This paper (first reference) is the result of a class project I was part of
almost two years ago for CSCI 5417 Information Retrieval Systems. It builds
on a class project I did in CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing and which
I presented at Wikimania '07. The project was very late as we didn't send
the final paper in until the day before new years. This technical report was
never really announced that I recall so I thought it would be interesting to
look briefly at the results. The goal of this paper was to break articles
down into surface features and latent features and then use those to study
the rating system being used, predict article quality and rank results in a
search engine. We used the [[random forests]] classifier which allowed us to
analyze the contribution of each feature to performance by looking directly
at the weights that were assigned. While the surface analysis was performed
on the whole english wikipedia, the latent analysis was performed on the
simple english wikipedia (it is more expensive to compute). = Surface
features = * Readability measures are the single best predictor of quality
that I have found, as defined by the Wikipedia Editorial Team (WET). The
[[Automated Readability Index]], [[Gunning Fog Index]] and [[Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level]] were the strongest predictors, followed by length of article
html, number of paragraphs, [[Flesh Reading Ease]], [[Smog Grading]], number
of internal links, [[Laesbarhedsindex Readability Formula]], number of words
and number of references. Weakly predictive were number of to be's, number
of sentences, [[Coleman-Liau Index]], number of templates, PageRank, number
of external links, number of relative links. Not predictive (overall - see
the end of section 2 for the per-rating score breakdown): Number of h2 or
h3's, number of conjunctions, number of images*, average word length, number
of h4's, number of prepositions, number of pronouns, number of interlanguage
links, average syllables per word, number of nominalizations, article age
(based on page id), proportion of questions, average sentence length. :*
Number of images was actually by far the single strongest predictor of any
class, but only for Featured articles. Because it was so good at picking out
featured articles and somewhat good at picking out A and G articles the
classifier was confused in so many cases that the overall contribution of
this feature to classification performance is zero. :* Number of external
links is strongly predictive of Featured articles. :* The B class is highly
distinctive. It has a strong "signature," with high predictive value
assigned to many features. The Featured class is also very distinctive. F, B
and S (Stop/Stub) contain the most information.
:* A is the least distinct class, not being very different from F or G. =
Latent features = The algorithm used for latent analysis, which is an
analysis of the occurence of words in every document with respect to the
link structure of the encyclopedia ("concepts"), is [[Latent Dirichlet
Allocation]]. This part of the analysis was done by CS PhD student Praful
Mangalath. An example of what can be done with the result of this analysis
is that you provide a word (a search query) such as "hippie". You can then
look at the weight of every article for the word hippie. You can pick the
article with the largest weight, and then look at its link network. You can
pick out the articles that this article links to and/or which link to this
article that are also weighted strongly for the word hippie, while also
contributing maximally to this articles "hippieness". We tried this query in
our system (LDA), Google (site:en.wikipedia.org hippie), and the Simple
English Wikipedia's Lucene search engine. The breakdown of articles occuring
in the top ten search results for this word for those engines is: * LDA
only: [[Acid rock]], [[Aldeburgh Festival]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Carl
Radle]], [[Harry Nilsson]], [[Jack Kerouac]], [[Phil Spector]], [[Plastic
Ono Band]], [[Rock and Roll]], [[Salvador Allende]], [[Smothers brothers]],
[[Stanley Kubrick]]. * Google only: [[Glam Rock]], [[South Park]]. * Simple
only: [[African Americans]], [[Charles Manson]], [[Counterculture]], [[Drug
use]], [[Flower Power]], [[Nuclear weapons]], [[Phish]], [[Sexual
liberation]], [[Summer of Love]] * LDA & Google & Simple: [[Hippie]],
[[Human Be-in]], [[Students for a democratic society]], [[Woodstock
festival]] * LDA & Google: [[Psychedelic Pop]] * Google & Simple: [[Lysergic
acid diethylamide]], [[Summer of Love]] ( See the paper for the articles
produced for the keywords philosophy and economics ) = Discussion /
Conclusion = * The results of the latent analysis are totally up to your
perception. But what is interesting is that the LDA features predict the WET
ratings of quality just as well as the surface level features. Both feature
sets (surface and latent) both pull out all almost of the information that
the rating system bears. * The rating system devised by the WET is not
distinctive. You can best tell the difference between, grouped together,
Featured, A and Good articles vs B articles. Featured, A and Good articles
are also quite distinctive (Figure 1). Note that in this study we didn't
look at Start's and Stubs, but in earlier paper we did. :* This is
interesting when compared to this recent entry on the YouTube blog. "Five
Stars Dominate Ratings"
http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html…
I think a sane, well researched (with actual subjects) rating system
is
well within the purview of the Usability Initiative. Helping people find and
create good content is what Wikipedia is all about. Having a solid rating
system allows you to reorganized the user interface, the Wikipedia
namespace, and the main namespace around good content and bad content as
needed. If you don't have a solid, information bearing rating system you
don't know what good content really is (really bad content is easy to spot).
:* My Wikimania talk was all about gathering data from people about articles
and using that to train machines to automatically pick out good content. You
ask people questions along dimensions that make sense to people, and give
the machine access to other surface features (such as a statistical measure
of readability, or length) and latent features (such as can be derived from
document word occurence and encyclopedia link structure). I referenced page
262 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to give an example of the
kind of qualitative features I would ask people. It really depends on what
features end up bearing information, to be tested in "the lab". Each word is
an example dimension of quality: We have "*unity, vividness, authority,
economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance,
precision, proportion, depth and so on.*" You then use surface and latent
features to predict these values for all articles. You can also say, when a
person rates this article as high on the x scale, they also mean that it has
has this much of these surface and these latent features.
= References =
- DeHoust, C., Mangalath, P., Mingus., B. (2008). *Improving search in
Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery*. Technical Report.
PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/6/68/DeHoustMangalat…>
- Rassbach, L., Mingus., B, Blackford, T. (2007). *Exploring the
feasibility of automatically rating online article quality*. Technical
Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincock…>
Hoi,
I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most
excellent bit of news.
The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the
field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding
drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in
a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to
learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics.
What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are
asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more
linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be
interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more
relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get
more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that
we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with
all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the
Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should
approve yet another language :)
NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in
this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus...
Thanks,
GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org>
Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.
Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org>
Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org>
Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project
<reviews(a)linguistlist.org>
Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/
The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University,
and donations from subscribers and publishers.
Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org>
================================================================
To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at
http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html
===========================Directory==============================
1)
Date: 18-Jun-2007
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
-------------------------Message 1 ----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35
From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org >
Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers
Dear subscribers,
As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the
"Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their
donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the
English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this
at:
http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm.
The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity
of
our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic
about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit
more
leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on
the
Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely
organizational one. We will:
*Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or
pages that need improvement;
*Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified
as
"in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any
references or sources," etc;
*Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or
articles;
*Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia;
*Keep track of our project Wikipedians;
*Keep track of revisions and new entries;
*Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's
efforts.
We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us
all
get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an
area
needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of
Linguists
page at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M
Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and
information
added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort,
please
respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at
hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which
linguistics
entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our
campaign
on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we
will
share with you soon.
This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The
end
result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth
and
depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate
prospective
students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on
what
we do. Please consider participating.
Sincerely,
Hannah Morales
Editor, Wikipedia Update Project
Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable
-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831
Hi,
After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link
below.
Perhaps someone might think of a suitable barnstar and award these
folks for "being nice"? :-)
Link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=1…
P.S. This is a long query to run, taking 20 to 30 minutes due to the
nature of the logging tables. However if someone wanted to make a
monthly summary on-wiki somewhere, part of an active "be nice"
campaign, I would be happy to set up an automated monthly report (if
someone discovers this is already reported somewhere, that's cool we
can use that).
Fae
--
faewik(a)gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Dear all,
It is an honor to announce that the Affiliations Committee has resolved
[1] recognizing the Wikimedia User Group China as a Wikimedia User
Group; their main focus areas are getting more chinese people know and
use Wikipedia, encouraging people to become contributors to the
different Wikimedia projects, and maintain the community healthy and
growing. Let's welcome the newest member of the family of affiliates
-and the fourth from the Sinosphere!
Regards,
Carlos
1:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee/Resolutions/Wikimedi…
--
"*Jülüjain wane mmakat* ein kapülain tü alijunakalirua jee wayuukanairua
junain ekerolaa alümüin supüshuwayale etijaanaka. Ayatashi waya junain."
Carlos M. Colina
Vicepresidente, A.C. Wikimedia Venezuela | RIF J-40129321-2 |
www.wikimedia.org.ve <http://wikimedia.org.ve>
Chair, Wikimedia Foundation Affiliations Committee
Phone: +972-52-4869915
Twitter: @maor_x
Hi all,
This is a personal note to clarify a some questions that recently came up,
specifically in the context of my role as the incoming ED.
My partner Wil and I are partners in our private lives. We have always both
been extremely independent, and we respect that in each other. That said we
have different roles: I am the Executive Director with responsibilities
towards the Foundation and the movement, and he is an independent community
member with his own voice.
I make my decisions using my own professional judgement in conjunction with
input from the community and staff. I don’t consult Wil on these matters,
ask him to do anything on my behalf or monitor his engagements with the
community. When I speak here, it is in my capacity as an ED.
Wil, on the other hand, has a very strong personal interest in the
community and agreat deal of curiosity about how the Wikimedia
projectswork. It is very important to him that he remains an
independent individual
able to speak with his own voice and ask his own questions. He does not
take direction from me. He will not work for the WMF or engage with the WMF
employees.
I hope this addresses some of the questions and draws distinction between
my role as ED and Wil’s participation as an independent member. If you have
any questions for Wil you can reach him directly. If you have any questions
for me or the WMF, you can get a hold of me by email or on my talk page.
Thanks,
Lila
Hello everyone.
Sorry for the long mail but we wanted to explain the situation for
Wikimedia Italia.
The conversation is going on and it's better to clear some important
points.
In the second week of August Wikimedia Italia has been contacted by
Kalliope Tsouroupidou and later by Jessica Robell, who explained that the
Wikimedia Foundation was planning to have a fundraising campaign in Italy
in September.
We have been surprised by that, since Wiki Loves Monuments is well-known to
run in September, and it has been like that for years.
Moreover, there has been a similar clash in 2014: we discussed for several
days, and in the end we reached a compromise, and the FR banners went live
just for the last days.
It was not perfect, but we had WLM banners for almost all September.
This year the clash is on the whole month of September. Given the history,
and the very fact that Wikimedia Italia has planned WLM and written so in
the FDC application, we feel that WMIT has not been negligible in matters of
communication.
We are not *happy* with the situation,
the very existence of the clash, the fact that all this appeared in the
middle of August, while we were all on holiday and just few weeks before
the beginning of WLM.
We just decided not to pick up a fight, as we believe in constructive
conversation and negotiation.
The agreement we reached is very painful for WMIT and WLM: it's just better
than not having the banners at all, or to have them for just a few days in
the middle of September.
Conversations with the FR team has been firm, but polite: this does not
mean that we are happy about what is happening.
Moreover, we will have to discuss with FDC to renegotiate expected results
for WLM in 2015.
Having the fundraising campaign in September in Italy has a clear negative
impact on Wiki Loves Monuments, the largest project of Wikimedia Italia.
This will not only likely reduce the number of participants and uploaded
pictures, but will also put us in a difficult position in front of our
sponsors and partners, including 200+ municipalities, 100+ cultural
institutions, and some major partners, like FIAF (the Federation of Italian
photographers' associations), ICOM (the International Council of Museums),
the Toscana Foto Festival (a major photo festival), Touring Club Italiano
(the largest Italian touristic association), and others. WMIT spends
thousands of euros in WLM each year - not because we waste money, but
because we have higher stakes.
This year, we will have in the Italian Jury international renowned
photographers like (prabably: yet to be confirmed) Steve McCurry (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McCurry) and Franco Fontana (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco_Fontana).
This year, in June, we were received by several politicians from the
Italian Parliament for an official meeting regarding the law we are fighting
as WMIT.
Because of the specific challenges we face, WLM in Italy goes beyond being
a photographic competition and is also an opportunity to create
relationships and advocate for the freedom of taking pictures of monuments.
Italy does not have "freedom of panorama".
Worst, Italy does not have freedom of panorama for any kind of monuments,
even if copyright has expired.
We need to ask for permission to make pictures of monuments. For. Every.
Monument.
We have to create lists of monuments to be photographed. There is no
official list of monuments in Italy.
There is *extensive* documentation here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Italian_cultural_heritage_on_the_Wikimedia_…
This is very important to know to put in perspective WLM Italy stats:
http://stats.wikilovesmonuments.cl/italy. As an example, it is the reason
why we have so many participants who contribute for few pics each. In 2014
alone, we had 1038 uploaders, but we were only 6th in terms of number of
photos.
The global fundraising is essential to our movement.
It funds Wikipedia operations, software development, the Wikimedia
Foundation, many chapters and affiliates, and, of course, also Wiki Loves
Monuments (even tough in Italy it is primarily funded from other sources).
The global fundraising is meant to support the Wikimedia movement: but, for
this very reason, it is a pity to have it clashing to one of the very
activities it is meant to support.
Especially since we are not talking about a 2 hours editathon in a small
library in the middle of nowhere, but about an international competition
who ended up in the Guinnes World Records, bringing thousands of pictures
to the Wikimedia projects.
We understand that fundraising is not an easy job, especially when it is
done on a global level. Yet we feel obliged to use donors money to build
and deliver the best projects we can: firstly out of respect for all the
people who decided to donate their time, their money or their career to the
movement; secondly because a badly executed projects could also have a
negative impact on the next fundraising campaigns.
We are all part of the same movement: the work of the WMF fundraising team
is strictly linked to that of the community. We would like to be confident
that what is happening now won't happen for a third time, and that in the
future we will be able to communicate more effectively and work more
collaboratively.
We really are looking forward a more effective cooperation with WMF and all
other Wikimedia Affiliates: collaboration is the very pillar of all the
Wikimedia movement.
We would like to thank all the people who supported us and gave us opinions
and advices on this mailing list and elsewhere.
We are very proud to be part of such a great community, and we would like
to see it become wider and bigger.
Andrea Zanni
for the board of Wikimedia Italia
Dear Wikimedians,
{{Nutshell|WMF Community Engagement Team is allocating staff time and
funding to deliberate capacity-development projects with interested
communities in six capacity areas: community governance; conflict
management; on-wiki technical skills; new contributor engagement and
growth; partnerships; communications}}
==Details==
This is a new way of partnering with WMF: through two way conversations
(rather than top-down planning), WMF will work with specific emerging
communities to explore obstacles for community growth and explore and pilot
solutions together.
The first phase of this work consisted of a series of in-depth interviews
with individuals from 16 specific emerging communities to gather
information about existing and missing capacities. Reviewing those
interviews in aggregate, we came up with six capacities it seems useful to
work together on.
We prepared a page per such capacity, detailing challenges and possible
approaches to build that capacity. We welcome your feedback! Contributions
to those pages can be done in the following ways:
* Sign up on the sidebar of each capacity subpage if you want to implement
certain practices described,
* Provide more links to resources,
* Expand the Potential Solutions section with new ideas.
These pages, including your contributions, will serve as the basis for
specific conversations with specific communities to develop plans or
projects to build capacity.
During this initial pilot period, we intend to pursue projects in two or
three capacities at most, which will be chosen according to community
interest, scale of community, and scale of readership. We expect some of
the specific actions we take in these projects would create resources
[re-]usable by other communities as well.
==Join the Conversation==
We invite you all to read through the capacity pages, and specifically, to
see if the challenges described resonate with you and your community. If
they do, have an on-wiki discussion about it with your community, and if
there's general interest, sign up on the capacity pages and we'll have a
conversation about what might be some possible next steps.
Find the six capacity pages on Meta, here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development
Looking forward to fruitful engagement,
Asaf Bartov
Sati Houston
Community Engagement department
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
Hi all,
The Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback about how we can
reimagine grants to better support people and ideas in the Wikimedia
movement.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants
We’ve been discussing the idea with the grants committees and are now
running a survey and collecting feedback on Meta-wiki. Office hours will
also be held in Hangouts and IRC starting at the end of August.
Please share your feedback on the idea here, and help make it better:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants
You can learn more about this consultation, including dates for office
hours, here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Reimagining_WMF_grants/Consul…
Feedback is welcome in any language.
Warm regards,
Siko and the Community Resources team
--
Siko Bouterse
Director of Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today,
and help us make it a reality!*
Hi Asaf,
Thank you for sharing these news! I think building capacities is key for
our movement and the way this initiative is presented seems to me very
relevant and useful.
I am wondering to what extent / how this articulates :
- with the programme and work done at Wikimedia Conference this year, where
most of these topics where covered
- with the follow-up day of WMCON at Wikimania in Mexico where some
sessions where dedicated to these topics
- with the work done by several subcommunities (such as the Volunteer
Support Network, for instance, who - I guess - is dealing with most of
these issues)
Do you plan to map and embark the several existing initiatives around these
topics across our movement, to build on what's already existing, and how?
Do you plan to have one contact point per topic at WMF to make co-creation
and cooperation as efficient as possible?
What is the actual target group of the initiative? Only "Emerging
Communities" or also already "emerged" communities?
It seems to me that there are parallel actions aiming at the same goal
here, and it would be great to see them dialogue, converge or even merge
rather than dissipating our efforts on such important matters. What do you
think ?
Thanks a lot for your answers,
Have a great week,
Anne-Laure
*Anne-Laure Prévost*
CONSEILLÈRE SPÉCIALE PARTENARIATS ET RELATIONS INSTITUTIONNELLES /
SPECIAL ADVISOR PARTNERSHIPS & INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
*Tél +33 7 62 93 42 02 /* *+33 1 42 36 97 72*
*www.wikimedia.fr <http://www.wikimedia.fr/> *
*40 rue de Cléry, 75002 Paris* <http://osm.org/go/0BPIihnIn?node=691082430>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 16:40:25 -0700
From: Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] New WMF initiative: Community Capacity
Development
Message-ID:
<CAAmrcwftyCuv2MF6es0yjDGhcXyZhNvBBN5xdx8iWEJENcqEKg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Dear Wikimedians,
{{Nutshell|WMF Community Engagement Team is allocating staff time and
funding to deliberate capacity-development projects with interested
communities in six capacity areas: community governance; conflict
management; on-wiki technical skills; new contributor engagement and
growth; partnerships; communications}}
==Details==
This is a new way of partnering with WMF: through two way conversations
(rather than top-down planning), WMF will work with specific emerging
communities to explore obstacles for community growth and explore and pilot
solutions together.
The first phase of this work consisted of a series of in-depth interviews
with individuals from 16 specific emerging communities to gather
information about existing and missing capacities. Reviewing those
interviews in aggregate, we came up with six capacities it seems useful to
work together on.
We prepared a page per such capacity, detailing challenges and possible
approaches to build that capacity. We welcome your feedback! Contributions
to those pages can be done in the following ways:
* Sign up on the sidebar of each capacity subpage if you want to implement
certain practices described,
* Provide more links to resources,
* Expand the Potential Solutions section with new ideas.
These pages, including your contributions, will serve as the basis for
specific conversations with specific communities to develop plans or
projects to build capacity.
During this initial pilot period, we intend to pursue projects in two or
three capacities at most, which will be chosen according to community
interest, scale of community, and scale of readership. We expect some of
the specific actions we take in these projects would create resources
[re-]usable by other communities as well.
==Join the Conversation==
We invite you all to read through the capacity pages, and specifically, to
see if the challenges described resonate with you and your community. If
they do, have an on-wiki discussion about it with your community, and if
there's general interest, sign up on the capacity pages and we'll have a
conversation about what might be some possible next steps.
Find the six capacity pages on Meta, here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Capacity_Development
Looking forward to fruitful engagement,
Asaf Bartov
Sati Houston
Community Engagement department
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org