipedia Zero will also be
available through the mobile browser, and features high browsing
speeds despite being a free service.
Eng. Ibrahim Al Omar, Vice President for Personal Services, said “One
of the principles that STC adheres to is the commitment to spreading
social awareness and the fostering of a knowledge-sharing culture that
accomplishes the aspirations of all segments of our customer-base.” He
then added, “Wikipedia Zero is considered an additional cornerstone
that supports the continuous efforts of STC in the field of social
awareness.”
The launch of Wikipedia Zero comes in line with STC’s strategy to
prioritize customer needs, and is an affirmation of the company’s
commitment to fulfilling customer expectations while meeting their
demands, and to continuously develop its services to satisfy their
aspirations and give them a variety of unrestricted options and
alternatives.
For more information, please refer to the partnership Q&A at:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships#STC
'''About Saudi Telecom'''
www.stc.com.sa
Saudi Telecom Company, together with its subsidiaries, provides
telecommunications services to individuals and businesses primarily in
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Its GSM segment primarily offers mobile,
prepaid cards, international roaming, and messaging services. The
company’s Landline segment principally provides fixed line, card
telephones, interconnect, and international call services. Its DATA
segment primarily offers leased data transmission circuits, DSL, and
Internet services. The company also engages in the operation of
communications projects; transmission and processing of information;
wholesale and retail trade of recharge card services,
telecommunication equipment and devices, and computer services; sale
and re-sale of various landlines and mobiles telecommunication
services; and maintenance and operation of commercial centers. In
addition, it provides mobile services, international
telecommunications, broad band, and other related services in Bahrain;
and operates third generation mobile network in Indonesia. The company
was founded in 1998 and is headquartered in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
'''About Wikimedia Foundation'''
http://wikimediafoundation.orghttp://blog.wikimedia.org
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix,
Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation
receive more than 456 million unique visitors per month, making them
the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, August
2012). Available in 285 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 22
million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of
roughly 100,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the
Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded
primarily through donations and grants.
_______________________________________________
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
_______________________________________________
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
WikimediaAnnounce-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
People have copies of all language versions of the old site as of Aug of
2012. It should be possible to set them up as well. What we would need
would be a community of editors to request it. No real sense creating dead
wiki that fill with spam. However it would also be nice if we could stream
line the creation process for new language versions (when previous content
already exists).
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Hi Phoebe,
Thanks for your good questions and insights about of Article Feedback 5.
Dario and Oliver have answered a couple of your questions below, but I wanted to give you a quick overview on where we are with this new editor engagement tool.
We are now collecting fresh data to track how many readers who post feedback go on to make productive edits, which is one of our key objectives for this project. We are also analyzing moderation data to evaluate the usefulness of the feedback, which is another important goal, though harder to track accurately. Lastly, we are enhancing our automated filters to reduce the workload for editors, as well as re-factoring our code to make this extension scale better.
We plan to have more information to share in a couple weeks, once all the new data have been collected and analyzed, and new tools deployed. At that point, we will share our findings widely, so we can all have more informed discussions on how to best use this engagement tool. In the meantime, I've added a couple clarifications inline below.
Thanks again for your interest, and I look forward to continuing this discussion very soon!
Fabrice
__________________________________
> From: Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] AFT5: what practical benefits has it had?
> Date: October 15, 2012 5:58:04 PM PDT
> To: Oliver Keyes <okeyes(a)wikimedia.org>, "phoebe ayers" <phoebe.wiki(a)gmail.com>
> Cc: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Fabrice Florin <fflorin(a)wikimedia.org>
>
>> Thank you for enabling it again. I had read about the blind tests in <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Quality_assessment> before but I see some major changes in the graphs, which are a bit hard to understand.
>> 1) In "Daily moderation actions (percentage)" there's a huge spike of helpful/unhelpful after C (July), did those flags even exist before? Or did helpfulness increase after wider usage according to the finding «the average page receives higher quality feedback than pages picked for their popularity/controversial topic»? (There's no change between 5 and 10 % though.)
>> *They did; the spike is most probably caused by a deployment from 0.6 percent of articles to 5 percent of articles, with a resulting "ooh, shiny! Lets take a look" reaction.
>
> the spike actually follows the 5% deployment combined with the CentralNotice announcement (see annotation D in the first plot), the latter is almost certainly what caused the spike
Also note that up until September 6, users were able to moderate their own feedback, which caused a slight increase in the number of 'helpful ratings on the feedback page dashboard ( http://toolserver.org/~dartar/fp/ ). So we really should be paying more attention to the data collected after this date, even though the overall pattern doesn't appear significantly different from earlier this summer.
>>
>> 2) "Unique daily articles with feedback moderated" shows a spike and then a stabilization, but I don't know what the graphs actually is about. For instance, can feedback be moderated per article ("feedback semi/full protection" or so) or only per item, etc.
We now have a feature that allows administrators to disable the feedback form for controversial articles, as part of the 'protect' tool. However, it was recently deployed and may not be in wide use yet.
>> Do you know if moderation happens on the same articles and if stricter moderation increases helpfulness of feedback also on non-moderated articles?
>>
>> *So, I believe it means "the number of distinct articles which have had feedback moderated that day", regardless of whether people use the article-specific page or the centralised page, but I'm not sure - some clarification from Dario would be awesome :). Ditto your other questions, particularly on the distribution of articles.
>
> what Oliver said, we are not keeping track of the source of moderation activity at the moment but I agree it would be a very important piece of data to analyze. After consulting with Fabrice, I've opened this ticket on bugzilla so we can assess the effort needed to implement this via the logging table: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41061
>
> Dario
> Also, not to state the obvious, but 'helpful' feedback in and of
> itself doesn't mean the article changed for the better; I've marked
> plenty of feedback 'helpful' without doing anything further about it.
Yes, Phoebe, you are absolutely right. Marking an article as helpful is a good way to bring up a good suggestion to the attention of other editors, but it does not mean that the comment has been used to edit the article. However, it makes it easier for editors to find comments that can help them improve the article.
Over the two months following wider deployment, about 35% of the feedback was found useful by moderators. This finding seems consistent with our earlier estimate of usefulness, based on hand-coded feedback evaluations.
> Is there any data about rate of change of the articles since AFT was
> enabled? (probably pretty hard to measure since articles are
> individually fluid at much different rates, depending on topic, and
> you'd have to control for the baseline likeliness of random bursts of
> editing somehow).
>
Yes. measuring the rate of change in the articles is pretty hard to measure, as you point out -- particularly changes in their quality.
But I would like to remind us that a primary objective for this project is to engage readers to contribute productively to Wikipedia, which is much easier to measure. I look forward to reviewing that data together in a couple weeks.
__________________________________
Fabrice Florin
Product Manager, Editor Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
fflorin(a)wikimedia.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Fabrice_Florin_(WMF)
Dear Wikimedians and Chapter members,
Many representatives on the WCA Council are aware of my views on our
Chair election process and it may help current discussions about the
Secretary General recruitment to share my view more widely, and make
the following proposal.
I was prepared to be nominated at Wikimania 2012 for the WCA Chair
position this summer, but I expected a tough competition with several
nominations where the Chapter Representatives could judge my skill and
experience against other quality volunteers. I was surprised and
disappointed to be the only candidate, and I have no intention of
staying in this post "by default" or 1 or 2 years without a better and
visibly democratic election process, particularly as it was the first
time we had tried electing a Chair and would probably all prefer a
more rigorously formal process next time around.
I recommend that we have a well designed process that starts in March,
at least *4 weeks* before the next Chapters Conference in spring 2013
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_2013>. This will
ensure that the Conference starts with a freshly elected chair having
gone through a robust election process against several candidates. I
recommend that a page is set up this year on :meta for the election
process, so that we can discuss and agree how candidate nominations
and votes will work, including a questions/answers section in multiple
languages. Having an open and public nomination process may also
encourage new chapters to join the WCA before the Conference in Milan,
and put forward their own candidate for the WCA Chair position. :-)
Hopefully this will also provide sufficient time for our new Secretary
General to get established, before there is a change of WCA chair and
avoid any sense of instability, even though I would have been in post
for only 8 months or so before we have another election.
Cheers,
Fae
--
Ashley Van Haeften (Fae) fae(a)wikimedia.org.uk
Wikimedia Chapters Association Chair http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WCA
Guide to email tags: http://j.mp/mfae
A notice of the 6th annual Russian Wikiconference, forwarded with
permission; please contact Stasie, below, if you have any questions!
Phoebe
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Анастасия Львова <stasielvova(a)gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:20 AM
Subject: [Wmfcc-l] 6th Russian WikiConference
To: Communications Committee <wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
If someone interested: on 10-11 November in Moscow, in Scientific
Pedagogical Library named Ushinski, supported by "Wikimedia Russia"
will be held the 6th annual Russian Wiki-conference.
Registration (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Вики-конференция_2012/Участники)
for the conference is open before November 4, registration of talks
(http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Вики-конференция_2012/Программа/Докл…)
and round tables
(http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Вики-конференция_2012/Программа/Круг…)
- up to 28 October. A preliminary version of the program will be
available on October 30. Participation in the conference is free.
Unfortunately, Wikimedia Russia can help with scholarships to attend
only to Russia citizens.
In Russian: http://www.wikimedia.ru/blog/2012/10/10/sixth-wiki-conference-moscow-10-11-…
--
regards,
Lvova Anastasia
_______________________________________________
Wmfcc-l mailing list
Wmfcc-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wmfcc-l
--
* I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers
<at> gmail.com *
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Edit_throttling is well worth
reading, especially the warning that "Many users sharing the same IP
address could kick in throttling". Which seems a pretty clear indication to
me that this is working at the IP level and looking at all edits by newbies
and unregistered editors, rather than treating each member of the workshop
separately. Once you get to each trainee you find that previewing and
trying to save again will usually solve the problem, but leave you unable
to replicate the bug.
So I think we have found our problem! Now lets see how many months it takes
to fix it.
One obvious workaround is to use multiple IPs in the same workshop. I think
the cost of Satellite broadband is only a few hundred quid a year per
subscription. I've already proposed a subscription for the UK as it would
enable people to run editing sessions at big public events such as county
shows, but it would also help counter this bug.
WSC
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:30:25 +0200
> From: "Federico Leva (Nemo)" <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Throttling (was: Re: Please can someone put
> 50p in the meter)
> Message-ID: <507BC9A1.7040305(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> WereSpielChequers, 15/10/2012 09:56:
> > 60 edits a minute sounds high, and probably faster than most of these
> > sessions run at, but not if it is as I suspect, calculated every few
> > seconds.
>
> It's not, as far as I can see. This is how it works:
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgRateLimits> (someone please
> expand it otherwise).
> And these are all the existing limits:
> <
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=b…
> >
> Does Andrew's experience not fit with this?
>
> > So if the tutor says "all save now" and ten people hit enter
> > simultaneously the attempted editing rate is briefly rather more than 1
> per
> > second - hence the throttle kicks in and the tutorial collapses in chaos
> > with several students getting throttling errors at the same time. It
> would
> > be nice to think that the WiFi we used was going through the same IP as
> the
> > rest of the British library and that we merely lifted the normal editing
> > rate above 60 edits a minute, but I suspect that the rate is calculated
> > rather more frequently than every minute.
> >
> > Presumably established users of some sort are whitelisted through this?
> If
> > so it could explain a longstanding Cat a Lot problem. I frequently use
> Cat
> > a lot to categorise images on Commons and my personal editing rate there
> > has gone far above 60 edits a minute, however I'm pretty sure I'd be on
> any
> > commons whitelist. But other editors have complained that Cat a Lot
> doesn't
> > work for them and mysteriously hangs or fails, Is it possible that this
> > throttling feature could be the cause of that problem as well?
>
> noratelimit circumvents all such limits, but on Commons only the
> standard groups plus account creators have it, and you're just
> autopatrolled.
> The only group having serious throttling problems in the past were
> rollbackers on en.wiki; it shouldn't be too hard for Commons to add
> noratelimit via some group, if that's a problem.
>
> > If so perhaps it would be a good idea to analyse some of the recent
> > incidents where this feature has kicked in, see how often it disrupts
> > goodfaith editing and how often it disrupts badfaith editing that
> wouldn't
> > have triggered the edit filter. Maybe this was once a net benefit, but
> with
> > the edit filter dealing with most badfaith editing, and increasing
> amounts
> > of editing workshops and tools like Catalot, perhaps this feature has
> > transitioned from net positive to net negative? Alternatively could we
> have
> > a process where we can whitelist the IP Addresses of places where we are
> > running training sessions, and put note on
> >
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.jsexplain…
> > how to spot if your editing has been throttled and how to get
> > yourself Whitelisted
>
> Rate limits have never been a problem with some minimal preparation:
> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Mass_account_creation> (in 6-7
> years of WMIT workshops, I've never heard of big problems with this).
>
> Nemo
>
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2012 10:07:30 +0100
> From: Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Throttling (was: Re: Please can someone put
> 50p in the meter)
> Message-ID:
> <CAE4f==
> fVJisFTYb20D8Vo6qsZfH1k-3saV+PHxOjMY0RmtXDWg(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On 15 October 2012 09:30, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > WereSpielChequers, 15/10/2012 09:56:
> >
> >> 60 edits a minute sounds high, and probably faster than most of these
> >> sessions run at, but not if it is as I suspect, calculated every few
> >> seconds.
> >
> > It's not, as far as I can see. This is how it works:
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgRateLimits> (someone please
> expand
> > it otherwise).
> > And these are all the existing limits:
> > <
> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/gitweb?p=operations/mediawiki-config.git;a=b…
> >
> > Does Andrew's experience not fit with this?
>
> These limits confuse me a bit, I have to admit. The key one seems to be:
>
> 'edit' => array(
> 'ip' => array( 8, 60 ),
> 'newbie' => array( 8, 60 ),
>
> but per the manual, "ip" only applies to "each anon and recent
> account", and "newbie" applies to "each recent account" - surely
> "each" means the rate-limiting should be applied to the accounts
> individually, rather than being triggered by them all coming from the
> same location?
>
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Edit_throttling suggests it can
> also be configured as something on the enwiki edit filters, but I've
> had a look at those and couldn't immediately see one that seems to do
> this.
>
> > Rate limits have never been a problem with some minimal preparation:
> > <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Mass_account_creation> (in 6-7
> years of
> > WMIT workshops, I've never heard of big problems with this).
>
> I want to emphasise again that I've pretty much never had problems
> with account creation rate limiting - everyone attending a workshop is
> asked to create an account as part of a little bit of homework three
> days earlier - it's only ever been edit throttling that's an issue.
>
> --
> - Andrew Gray
> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
> End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 103, Issue 28
> ********************************************
>
Hi John,
60 edits a minute sounds high, and probably faster than most of these
sessions run at, but not if it is as I suspect, calculated every few
seconds. So if the tutor says "all save now" and ten people hit enter
simultaneously the attempted editing rate is briefly rather more than 1 per
second - hence the throttle kicks in and the tutorial collapses in chaos
with several students getting throttling errors at the same time. It would
be nice to think that the WiFi we used was going through the same IP as the
rest of the British library and that we merely lifted the normal editing
rate above 60 edits a minute, but I suspect that the rate is calculated
rather more frequently than every minute.
Presumably established users of some sort are whitelisted through this? If
so it could explain a longstanding Cat a Lot problem. I frequently use Cat
a lot to categorise images on Commons and my personal editing rate there
has gone far above 60 edits a minute, however I'm pretty sure I'd be on any
commons whitelist. But other editors have complained that Cat a Lot doesn't
work for them and mysteriously hangs or fails, Is it possible that this
throttling feature could be the cause of that problem as well?
If so perhaps it would be a good idea to analyse some of the recent
incidents where this feature has kicked in, see how often it disrupts
goodfaith editing and how often it disrupts badfaith editing that wouldn't
have triggered the edit filter. Maybe this was once a net benefit, but with
the edit filter dealing with most badfaith editing, and increasing amounts
of editing workshops and tools like Catalot, perhaps this feature has
transitioned from net positive to net negative? Alternatively could we have
a process where we can whitelist the IP Addresses of places where we are
running training sessions, and put note on
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.jsexplain…
how to spot if your editing has been throttled and how to get
yourself Whitelisted
WSC
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2012 11:36:03 -0400
> From: John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Throttling (was: Re: Please can someone put
> 50p in the meter)
> Message-ID:
> <
> CAP-JHpmCQPX1SW5CMFQtWtMXP6MXf2z5NQ_PJtp2rY3meq1kuw(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Next time you get said message can you take a screenshot and let us
> know, (it is by default somewhere over 60/edits per minute)
>
> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>
> wrote:
> > On 14 October 2012 15:50, John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> IPs shouldnt get hit with an edit throttle, (it is really really high)
> >
> > It doesn't seem it! Over the past few months, I've had it triggered
> > four times in an hour in two workshops, and one or two times in
> > perhaps four more. They're not all at the same location or using the
> > same machines, though they were all using institutional networks.
> > These are all new logged-in contributors editing from - presumably -
> > the same IP; I've not had it happen to me in the same sessions, but
> > that might just be chance.
> >
> > These aren't very busy networks, however, and I can't imagine there's
> > a vast flood of active editing coming from them at the same time as
> > the workshop...
> >
> > Is it possible to see where this is configured?
> >
> > --
> > - Andrew Gray
> > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
>
Dear all,
I wanted to update you on behalf of the Affiliations Committee that we are
now considering the application of a proposed thematic organisation active
in the field of Medicine.
You can see the proposal at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Medicine
We would like to invite you to participate in the discussions, express your
interest to join the organisation and inform your home communities about
this proposal.
We will be monitoring the talk page at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Medicine to see if there is
any new information that might influence the recognition process.
If you have any related information you would like to share with the
committee privately, please write to <affcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>.
----
A bit of background:
Wikimedia thematic organisations are a new type of movement organisation,
that are similar to chapters in supporting the Wikimedia mission through
their activities in the real world, but instead of focusing on a given
country, they focus on a given topic or theme.
For more information please see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Thematic_Organizations.
It is the plan of the Affiliations Committee to send out announcements of
new thematic organisation applications roughly in the middle of the
recognition process to allow the wider community to express any concerns
they might have and to be able to join the organisation when it is founded.
This is done in the hope that it will help new organisations reach critical
mass earlier and that the wider community is informed about emerging
entities in the movement.
For more information on AffCom, see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee
Best regards,
Bence
(Chair, Affiliations Committee)