Whether or not the decision against having a membership system was legal, reversing that decision would be a timely and practical way for the WMF to start to reengage with the community.
Past concerns that a membership system would require staff are now moot - we have staff.
Past concerns as to where one sets the membership fee are now moot - we can afford to waive the fee for those who contribute time. I'm not really keen on the idea of selling any memberships, but it would be good if we could award membership to some of the professors, museum curators, librarians, archivists and others who help our mission without necessarily editing much themselves.
Past concerns about privacy are easier to resolve as we now have a structure of chapters and they include ones in countries with very strict privacy laws. So we can have a federal membership system with chapters holding the membership details in specific countries, and anyone suing the WMF to get the membership details of someone who'd blocked them for spamming would then find that all the WMF knew was someone's username - membership details would be held by an independent legal entity in a country with strict privacy laws.
A Membership based system would give more protection for community elected trustees.
A membership based organisation would formally be a global not for profit at the intersection of education, culture, free knowledge and open licensing; not a Silicon Valley tech entity.
A membership based organisation would have better defences against being "commercialised".
Regards
Jonathan/WereSpielChequers
>> Dear friends,
>>
>> Recent events have made me curious to learn more about the Wikimedia
>> Foundation's origins and history as a membership organization. The
>> revelations about the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections being a
>> recommendation for appointment rather than a direct vote seem to have been
>> a surprise to many of us, and almost ten years after membership was
>> eliminated, we see strongly suggestive "directly elected" language still
>> being fixed on the Foundation's own Board elections page.[1]
>>
>> It turns out that this history is colorful, the Foundation was a membership
>> organization from 2003-2006 and Board seats were indeed, originally,
>> intended to be directly elected by member-Wikimedians. It seems that the
>> membership issue was never quite resolved. I've put some of my notes on
>> metawiki, please forward to any wiki historians who might be interested in
>> throwing their weight on a shovel.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_membership_controversy
>>
>> As a current WMF staff member, and having received a formal scolding two
>> weeks ago for expressing my professional and personal opinions on this
>> list--that a hierarchical corporate structure is completely inappropriate
>> and ineffectual for running the Foundation--I don't feel safe
>> editorializing about what membership could mean for the future of the
>> Wikimedia movement. But I would be thrilled to see this discussion take
>> place, and to contribute however I am able.
>>
>> A note to fellow staff: Anything you can say about this history is most
>> likely protected speech under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, since we're asking
>> whether state and federal laws were violated.
>>
>> In solidarity,
>> Adam Wight
>> [[mw:User:Adamw]]
>>
>> [1]
>>
I appreciate that you have responded to the community outcry, though I
fear that the flowery rhetoric was not only lost on me, it also seems
to be obfusacting on the serious matters raised. The substantial
matters themselves rated a direct mention or a skerrick of
acknowledgement.
I believe that the community has clearly expressed that while you may
have a significant HR/P&C background, the dark shadow that you drag
into the Wikimedia is not one which a sizeable proportion of
interested and knowledgeable participants believes outweighs a clear,
untarnished integrity [1]
>From your people management background, you cannot seriously have us
believe that
And you may be the fall guy / scapegoat / ...for the board's
short-sighted appointment / inexacting process / evident lack of
diligence; however, that may be the role that you need to take so that
the Board can get the clear air to regain the trust that it has lost.
Until that time we peasants may well be revolting. Who knows, this
time maybe we can create a white-out, rather than a black-out.[2][3]
Risk-denial, risk-blindness and obstinacy are not traits that I see as
valuable in members of boards.
Further, I believe that there would surely be candidates with similar
people management credentials who don't have the dead weight. That
they may not have worked for Google, be male, or be in the Bay area
may be a problem, ... oh no ... maybe not!
Be pragmatic, it is clearly time for pragmatism. Please resign, as at
this time the hole has been dug by you and others has broken through
to the other side you have no base, there is no real return.
Regards, Billinghurst
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Vote_of_n…
currently running at 263 no confidence votes, compared to 21. noting
that ref includes significant number of voices of clear reason and
office holders, senior and highly trusted volunteers within the WMF
movement who have a demonstrated history of intent, and integrity.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_SOPA_and_PIPA
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative
congratulations to all new members and re-appointed members.
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that, following the recent call for applications,
> the following candidates have been appointed to seats on the Affiliations
> Committee:
>
> - Salvador Alcantar Morán (re-appointment)
> - Carlos M. Colina (re-appointment)
> - Galileo Vidoni (re-appointment)
> - Emna Mizouni
> - Tanweer Morshed
> - Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>
> The newly appointed (and re-appointed) members will serve two-year terms,
> ending in December 2017.
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to thank each of the
> applicants, as well as all of the community members who took the time to
> offer their feedback on the candidates during the public review process.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
--
*Mohammed Bachounda*
Leader Wikimedia Algérie UG
Hello all,
We as Wikimedia Belgium now have a new board installed with the General
Assembly of Saturday 23 January 2016.
Three board members leave (due time constraints):
* MADe - our hard working president who focussed on the goal of founding
Wikimedia Belgium and he did!
* M0tty - our vice president who is one of the founders and collaborated
with the Mundaneum.
* Dimi z - our international liaison and one of the founders and is the
face to the European politicians in Brussels.
All three remain active for Wikimedia Belgium in an advisory role for the
board.
Thank you MADe, M0tty & Dimi z for your work the past years!
Two board members come in:
* SPQRobin - member of the Wikimedia language committee, developer, and
long term Wikipedia editor.
* Lfurter - graphic designer, researcher, curator, and organiser of
multiple Wikimedia events.
Welcome SPQRobin & Lfurter!
Also a new president of our chapter has been elected. This is now Geertivp.
Geertivp had in the board the role of secretary, which included a
performance on Belgian television last week. Thank you for your work as
secretary and success with the role as president!
SPQRobin takes over the role of secretary from Geertivp.
Romaine
Following the recent statements by JW on his talk page I am planning to
publish my email to the board from Oct 7, 2015. I have given the board some
time to redact anything they feel is confidential. I have also requested
they send me information of what statute, bylaw, or board handbook item
they feel would make details, if any, confidential.
Additionally I do not see anything in Jimmy’s 12/30 email that should be
confidential, and since I was not a Trustee at the time he sent it, clearly
he did not consider it highly confidential either. But I prefer not to
publish it without his consent, and I have no plans to do so.
I hope for a reply from the board by Feb 8 and plan to release the email on
Feb 15th.
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
Hi everyone,
The curated list of biographical sources for StrepHit has now passed the
objective of 40 items [1].
Your help in validating the list is essential to ensure the reliability
of the corpus that will be collected upon it.
In practice, are the sources:
1. *reliable* (cf. [2])?
2. *third-party*, i.e., not created by users of Wikimedia projects?
I kindly ask you to answer those questions in the discussion page of [1].
Cheers,
Marco
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/StrepHit:_Wikidata_Statements_Va…
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources
Congrats to all new members!
On Jan 24, 2016 8:31 PM, "Kirill Lokshin" <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm pleased to announce that, following the recent call for applications,
> the following candidates have been appointed to seats on the Affiliations
> Committee:
>
> - Salvador Alcantar Morán (re-appointment)
> - Carlos M. Colina (re-appointment)
> - Galileo Vidoni (re-appointment)
> - Emna Mizouni
> - Tanweer Morshed
> - Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight
>
> The newly appointed (and re-appointed) members will serve two-year terms,
> ending in December 2017.
>
> On behalf of the Affiliations Committee, I would like to thank each of the
> applicants, as well as all of the community members who took the time to
> offer their feedback on the candidates during the public review process.
>
> Regards,
> Kirill Lokshin
> Affiliations Committee
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
Distinguish Wikipedians,
I earlier thought I'm probably the only Wikipedian who edit and create articles with smartphone until I saw User:Cullen328's essay on "Smartphone editing" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cullen328/Smartphone_editing). Although, I have a personal computer but there are millions of people out there who do not have their own personal computer. we do not all live in suburbia with unlimited access to computers. I can say that almost everyone have access to smartphones (Android, Blackberry etc). I created over 500 articles with smartphone, 9 of the articles featured on DYK and I promoted one of the articles to GA status.
I hope that this will help motivate public intellectuals, Wikimedia outreach coordinators, Wikipedia education managers and opinion leaders who explain Wikipedia editing to the general public to acknowledge that editing by smartphone is practical for those who are interested, even if it is not every editor's cup of tea and outreach to new editors should include positive information about smartphone editing per user:Cullen328's essay.
Warm regards,
Olatunde Isaac.
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device from MTN
-----Original Message-----
From: wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: "Wikimedia-l" <wikimedia-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:28:43
To: <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 142, Issue 142
Send Wikimedia-l mailing list submissions to
wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
wikimedia-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
wikimedia-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Wikimedia-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Happy Magnus Manske Day! (Steinsplitter Wiki)
2. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Andreas Kolbe)
3. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
4. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Andreas Kolbe)
5. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
6. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Gerard Meijssen)
7. Re: Profile of Magnus Manske (Jane Darnell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:33:54 +0100
From: Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-wiki(a)live.com>
To: "wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org"
<wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Happy Magnus Manske Day!
Message-ID: <DUB124-W2B29FBDE6E8FD515EB9F6E6C70(a)phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Magnus moved Wikipedia forward by coding mediawiki.
And he is still creating useful tools. Thanks Magnus for your hard work!
We can be proud to have Magnus in the Wikimedia movement.
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day --
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 13:55:53 +0000
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAHRTtW_5fQMfevRyf4Ve78=8DQh0Hb03p+DOgTdSuhJ+DWO_jg(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
wrote:
> What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes don't
> count)
Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
published source.
Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
source", isn't it?[2]
[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:32:14 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxXzKo6_ZP-5Yty-F4rhD=iPOa6u+ttCZsV=2uFixVrh0w(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
better than 90%.
It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
forgiving for the error in their own way.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> don't
> > count)
>
>
>
> Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> published source.
>
> Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a "reliable
> source", isn't it?[2]
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:11:26 +0000
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAHRTtW-_-3Tf7ED=0zipLTiCQMKRziVScVj2gGoqyKFrRZCM3A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
> of 20%.
Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
relevant article versions?
Andreas
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:29:49 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxX7zu=sQ61ToNML=L-90HPJH=J6Zf-3Oz9HDYoBEMVy7A(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
Thanks.,
GerardM
[1]
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-he…
[2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
> rate
> > of 20%.
>
>
>
> Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
> relevant article versions?
>
> Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> 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>
>
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:32:00 +0100
From: Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAO53wxUrgr1dOugea3xx+DW0X9m3SbXx9MZVEe38Tm8_ndSpbQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hoi,
Eh, wrong link ...
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-20-error-rate.html
On 25 January 2016 at 17:29, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I regularly blog. It was mentioned in one of my blogposts [1].. By the way
> the obvious would be to do some research yourself. Paper tigers [2] are
> those tigers that rely on what others have to say,
> Thanks.,
> GerardM
>
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2016/01/wikipedia-recovery-and-mental-he…
> [2] http://www.letusdiy.org/uploads/userup/0911/3000041GC2.jpg
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 16:11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error
>> rate
>> > of 20%.
>>
>>
>>
>> Could you give some specific examples of such cases, with links to the
>> relevant article versions?
>>
>> Andreas
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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>
>>
>
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:28:40 +0100
From: Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
Message-ID:
<CAFVcA-E0HwX+9e4nG3hgjk7ewSxgoQW-Xo=jYVZ7RY95cYzpMw(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Actually I think Wikidata is sourced more thoroughly than any single
Wikipedia. Looking at the last chart in those stats, less than 10% of all
items have zero sitelinks, and we can't see in the stats whether 100% of
those have zero referenced statements, but I would assume that is not the
case, especially since items with zero sitelinks and zero internal Wikidata
links tend to be "cleaned up and deleted". At least one sitelink means the
item is coming from a Wikipedia, and therefore the Wikipedia article will
have references that could be used in the Wikidata item and just haven't
been added yet. Of all the items with zero or just one statement, I expect
a great deal of these to be linked to categories, disambiguation pages, or
lists, as these types of items generally only contain one statement.
Also, we currently have no way to count unreferenced statements in
Wikipedia articles, but there are very few Wikipedia articles that have at
least one reference per sentence. So concluding that any single
unreferenced statement no matter how many other referenced statements there
are in the item brings an entire Wikidata item into the "untrustworthy
zone" is just silly.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi,
> Maybe.. but not all Wikipedias are the same. It is verifiable that
> Wikipedia would easily benefit from Wikidata from Wikidata by replacing the
> existing links and red links with functionality that uses Wikidata.
>
> It happens often that I work on content in Wikipedia and find an error rate
> of 20%. When you check Wikidata for its quality I expect it to be much
> better than 90%.
>
> It is blooming obvious that Wikipedians only see fault elsewhere and are
> forgiving for the error in their own way.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 14:55, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Magnus Manske <
> > magnusmanske(a)googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > What you hear is "Wikidata is unreliable" (compared to the respective
> > > Wikipedia; proof, anyone? Please, show me proof; silence or anecdotes
> > don't
> > > count)
> >
> >
> >
> > Any non-trivial content you want to add to Wikipedia today has to fulfil
> > one basic criterion: that the content be traceable to a professionally
> > published source.
> >
> > Most Wikidata content fails that criterion.[1] It's blooming obvious that
> > Wikidata is "unreliable" according to Wikipedia's definition of a
> "reliable
> > source", isn't it?[2]
> >
> > [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/stats.php
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:SPS
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
------------------------------
End of Wikimedia-l Digest, Vol 142, Issue 142
*********************************************
Magnus moved Wikipedia forward by coding mediawiki.
And he is still creating useful tools. Thanks Magnus for your hard work!
We can be proud to have Magnus in the Wikimedia movement.
--- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Magnus_Manske_Day --
