Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new "competitor". They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
But is it free as in free beer or freedom?
--Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.comwrote:
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new "competitor". They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
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
There are no formal license so I would say "free beer" as for now. John
Ian A. Holton skrev:
But is it free as in free beer or freedom?
--Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.comwrote:
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new "competitor". They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
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
Their license text indicates that they are aiming o be free as in freedom, but they do not have a proper license as of yet (all it says is that "you can use our stuff in the same way as with Wikipedia's stuff", and a bunch of articles are marked with "free license", but without specifying that any further). But it does look very promising, in my opinion.
2009/2/26 Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com
But is it free as in free beer or freedom?
--Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl <finnrindwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new "competitor". They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn
from
them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in
SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
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
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1] and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners Aschehoug og Gyldendal NOK 25 mill over the next 3 years, approx USD 3.6 mill.[3]
John
[1]http://www.dagbladet.no/2009/02/25/kultur/tekno/store_norske/wikipedia/50297... [2]http://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/article400676.ece [3]http://www.aftenposten.no/kul_und/article2946755.ece
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1] and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners Aschehoug og Gyldendal NOK 25 mill over the next 3 years, approx USD 3.6 mill.[3]
The first comparison I find not so good; the points he mentions are indeed points where Wikipedia is better, they are not the main points I would judge an encyclopedia by. The second one looks much better, giving good points of comparison, and stating where one or the other is better. The points that are mentioned are (using a machine translation to read the articles):
Wikipedia better: * easier to use * better usage of the possibilities of HTML: tables, images * more interlinking * SNL uses two different sources by just putting them on the same page, which means things are told double * more up-to-date * better on popular culture subjects and current events * more open to (quick) improvements
SNL better: * more academic emphasis * authors are identified * Wikipedia articles are more uneven in both language and content
In general a nice list, but I do also want to point at our minus point number two - I really think it is worthwhile to see what can be done about it. Of course the same holds for the other two, but those are much harder to improve in a general manner (but we should all look at improving them at the page level).
I've been wondering if we could identify different users somehow, what kind of role they had in writing of the article - especially who did the research and who did the writing, and what kind of trust (reputation) they have.
The academic emphasis is something they brag loudly about, but it seems academia more and more uses Wikipedia anyhow. ;) It is also interesting how SNL want to be used as a primary source of information, while we says no one should use an encyclopedia as a primary source for information.
I'm not sure what you mean about "our minus point number two".
John
Andre Engels skrev:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:17 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
The release has been given a lot of press coverage, and some comparisons between the encyclopedias has been done. Two of them, in Dagbladet[1] and Dagsavisen[2], has concluded that Wikipedia is best. According to Aftenposten the new edition will cost Kunskapsforlaget and their owners Aschehoug og Gyldendal NOK 25 mill over the next 3 years, approx USD 3.6 mill.[3]
The first comparison I find not so good; the points he mentions are indeed points where Wikipedia is better, they are not the main points I would judge an encyclopedia by. The second one looks much better, giving good points of comparison, and stating where one or the other is better. The points that are mentioned are (using a machine translation to read the articles):
Wikipedia better:
- easier to use
- better usage of the possibilities of HTML: tables, images
- more interlinking
- SNL uses two different sources by just putting them on the same
page, which means things are told double
- more up-to-date
- better on popular culture subjects and current events
- more open to (quick) improvements
SNL better:
- more academic emphasis
- authors are identified
- Wikipedia articles are more uneven in both language and content
In general a nice list, but I do also want to point at our minus point number two - I really think it is worthwhile to see what can be done about it. Of course the same holds for the other two, but those are much harder to improve in a general manner (but we should all look at improving them at the page level).
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I've been wondering if we could identify different users somehow, what kind of role they had in writing of the article - especially who did the research and who did the writing, and what kind of trust (reputation) they have.
The academic emphasis is something they brag loudly about, but it seems academia more and more uses Wikipedia anyhow. ;) It is also interesting how SNL want to be used as a primary source of information, while we says no one should use an encyclopedia as a primary source for information.
I'm not sure what you mean about "our minus point number two".
That's the identification of authors. So what I mean is that we could try to find a way to mention something about the authors (in a more conspicuous place than the history and without forcing the user to click a few dozen links to weed out the obvious non-authors) - either automatically generated, added by the users themselves or a form in between.
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our down stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all. Thanks, gerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:01 AM, John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no wrote:
I've been wondering if we could identify different users somehow, what kind of role they had in writing of the article - especially who did the research and who did the writing, and what kind of trust (reputation) they have.
The academic emphasis is something they brag loudly about, but it seems academia more and more uses Wikipedia anyhow. ;) It is also interesting how SNL want to be used as a primary source of information, while we says no one should use an encyclopedia as a primary source for
information.
I'm not sure what you mean about "our minus point number two".
That's the identification of authors. So what I mean is that we could try to find a way to mention something about the authors (in a more conspicuous place than the history and without forcing the user to click a few dozen links to weed out the obvious non-authors) - either automatically generated, added by the users themselves or a form in between.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our down stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
Hoi, Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader ? In my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be found in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to include and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who includes an illustration while the person who created the illustration is considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our down stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
-- André Engels, andreengels@gmail.com
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how this can offset the situation whereby one encyclopedia can pay its authors while an other can't. Or in fact, one of the encyclopedias both pays the authors and gives attributes them for the work they do.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader ? In my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be found in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to include and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who includes an illustration while the person who created the illustration is considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our down stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
-- 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, Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of attention and detail is unparalleled. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how this can offset the situation whereby one encyclopedia can pay its authors while an other can't. Or in fact, one of the encyclopedias both pays the authors and gives attributes them for the work they do.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader ?
In
my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be
found
in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to include and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who
includes
an illustration while the person who created the illustration is considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our
down
stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
-- 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
Well, quite a number of people (including me) do not agree with you on that point.
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of attention and detail is unparalleled. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how this can offset the situation whereby one encyclopedia can pay its authors while an other can't. Or in fact, one of the encyclopedias both pays the authors and gives attributes them for the work they do.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader ?
In
my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be
found
in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to include and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who
includes
an illustration while the person who created the illustration is considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our
down
stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
-- 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
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What point, I made two.
- the amount of attention and detail is unparaleled - due credit is given
I think you are of the opinion that not enough credit is given.. but I am not aware of examples where so much attention to contributors is given then exactly in Wikipedia. Many people have expressed a wish for something more visible and you will agree with me that there is no consensus at all what that should look like and how all kinds of corner cases are to be dealt with.
I do agree that people want something.. but nobody knows what this something is. There is a sizeable group of people who are not convinced what the added value will be and if there will be any that is of common value. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Well, quite a number of people (including me) do not agree with you on that point.
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of
attention
and detail is unparalleled. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Adding authors, even if they write under pseudonyms, gives due credit as described in the copyright laws of several countries and also gives those persons added cultural capital. I guess someone can elaborate about how cultural capital and economic capital can be traded, and how this can offset the situation whereby one encyclopedia can pay its authors while an other can't. Or in fact, one of the encyclopedias both pays the authors and gives attributes them for the work they do.
John
Gerard Meijssen skrev:
Hoi, Ok let me rephrase my question, what would the benefit be to the reader
?
In
my opinion there is no benefit. The fact that this information can be
found
in the history data is sufficient. There is no obvious way who to
include
and why. For instance there are some who do not rate the person who
includes
an illustration while the person who created the illustration is considered.. Really, you open a can of wurms and there is no clear and obvious benefit. Thanks, GerardM
2009/2/26 Andre Engels andreengels@gmail.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, What would you achieve by doing that and, what would it mean for our
down
stream users ? In my opinion this is not where we want to go at all.
What it would achieve is that the reader has more of an idea who wrote what he is reading. The consequence for our downstream users seems little - depending on the exact form we use it is nothing, something extra to include or something extra to decide on whether to include or not.
-- 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
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
The problem for those who want to be recognized personally, is that the amount of detail is so excessive that it makes it very difficult to ferret out significant contributions.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Due credit is given. It is given to the extend that the amount of attention and detail is unparalleled. Thanks, GerardM
David Goodman / DGG
Free as in beer, of course, but still, that's the main part of what's our mission, our at least what I see as our mission: As I see it, our mission is to ensure that the _knowledge and information_ are _available_ to everyone. For that, free as in beer is the important step.
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Ian A. Holton poeloq@gmail.com wrote:
But is it free as in free beer or freedom?
--Ian [[User:Poeloq]]
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM, Finn Rindahl finnrindwiki@gmail.comwrote:
Since our (WMF) aim is to provide free knowledge, I would say that SNL making a free online edition is a proof of our success more than a new "competitor". They have a lot to learn from us, we have a lot to learn from them. And whoever is seeking free knowledge in Norwegian on the web will have more alternatives.
Finn Rindahl
2009/2/25 John at Darkstar vacuum@jeb.no
Our "national lexicon" here in Norway, Store Norske Leksikon, went online with its new free edition today. The new edition has user contributed articles. The chief editor says some of the reason for the new edition is the harsh competition from Wikipedia, especially no.wikipedia.org which outnumbered their previous article count last year, now counting 209,079 articles. Also the alternate version nn.wikipedia.org (a variation in Nynorsk) is growing steadilly, now counting 46,466 articles. Store Norske Leksikon now claims they has 300,000 articles after inclusion of two other encyclopedias, a medical encyclopedia Store medisinske leksikon and a biographical encyclopedia Biografisk leksikon. Previously they had 155,000 articles.
Wikipedia in bokmål should have 300K articles around February or March next year, it depends on how we will be influenced by the changes in SNL.
John Erling Blad jeblad
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org