Wikimedia-l June 2017

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

113 participants
66 discussions

[Foundation-l] Improving search in Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery
by Brian J Mingus 10 Sep '22

10 Sep '22

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…>

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
by GerardM 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

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

3 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
by Bill Takatoshi 26 Apr '20

26 Apr '20

>>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus >>> do not represent the Wikimedia movement. >> >> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the >> Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia >> movement either.... > > Is the Community Process Steering Committee currently > prepared to "engage more 'quiet' members of our community" > with a statistically robust snap survey to resolve this question? Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year old, to get an accurate answer. Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like to know what the actual editing community thinks of the travel ban and their idea of an appropriate response. I don't want to see community governance by opt-in participation in obscure RFCs. I would offer to do this myself, but I value keeping my real name unassociated with my enwiki userid. -Will

4 4

Fresh data on the gender gap in content
by Asaf Bartov 11 Feb '20

11 Feb '20

Hullo everyone. I was asked by a volunteer for help getting stats on the gender gap in content on a certain Wikipedia, and came up with simple Wikidata Query Service[1] queries that pulled the total number of articles on a given Wikipedia about men and about women, to calculate *the proportion of articles about women out of all articles about humans*. Then I was curious about how that wiki compared to other wikis, so I ran the queries on a bunch of languages, and gathered the results into a table, here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ijon/Content_gap (please see the *caveat* there.) I don't have time to fully write-up everything I find interesting in those results, but I will quickly point out the following: 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light. 2. Evidently, ~13%-17% seems like a robust average of the proportion of articles about women among all biographies. 3. among the top 10 largest wikis, Japanese is the least imbalanced. Good job, Japanese Wikipedians! I wonder if you have a good sense of what drives this relatively better balance. (my instinctive guess is pop culture coverage.) 4. among the top 10 largest wikis, Russian is the most imbalanced. 5. I intend to re-generate these stats every two months or so, to eventually have some sense of trends and changes. 6. Your efforts, particularly on small-to-medium wikis, can really make a dent in these numbers! For example, it seems I am personally responsible[2] for almost 1% of the coverage of women on Hebrew Wikipedia! :) 7. I encourage you to share these numbers with your communities. Perhaps you'd like to overtake the wiki just above yours? :) 8. I'm happy to add additional languages to the table, by request. Or you can do it yourself, too. :) A. [1] https://query.wikidata.org/ [2] Yay #100wikidays :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays -- 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

12 18

Why We Read Wikipedia in your language
by Leila Zia 07 Feb '19

07 Feb '19

Hi all, ==Background== In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions, capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 . ==What do we want to do now?== There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures. For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been helping us translating all survey related documents to these languages.:) ==What about your language?== If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however, I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community, and your willingness to help us document the results for your language at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Be… (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee that on our own for many languages.) Best, Leila -- Leila Zia Senior Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation

7 17

30 Jan '18

I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications? E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA.

8 12

[Wikimedia Announcements] Results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election
by matanya moses 17 Oct '17

17 Oct '17

Greetings, The certified results of the 2017 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election are now available on Meta-Wiki: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Results Congratulations to María Sefidari (User:Raystorm), Dariusz Jemielniak (User:pundit), and James Heilman (User:Doc James) for receiving the most community support. Subject to a standard background check, they will be appointed by the Board at their August meeting at Wikimania. These results have been certified by the elections committee, the Wikimedia Foundation staff advisors to the committee, and the Board of Trustees. There were 5,581 votes cast, with 5,120 of those being valid. The 461-vote difference comes from recast ballots, where eligible voters recast ballots to change their votes, and struck votes, of which there were 34. (Some of the recast votes were also struck.) Additional information is available on the Wikimedia Blog: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/20/board-of-trustees-elections-2017/ More statistics on the elections and a post-mortem from the committee will be published in the coming days. In the meantime, we would appreciate your input—what went well for you in this election? What could we do better next time? These reports are crucial to helping future elections be even more successful, and we hope that you will offer your feedback and ideas: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2017/Post_mo… The committee would like to thank everyone that participated in this year’s election for helping make it, again, one of the most diverse and representative in the movement’s history. Sincerely, – Wikimedia Foundation Elections 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

20 21

Wiki Indaba - Letter to Katherine (L2K)
by Felix Nartey 12 Aug '17

12 Aug '17

Dear Katherine, I hope this email finds you well. As resolved from the recent Wiki Indaba 2017 in Accra, Ghana please find attached the L2K.[1] This letter consists of the feedback collected from participants on two sets of questions (explained further in the letter). The organizers of Indaba analysed this data on behalf of the African conference participants. We would also like to take the opportunity to appreciate Wikimedia Foundation support including Asaf Bartov and Kacie Harold from Community Engagement, Jack Rabah from the Global Reach Team, and Zack McCune from the Communications Team. See you soon at our next Wiki Indaba in Tunisia. Best, - Felix Nartey [1] - https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiIndaba_conference_2017/Letter_to_Kather…

2 1

April 7: Update on Wikimedia movement strategy process (#12)
by Katherine Maher 11 Aug '17

11 Aug '17

Hi all! I apologize that we have not had a formal update the last couple of weeks — with Wikimedia Conference, the associated Board meeting, and our regular annual planning, I dropped the ball. The good news is that — as you have probably seen and heard — a lot of discussions are taking place! This week, I’m experimenting with a different type of update: now that the conversations have launched, I will be sharing fewer bullet points about the process, and more paragraphs about the overall work that is going on around the movement. As more conversations happen, I hope future updates will continue to be substantive, sharing key themes and discussions as we see them emerge. Last week, more than 350 Wikimedia community leaders from 70 countries and many different stakeholder groups converged on Berlin, during the annual meeting of movement affiliates, the Wikimedia Conference. This year, leaders from movement affiliates were joined by an additional 200 leaders from across the Wikimedia movement to participate in a program track focused on movement strategy. In addition to participating in some in-person discussions about our shared future direction, volunteers also discussed ways to help spread this effort across their activities and groups. You may be wondering — where are the minutes from our meetings in Berlin? Great question. Unusually for our community, the Berlin strategy track was almost entirely analog, with markers and paper and sticky notes. The facilitation team is in the process of digitalizing all of these materials, from session notes to summaries and final statements. You can keep an eye (or watch) on the Sources page[1] to keep track as additional materials are posted - and jump in to respond and discuss as appropriate! The discussions in Berlin are just one of the many ways people across the movement have been able to engage in the strategy process since my last update. Approximately 50 volunteers and groups are helping coordinate discussions and several on-wiki discussions are already underway. This cycle (the first of three) will run until April 15th, so there’s still a week to share your thoughts - please do! All of these are opportunities for you to contribute your thoughts on the question, "What do we want to build or achieve together over the next 15 years?" For example, if you think we should go to deep space (after all, we've gone to the Moon[2]), tell us more! Have a quick thought you want to contribute? We want to hear it! Check out the participation page on Meta-Wiki's movement strategy portal for more information on where and how you can engage in this global conversation: https://meta.wikimedia.org/?curid=10152617 As conversations continue, we are busy following along. Summaries of the on-wiki discussions are being posted on Meta-Wiki,[3] along notes from 64 recent discussions (and counting!)[1] We are thrilled to see the many different ways and places our community are finding to have this important discussion about our future. As key themes emerge across communities, I hope to share them here. About communications: recently, Nicole provided an overview of the progress and plans for Track A during our monthly activities and metrics meeting.[4] We are also working on a blog post announcing the official start of the movement strategy process. In addition to these communications, we’ll keep updating these weekly updates. We appreciate all the positive and constructive feedback we have received on these updates so far, and invite you to send us more on-wiki.[5] As we know, the more communications about what is going on, the better. Thank you for your continued engagement in this process. I have to confess that while I’ve been excited about these conversations, I wasn’t fully certain how everything would go once we launched. There is a big difference between having a lot of notes on a whiteboard, and actually starting a free-wheeling, global, multilingual community conversation with such a wide and diverse group of people. Three weeks into the launch of the first discussion, I’m genuinely humbled by what everyone is bringing to the conversation. This community is brilliant, our vision is inspiring, our challenges are great (and exciting), and we have so much opportunity ahead. I’m grateful to be able to work alongside you. Schönes Wochenende! (German translation: “Have a good weekend!”) Cheers, Katherine PS. A version of this message is available for translation on Meta-Wiki.[6] [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_to_the_Moon [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Sources/Su… [4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_metrics_and_activities… [5] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updat… [6] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Updates/7_… -- Katherine Maher Wikimedia Foundation 149 New Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94105 +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 +1 (415) 712 4873 kmaher(a)wikimedia.org

2 1

Introducing the Wikimedia Resource Center
by Maria Cruz 29 Jul '17

29 Jul '17

Hi all, As we have stated in our annual plan [1], “currently, community members must search many pages and places to stay informed about Foundation activities and resources.” We have worked in the past two quarters to create a single point of entry. We call it the Wikimedia Resource Center, and its alpha version is now live on Meta Wikimedia: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Resource_Center As the movement expands to include more affiliates and more programmatic activities every year, newer Wikimedians are faced with lack of experience in the movement and its various channels for requesting support. In order to expand Wikimedia communities’ efforts, we want to provide easy access to resources that support their very important work. The [[m:Wikimedia Resource Center]] is a hub designed in response to this issue: it is intended to evolve into a single point of entry for Wikimedians all over the world to the variety of resources and types of staff support they may need to develop new initiatives or also expand existing ones. This version of the Resource Center is only the beginning. For phase two of the project, we will enable volunteer Wikimedians to add resources developed by other individuals or organizations to the Wikimedia Resource Center, and in phase three, the Wikimedia Resource Center will include features to better connect Wikimedians to other Wikimedians that can support them. We want to hear what you think about this prototype and our plans for it! If you have comments about the Wikimedia Resource Center, you can submit your feedback publicly, on the Talk Page, or privately, via a survey hosted by a third party, that shouldn’t take you more than 4 minutes to complete. A feedback button is on the top right corner on every page of the hub. Looking forward to more collaborations! Best, María [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2016-2017/… -- María Cruz Communications and Outreach Project Manager, Community Engagement

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l June 2017