we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.l.
Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@...> writes:
we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember
many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.l.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@... Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes, and we can't afford to spend years bickering over minor and unimportant details. The policy looks quite good now, and if it were my choice, I would approve it.
LB
Can someone clarify the phrase "this must be used at present as Engineered language or pretend to be used as international auxiliary one, additionally to have literary pieces written previously by people other than the creator of the language. They are excluded those which are only used at present with artistic purposes."
That doesn't parse for me.
Mark
2008/9/15 Leigh Babbage gladysthegroovymule@yahoo.co.uk:
Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever@...> writes:
we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember
many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.l.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@... Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yes, and we can't afford to spend years bickering over minor and unimportant details. The policy looks quite good now, and if it were my choice, I would approve it.
LB
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project that was closed with prejudice.
The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then 50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality and quantity.
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised. The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60 days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this situation.
This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the implementation of the current policies.
The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would characterise it. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover < always_yours.forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.l.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised.
I would say: so what? As you say, it is one of our bigger projects, and it seems to be doing well. If then still MediaWiki is not localized as you would like it, maybe that means that localization of MediaWiki is not thought by everybody to be as important as you think is? Wikimedia is there in the first place for making encyclopedias, textbooks and dictionaries. Projects should be supported with what they need to do that better. And I don't think that translating MediaWiki, at least beyond what the average editor comes across on a regular basis, would be high on that list. Apparently the Turkish agree with me. Translating the interface in many languages is a nice thing to have, and I am happy you are working on that. But I do feel you are putting way too much emphasis on it, to an extent that is bothering languages more than supporting them. Creating a betawiki, and inviting people to come over there is supporting languages. Forcing them to go a certain distance with it before they can get their project is bothering them. Then you are using the Wikipedias (and Wiktionaries and other projects) to build the software, rather than the other way around.
+1
2008/9/15 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised.
I would say: so what? As you say, it is one of our bigger projects, and it seems to be doing well. If then still MediaWiki is not localized as you would like it, maybe that means that localization of MediaWiki is not thought by everybody to be as important as you think is? Wikimedia is there in the first place for making encyclopedias, textbooks and dictionaries. Projects should be supported with what they need to do that better. And I don't think that translating MediaWiki, at least beyond what the average editor comes across on a regular basis, would be high on that list. Apparently the Turkish agree with me. Translating the interface in many languages is a nice thing to have, and I am happy you are working on that. But I do feel you are putting way too much emphasis on it, to an extent that is bothering languages more than supporting them. Creating a betawiki, and inviting people to come over there is supporting languages. Forcing them to go a certain distance with it before they can get their project is bothering them. Then you are using the Wikipedias (and Wiktionaries and other projects) to build the software, rather than the other way around.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is not the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is a well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of making our content more accessible to our readers.
Andre, you and I are fortunate that both the English, the German, the Dutch and the French Wikipedias have a continued great localisation. These are the languages that a typical Dutch person will read. Consequently ou do not know the problem of limited localisation because you do not experience it.
When you say that it is a bother for editors that they have to localise, I will agree. However, all this work is necessary to make the content they create more accessible to the readers. It is the readers and getting more readers that everything centres around. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions
localised.
I would say: so what? As you say, it is one of our bigger projects, and it seems to be doing well. If then still MediaWiki is not localized as you would like it, maybe that means that localization of MediaWiki is not thought by everybody to be as important as you think is? Wikimedia is there in the first place for making encyclopedias, textbooks and dictionaries. Projects should be supported with what they need to do that better. And I don't think that translating MediaWiki, at least beyond what the average editor comes across on a regular basis, would be high on that list. Apparently the Turkish agree with me. Translating the interface in many languages is a nice thing to have, and I am happy you are working on that. But I do feel you are putting way too much emphasis on it, to an extent that is bothering languages more than supporting them. Creating a betawiki, and inviting people to come over there is supporting languages. Forcing them to go a certain distance with it before they can get their project is bothering them. Then you are using the Wikipedias (and Wiktionaries and other projects) to build the software, rather than the other way around.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is not the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is a
I disagree, profoundly. It is impossible to publish content that does not exist, so the creation of content is at least as important as its publication.
well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of making our content more accessible to our readers.
[citation needed]
Hoi, It is obvious that the creation of content is essential for what we do, but it is the means to our main objective; making our content available to our readers. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is
not
the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is
a
I disagree, profoundly. It is impossible to publish content that does not exist, so the creation of content is at least as important as its publication.
well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of
making
our content more accessible to our readers.
[citation needed]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
It is obvious that the creation of content is essential for what we do, but it is the means to our main objective; making our content available to our readers.
And, said means is equally important to us as our main objective is.
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is
not
the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is
a
I disagree, profoundly. It is impossible to publish content that does not exist, so the creation of content is at least as important as its publication.
well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of
making
our content more accessible to our readers.
[citation needed]
How, then, is the Turkish Wikipedia one of our leading Wikipedias if a Wiki needs localization to function and it isn't well localized?
MArk
2008/9/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is not the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is a well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of making our content more accessible to our readers.
Andre, you and I are fortunate that both the English, the German, the Dutch and the French Wikipedias have a continued great localisation. These are the languages that a typical Dutch person will read. Consequently ou do not know the problem of limited localisation because you do not experience it.
When you say that it is a bother for editors that they have to localise, I will agree. However, all this work is necessary to make the content they create more accessible to the readers. It is the readers and getting more readers that everything centres around. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions
localised.
I would say: so what? As you say, it is one of our bigger projects, and it seems to be doing well. If then still MediaWiki is not localized as you would like it, maybe that means that localization of MediaWiki is not thought by everybody to be as important as you think is? Wikimedia is there in the first place for making encyclopedias, textbooks and dictionaries. Projects should be supported with what they need to do that better. And I don't think that translating MediaWiki, at least beyond what the average editor comes across on a regular basis, would be high on that list. Apparently the Turkish agree with me. Translating the interface in many languages is a nice thing to have, and I am happy you are working on that. But I do feel you are putting way too much emphasis on it, to an extent that is bothering languages more than supporting them. Creating a betawiki, and inviting people to come over there is supporting languages. Forcing them to go a certain distance with it before they can get their project is bothering them. Then you are using the Wikipedias (and Wiktionaries and other projects) to build the software, rather than the other way around.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, My question is a different one; consider how well the Turkish projects would do if their localisation was outstanding. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
How, then, is the Turkish Wikipedia one of our leading Wikipedias if a Wiki needs localization to function and it isn't well localized?
MArk
2008/9/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is
not
the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is
a
well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of
making
our content more accessible to our readers.
Andre, you and I are fortunate that both the English, the German, the
Dutch
and the French Wikipedias have a continued great localisation. These are
the
languages that a typical Dutch person will read. Consequently ou do not
know
the problem of limited localisation because you do not experience it.
When you say that it is a bother for editors that they have to localise,
I
will agree. However, all this work is necessary to make the content they create more accessible to the readers. It is the readers and getting more readers that everything centres around. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing
languages.
Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have
only
74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions
localised.
I would say: so what? As you say, it is one of our bigger projects, and it seems to be doing well. If then still MediaWiki is not localized as you would like it, maybe that means that localization of MediaWiki is not thought by everybody to be as important as you think is? Wikimedia is there in the first place for making encyclopedias, textbooks and dictionaries. Projects should be supported with what they need to do that better. And I don't think that translating MediaWiki, at least beyond what the average editor comes across on a regular basis, would be high on that list. Apparently the Turkish agree with me. Translating the interface in many languages is a nice thing to have, and I am happy you are working on that. But I do feel you are putting way too much emphasis on it, to an extent that is bothering languages more than supporting them. Creating a betawiki, and inviting people to come over there is supporting languages. Forcing them to go a certain distance with it before they can get their project is bothering them. Then you are using the Wikipedias (and Wiktionaries and other projects) to build the software, rather than the other way around.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, My question is a different one; consider how well the Turkish projects would do if their localisation was outstanding.
Do you have any evidence that they would do better than they do now? I'm very doubtful about it - it doesn't look like the untranslated messages are coming up in normal reading and editing at all. And I very much doubt that the Turkish Wikipedia is in any way hindered by the fact that if they would at some time in the future appoint someone with Oversight access, they better choose someone with knowledge of English or translate things first.
Hoi, There are Turkish projects beside Wikipedia, there are projects outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. All these projects would benefit from a much improved localisation. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, My question is a different one; consider how well the Turkish projects
would
do if their localisation was outstanding.
Do you have any evidence that they would do better than they do now? I'm very doubtful about it - it doesn't look like the untranslated messages are coming up in normal reading and editing at all. And I very much doubt that the Turkish Wikipedia is in any way hindered by the fact that if they would at some time in the future appoint someone with Oversight access, they better choose someone with knowledge of English or translate things first.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There are Turkish projects beside Wikipedia, there are projects outside of the Wikimedia Foundation. All these projects would benefit from a much improved localisation.
Would they? What makes you know that? And even if they do, why should we be forcing the Turkish community here to create benefits for outside projects?
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is not the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is a well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of making our content more accessible to our readers.
Is it well established? And even if it is, surely to make the content available to the readers only a small section of the interface is needed.
Andre, you and I are fortunate that both the English, the German, the Dutch and the French Wikipedias have a continued great localisation. These are the languages that a typical Dutch person will read. Consequently ou do not know the problem of limited localisation because you do not experience it.
You forget that I am a LONG time Wikipedian. When I came, there was no Dutch Wikipedia. When I went to the Dutch Wikipedia, there was no localisation. Did I find that unpleasant? Yes. Did I find that a huge problem? No. When the Dutch Wikipedia went to the MediaWiki software (now called phase 3), we spent quite some time translating all the message that then existed first. Afterward, I thought that it was too much. When the Frisian Wikipedia started, I advised them that they should definitely translate the namespace names, and apart from that just what they thought most important. Anything that had not been translated could be translated later if they needed it. And that is what I said BEFORE there was a Mediawiki: namespace or a Betawiki. Every new translation had to be submitted to a developer. But still, I felt that people could translate when they felt the need for it. And that's what I still do.
When you say that it is a bother for editors that they have to localise, I will agree. However, all this work is necessary to make the content they create more accessible to the readers. It is the readers and getting more readers that everything centres around.
No person will read one page less on a wiki if the block log isn't localised or if bureaucrats have to read the messages about changing account names in English. Make translation possibilities available, like the MediaWiki namespace and Betawiki do. What needs to be translated will be translated. What doesn't need to be translated, will take longer, maybe never. If the users themselves don't think incomplete interface translation is a problem, why would we come in and force them to change their mind?
Hoi, When you speak English at your level, there is no issue. When people do not comprehend what is being written, they will not be able to make full advantage of the existing functionality. You may state that for some readers not all of the functionality needs to be localised; this is recognised in the requirement of localisation for a first project in a language. This only leaves the editors out to fend for themselves. It is for this reason that we require full localisation for subsequent projects. We hope that the multi lingual people of a project share our belief and continue to work on the localisation when their project is approved. When they do, their whole language community benefits.
Localisation is one of the few things we can do to to make life easier for the people who speak only one language. We should not assume that a valuable editor is multi lingual. For every living language there are people who benefit a lot when we provide our user interface in their language.
Language localisation on the project itself in its MediaWiki namespace represents a waste of effort. It is much easier and much more effective to localise in the specialised environment as provided at http://translatewiki.net. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:43 PM, Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.comwrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
What we do is done to make information available. Our main objective is
not
the creation of content, but the publication of content to readers. It is
a
well established fact that localisation is one of the best methods of
making
our content more accessible to our readers.
Is it well established? And even if it is, surely to make the content available to the readers only a small section of the interface is needed.
Andre, you and I are fortunate that both the English, the German, the
Dutch
and the French Wikipedias have a continued great localisation. These are
the
languages that a typical Dutch person will read. Consequently ou do not
know
the problem of limited localisation because you do not experience it.
You forget that I am a LONG time Wikipedian. When I came, there was no Dutch Wikipedia. When I went to the Dutch Wikipedia, there was no localisation. Did I find that unpleasant? Yes. Did I find that a huge problem? No. When the Dutch Wikipedia went to the MediaWiki software (now called phase 3), we spent quite some time translating all the message that then existed first. Afterward, I thought that it was too much. When the Frisian Wikipedia started, I advised them that they should definitely translate the namespace names, and apart from that just what they thought most important. Anything that had not been translated could be translated later if they needed it. And that is what I said BEFORE there was a Mediawiki: namespace or a Betawiki. Every new translation had to be submitted to a developer. But still, I felt that people could translate when they felt the need for it. And that's what I still do.
When you say that it is a bother for editors that they have to localise,
I
will agree. However, all this work is necessary to make the content they create more accessible to the readers. It is the readers and getting more readers that everything centres around.
No person will read one page less on a wiki if the block log isn't localised or if bureaucrats have to read the messages about changing account names in English. Make translation possibilities available, like the MediaWiki namespace and Betawiki do. What needs to be translated will be translated. What doesn't need to be translated, will take longer, maybe never. If the users themselves don't think incomplete interface translation is a problem, why would we come in and force them to change their mind?
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It seems like there's a history of fearmongering with you.
It used to be about the Nauruan Wikipedia, and if we didn't impose some kind of strict limit on new languages, we'd be totally screwed.
Now it's Siberian.
Of course it is good to learn from our mistakes, but there isn't only one possible path to take to improve our lot, as you portray it.
It seems like you're saying if we don't do it my way, we're all going to be screwed. There are other ways, Gerard. You say that none of them are better; I disagree. However, I think that even if none of them are better, many of them would do equally well at getting the job done. There is no reason the current language proposal policy needs to be treated like the word of God, we can and should modify it. Cautiously, of course, but I don't think Ancient Greek = Siberian.
Mark
2008/9/15 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, The problem with this proposal is that it makes it again totally ambiguous what is a language. Currently we have an objective criteria for deciding what is a language. The current ISO-639-3 requirement has worked really well for us in the past, it has a well defined path of inclusion in the successor of the RFC-4646, it provides us with an expert panel that has shown to be responsive. This is to be replaced by what was the original reason why we choose the ISO-639-3 as a requirement, the endless bickering about what is a language. This brought us beauties like the Siberian Wikipedia, a project that was closed with prejudice.
The notion that this proposal is almost complete is in stark contrast with the lack of objective criteria for what makes a language. Some people claim that we can not trust ISO because it is "political" but there has been no credible alternative provided that can be as easily discredited. There is a lot of work involved in maintaining support for our languages. For better then 50% of our projects we have a substandard localisation, for better then 50% we do not have a Wikipedia with a living community and a growing quality and quantity.
What we need more then new projects is supporting our existing languages. Even for languages like Turkish, one of our bigger projects, we have only 74% of the MediaWiki messages and 25% of the WMF used extensions localised. The process of supporting more languages is not our biggest problem, new language and project proposals are well catered for with the splendid work done on the Incubator and Betawiki. The current process breaks down when new projects are to be created. The average waiting time this year is over 60 days from the moment when we have confirmation from the board that a project is to be created. There is no observable interest by the WMF to remedy this situation.
This proposal does not address any issues that help in the administration of the policy, it makes things more difficult, it will invite more endless discussions. it does not help with the biggest obstacle for the implementation of the current policies.
The notion that this proposal is ready for prime time is not how I would characterise it. Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Sep 13, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Crazy Lover < always_yours.forever@yahoo.com> wrote:
we take the best arguments to built the current community draft.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
it is almost complete. now, we ask community to finish it completely. remember many projects is waiting for it.
Give your comments.
C.m.l.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org