(non-CS) engineer friends ... upon hitting that edit button, basically went "Gak! No way!"
Wikitext is simpler than what phototypesetter operators in the 1960s-1990s had to deal with, and they had a much better gender balance.
Wikitext resitricts editing to pretty much only "computer science professionals, highly computer-literate professionals (which excludes most of Academia -- have you ever done IT support for a university?), and westerners with enough leisure time to learn it the hard way".
There are abundant counter-examples.
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
On 1 June 2014 04:26, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote: ...
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
(Probably drifting to "Increase participation by women")
As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New women users seem little different to men in the issues that arise, and though I have found myself apologising for the slightly odd syntax, given the standard crib-sheet most users get on with basic article creation quite happily.
There are far more commonly raised issues such as the complex issues associated with image upload (copyright!), or the conceptual difficulty of "namespaces" which mean that some webpages behave differently to others. None is something that appears to "select strongly against women", though the encyclopedia's way of defining notability can make it harder to create articles about pre-1970s professional women, purely because sources from earlier periods tend to be biased towards men.
If there are surveys that wiki-syntax is more of a barrier for women than men (after discounting out other factors), perhaps someone could provide a link?
Fae
On 1 June 2014 01:39, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2014 04:26, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote: ...
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
(Probably drifting to "Increase participation by women")
As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New women users seem little different to men in the issues that arise, and though I have found myself apologising for the slightly odd syntax, given the standard crib-sheet most users get on with basic article creation quite happily.
There are far more commonly raised issues such as the complex issues associated with image upload (copyright!), or the conceptual difficulty of "namespaces" which mean that some webpages behave differently to others. None is something that appears to "select strongly against women", though the encyclopedia's way of defining notability can make it harder to create articles about pre-1970s professional women, purely because sources from earlier periods tend to be biased towards men.
If there are surveys that wiki-syntax is more of a barrier for women than men (after discounting out other factors), perhaps someone could provide a link?
Fae, I don't know if wiki-syntax in and of itself is more of a barrier for women than men. What I do know is that wiki-syntax is a lot harder today than it was when I started editing 8 years ago, and that today I would consider it more akin to computer programming than content creation. That is where the barrier comes in.
The statistics for percentage of women employed in computer-related technology is abysmal; we all know that. Even organizations that actively seek out qualified women (including Wikimedia, I'll point out) can't come close to filling all the slots they'd willingly open, because there simply aren't that many qualified women. They're not filling the seats in college and university programs, either.
Eight years ago, only about a quarter of English Wikipedia articles had an infobox - that huge pile of wiki-syntax that is at the top of the overwhelming majority of articles today. There were not a lot of templates; certainly the monstrous templates at the bottom of most articles today didn't exist then. The syntax for creating references was essentially <ref> insert url </ref>; today there is a plethora of complex referencing templates, some of which are so complex and non-intuitive that only a small minority of *wikipedians* can use them effectively. I know wiki-syntax, and I have found it increasingly more difficult to edit as time has gone on. I don't think it's because I'm a woman, I think it's because I'm not a programmer - and women who *are* programmers are only a small minority of all programmers, so it follows that women are less likely to have the skills that will help them sort through what they see when they click "Edit".
It's exactly why I've been following and keeping up with the development of VisualEditor - because I believe it will make it easier for those who aren't particularly technically inclined to contribute to the project. I believe it's the route to attracting a more diverse editing population, including but not limited to women. And I think that it's pretty close to being ready for hands-on use by those who are new to our projects, now that it can handle pretty well most of the essential editing tasks. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
Risker/Anne
Hello Risker,
you have my sympathy, and let me tell you this: I am man and programmer, and when I edit articles nowaday I tend to ignore the info boxes and the templates at the end of each article. If I create a new article and I happen don't have a similar article with the templates and infobox already at hand, I simply create an article without both.
And I think it is essential to tell the beginner to do the same: Don't bother with things that are too complicated, it is the content that counts.
What I also do is help newcomers to wikify articles. I think it is an utterly bad habitate just to put a wikify template in a not nicely structured article instead of to do something by one self. It is usually just a few edits, two '''s, a few [[ and ]]s, and maybe a [[cateogry:...]] that can make the difference.
Personally, there are two reasons that I don't really care about info boxes and templates: First it is my own habitate as a user. For me the summary at the begin of an article tells me more than the info boxes. Info boxes are great for machines, for semantic web or things like that, but as a human I am more content with the summary. Second, I am sure that there will be at some time some nice and capable people who will put the necessary info boxes and templates in the articles I created. I never try to start a perfect article (I even never start an article in my own sandbox, people can always see my progress in the articles), I just do something and then leave it as I am able to.
In all the discussions about editor retention and new comer barriers there is one thing that astonishes me again and again, and that is the whole discussion seems to be highly biased on the technical aspect, while the social aspect mostly tend to be neglected. People put a HUGE TON of hope in the visual editor as if it can resolve everything. But actually I think what VE can do is very limited, as far as our rules and our scope don't change.
Nowaday Wikipedia articles (across all major languages) are highly biased in style and in content to academic thesis. How references are used and put, the criteria for references as valid, are almost one-by-one copied by the standards from academic thesis. Content without references are by itself considered as delete candidates. Both of these strongly put up constraints on who can put new content in Wikipedia and what content is considered as viable. I always feel sorrow, that both the Foundation and the community neglected the Oral Citation Project lead by Achal ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oral_citations ). I believe it has the potential to revolutionary how anthropology (and maybe a lot of other sciences where field study is necessary) is done just like Wikipedia revolutionized how Encyclopedia can be done. And it can really give a lot of people, who did not enjoyed the academic training, the possibility to contribute their knowledge.
The other major topic that I see neglected in this whole complex of discussion is how our rules are set up. They don't really put on a price or punishment against rude behavior. There are a lot of initiative to be welcoming and helpful, they are all great, but in the end, one rude comment can destroy efforts of two or three welcoming volunteers. Our rules only set in if the rude behavior is obvious, but not if they are acid and suttle. And people tend to ignore rude behavior if they come from a high performer editor.
Change our attitude to non-academic-content and change our play rule on rude behavior is harder than change in technology, this is why people do so as if the VE is the holy grale. But it is not. By the start of the last strategic period, in the years 2009 and 2010, the Foundation conducted a lot of studies about why people leave our community, and Wiki-syntax is only one of at least three other reasons. VE is just a tool, tools can be used for good or for bad, it is the mind, that decides for which the tools are used.
Greetings Ting
Am 01.06.2014 08:55, schrieb Risker:
On 1 June 2014 01:39, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2014 04:26, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote: ...
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
(Probably drifting to "Increase participation by women")
As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New women users seem little different to men in the issues that arise, and though I have found myself apologising for the slightly odd syntax, given the standard crib-sheet most users get on with basic article creation quite happily.
There are far more commonly raised issues such as the complex issues associated with image upload (copyright!), or the conceptual difficulty of "namespaces" which mean that some webpages behave differently to others. None is something that appears to "select strongly against women", though the encyclopedia's way of defining notability can make it harder to create articles about pre-1970s professional women, purely because sources from earlier periods tend to be biased towards men.
If there are surveys that wiki-syntax is more of a barrier for women than men (after discounting out other factors), perhaps someone could provide a link?
Fae, I don't know if wiki-syntax in and of itself is more of a barrier for women than men. What I do know is that wiki-syntax is a lot harder today than it was when I started editing 8 years ago, and that today I would consider it more akin to computer programming than content creation. That is where the barrier comes in.
The statistics for percentage of women employed in computer-related technology is abysmal; we all know that. Even organizations that actively seek out qualified women (including Wikimedia, I'll point out) can't come close to filling all the slots they'd willingly open, because there simply aren't that many qualified women. They're not filling the seats in college and university programs, either.
Eight years ago, only about a quarter of English Wikipedia articles had an infobox - that huge pile of wiki-syntax that is at the top of the overwhelming majority of articles today. There were not a lot of templates; certainly the monstrous templates at the bottom of most articles today didn't exist then. The syntax for creating references was essentially <ref> insert url </ref>; today there is a plethora of complex referencing templates, some of which are so complex and non-intuitive that only a small minority of *wikipedians* can use them effectively. I know wiki-syntax, and I have found it increasingly more difficult to edit as time has gone on. I don't think it's because I'm a woman, I think it's because I'm not a programmer - and women who *are* programmers are only a small minority of all programmers, so it follows that women are less likely to have the skills that will help them sort through what they see when they click "Edit".
It's exactly why I've been following and keeping up with the development of VisualEditor - because I believe it will make it easier for those who aren't particularly technically inclined to contribute to the project. I believe it's the route to attracting a more diverse editing population, including but not limited to women. And I think that it's pretty close to being ready for hands-on use by those who are new to our projects, now that it can handle pretty well most of the essential editing tasks. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 01/06/2014 10:53, Ting Chen wrote:
Nowaday Wikipedia articles (across all major languages) are highly
biased in style and in content to academic thesis.
There is good reason for this: 'anyone can edit'. In an encyclopedia produced using the 'one best way' approach, there is sparse use of references and citations. Take this article on the syllogism http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-syllogism written by Henrik Lagerlund. I don't spot any references, and generally SEP is sparing in their use. Henrik doesn't need to supply references, because he is an expert in his field, and because there is a traditional peer review process supporting SEP.
In Wikipedia by contrast, 'anyone can edit', and there is no equivalent peer review process, and so the only control is insistence on citations.
This is part of what makes it difficult for newcomers. I remember well the period 2006-7. The growth of Wikipedia was tremendous. Before that, it was possible to manage the occasional 'idiosyncratic' contributors. Towards the beginning of 2007 it became impossible. Then two things happened. (i) It became much easier to get the 'idiosyncratic contributors' blocked. Before that, you had to make a very strong case to a non-involved admin. After that, it progressively became more like shoot on sight. (ii) The policies on citation became increasingly established and enforced. This made it much easier to gain control of an article. 'Idiosyncratic' contributors found it difficult to find reliable sources for whatever version of flat earth theory they were promoting, and got discouraged. There was also (iii) an easy way to control the quality of an article was to impose a sort of change freeze on any contribution, good or bad. I still maintain contact with the few editors left on the Philosophy and NLP articles, and they tell me this is how they achieve it.
Of course, all this will have the effect of deterring contributors. But the underlying reason is the trade-off between quality and participation. If you have a large user base under the 'anyone can edit' policy, then you are going to have quality control problems. If you address the quality problem by any of the three methods above, then you will have to limit participation in some way. No brainer.
I would advise anyone with an interest in this to read Aaron Halfaker's seminal paper on this. The links are in his post here http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-May/072267.html .
I agree with Ting's remarks about the importance of the social aspect. Maybe we need a taskforce against rudeness. But looking into the social aspect does not exclude improvements on the tech side.
I think that maybe instead of VE we should have an 'invisible editor', meaning that if someone hits edit, no edit window with syntax shows up, but the page gets open for marking/inserting some text and change it (like it is done in wordprocessing programs). To place the change correctly in the body text or in some highly complicated template should be done by the wikimedia software without user intervention.
As it is now, even simple changes like correcting a typo or a date often requires a lot of effort in locating it in the edit window. If it is hidden inside a template, even a page search does not show it. Regards, Thyge
2014-06-01 11:53 GMT+02:00 Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de:
Hello Risker,
you have my sympathy, and let me tell you this: I am man and programmer, and when I edit articles nowaday I tend to ignore the info boxes and the templates at the end of each article. If I create a new article and I happen don't have a similar article with the templates and infobox already at hand, I simply create an article without both.
And I think it is essential to tell the beginner to do the same: Don't bother with things that are too complicated, it is the content that counts.
What I also do is help newcomers to wikify articles. I think it is an utterly bad habitate just to put a wikify template in a not nicely structured article instead of to do something by one self. It is usually just a few edits, two '''s, a few [[ and ]]s, and maybe a [[cateogry:...]] that can make the difference.
Personally, there are two reasons that I don't really care about info boxes and templates: First it is my own habitate as a user. For me the summary at the begin of an article tells me more than the info boxes. Info boxes are great for machines, for semantic web or things like that, but as a human I am more content with the summary. Second, I am sure that there will be at some time some nice and capable people who will put the necessary info boxes and templates in the articles I created. I never try to start a perfect article (I even never start an article in my own sandbox, people can always see my progress in the articles), I just do something and then leave it as I am able to.
In all the discussions about editor retention and new comer barriers there is one thing that astonishes me again and again, and that is the whole discussion seems to be highly biased on the technical aspect, while the social aspect mostly tend to be neglected. People put a HUGE TON of hope in the visual editor as if it can resolve everything. But actually I think what VE can do is very limited, as far as our rules and our scope don't change.
Nowaday Wikipedia articles (across all major languages) are highly biased in style and in content to academic thesis. How references are used and put, the criteria for references as valid, are almost one-by-one copied by the standards from academic thesis. Content without references are by itself considered as delete candidates. Both of these strongly put up constraints on who can put new content in Wikipedia and what content is considered as viable. I always feel sorrow, that both the Foundation and the community neglected the Oral Citation Project lead by Achal ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Oral_citations ). I believe it has the potential to revolutionary how anthropology (and maybe a lot of other sciences where field study is necessary) is done just like Wikipedia revolutionized how Encyclopedia can be done. And it can really give a lot of people, who did not enjoyed the academic training, the possibility to contribute their knowledge.
The other major topic that I see neglected in this whole complex of discussion is how our rules are set up. They don't really put on a price or punishment against rude behavior. There are a lot of initiative to be welcoming and helpful, they are all great, but in the end, one rude comment can destroy efforts of two or three welcoming volunteers. Our rules only set in if the rude behavior is obvious, but not if they are acid and suttle. And people tend to ignore rude behavior if they come from a high performer editor.
Change our attitude to non-academic-content and change our play rule on rude behavior is harder than change in technology, this is why people do so as if the VE is the holy grale. But it is not. By the start of the last strategic period, in the years 2009 and 2010, the Foundation conducted a lot of studies about why people leave our community, and Wiki-syntax is only one of at least three other reasons. VE is just a tool, tools can be used for good or for bad, it is the mind, that decides for which the tools are used.
Greetings Ting
Am 01.06.2014 08:55, schrieb Risker:
On 1 June 2014 01:39, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 June 2014 04:26, James Salsman jsalsman@gmail.com wrote:
...
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
(Probably drifting to "Increase participation by women")
As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New women users seem little different to men in the issues that arise, and though I have found myself apologising for the slightly odd syntax, given the standard crib-sheet most users get on with basic article creation quite happily.
There are far more commonly raised issues such as the complex issues associated with image upload (copyright!), or the conceptual difficulty of "namespaces" which mean that some webpages behave differently to others. None is something that appears to "select strongly against women", though the encyclopedia's way of defining notability can make it harder to create articles about pre-1970s professional women, purely because sources from earlier periods tend to be biased towards men.
If there are surveys that wiki-syntax is more of a barrier for women than men (after discounting out other factors), perhaps someone could provide a link?
Fae, I don't know if wiki-syntax in and of itself is more of a barrier
for women than men. What I do know is that wiki-syntax is a lot harder today than it was when I started editing 8 years ago, and that today I would consider it more akin to computer programming than content creation. That is where the barrier comes in.
The statistics for percentage of women employed in computer-related technology is abysmal; we all know that. Even organizations that actively seek out qualified women (including Wikimedia, I'll point out) can't come close to filling all the slots they'd willingly open, because there simply aren't that many qualified women. They're not filling the seats in college and university programs, either.
Eight years ago, only about a quarter of English Wikipedia articles had an infobox - that huge pile of wiki-syntax that is at the top of the overwhelming majority of articles today. There were not a lot of templates; certainly the monstrous templates at the bottom of most articles today didn't exist then. The syntax for creating references was essentially <ref> insert url </ref>; today there is a plethora of complex referencing templates, some of which are so complex and non-intuitive that only a small minority of *wikipedians* can use them effectively. I know wiki-syntax, and I have found it increasingly more difficult to edit as time has gone on. I don't think it's because I'm a woman, I think it's because I'm not a programmer - and women who *are* programmers are only a small minority of all programmers, so it follows that women are less likely to have the skills that will help them sort through what they see when they click "Edit".
It's exactly why I've been following and keeping up with the development of VisualEditor - because I believe it will make it easier for those who aren't particularly technically inclined to contribute to the project. I believe it's the route to attracting a more diverse editing population, including but not limited to women. And I think that it's pretty close to being ready for hands-on use by those who are new to our projects, now that it can handle pretty well most of the essential editing tasks. It's not perfect, but it's getting there.
Risker/Anne _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@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 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 6/1/14, 11:53 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
And I think it is essential to tell the beginner to do the same: Don't bother with things that are too complicated, it is the content that counts.
Yes, I think we need to publicize this more widely. People are usually surprised when I tell them that as a new editor it's perfectly fine to just ignore a wide range of formatting instructions and templates, as long as the essential content is there. All they really need is good text and *any* readable way of citing where they got the information from. There is no need to create an infobox, and you don't even need to deal with citation templates. Once I've convinced people they don't *really* need to learn how to use {{cite book}} and such, they tend to be more willing to contribute.
When I'm giving people a miniature intro for how to contribute referenced information to a Wikipedia article, I tell them to just put a plaintext reference in any format they're used to inside <ref></ref> tags, like this:
"This is a sentence supported by a reference.<ref>Author, Book title, Publisher, year, pp. xx-xy</ref>"
As long as the essential information for the reference is included, this should be fine, and someone who knows the markup can prettify it later, if necessary. (If newbies contributing in this manner are getting bad reactions, then the message that this is a perfectly fine way to contribute should be better publicized to existing editors/admins, too.)
-Mark
On 1 June 2014 05:53, Ting Chen wing.philopp@gmx.de wrote:
Hello Risker,
you have my sympathy, and let me tell you this: I am man and programmer, and when I edit articles nowaday I tend to ignore the info boxes and the templates at the end of each article. If I create a new article and I happen don't have a similar article with the templates and infobox already at hand, I simply create an article without both.
And I think it is essential to tell the beginner to do the same: Don't bother with things that are too complicated, it is the content that counts.
What I also do is help newcomers to wikify articles. I think it is an utterly bad habitate just to put a wikify template in a not nicely structured article instead of to do something by one self. It is usually just a few edits, two '''s, a few [[ and ]]s, and maybe a [[cateogry:...]] that can make the difference.
<snip>
See now, here's the problem. What you've described as "simple" above is actually complicated, and requires rather advanced knowledge of wikitext. Categorizing of articles is a minefield that even a lot of experienced Wikipedians avoid. Knowing that there are maintenance templates is not something that a new user will know, so adding them is far beyond their abilities.
And none of your suggestions deal with the fact that the information in the editing window just doesn't look like the article; a new user will likely have difficulty finding the typo that they were trying to fix.
Risker/Anne
Fæ, 01/06/2014 07:39:
As someone who has run editathons on women focused topics, I found this an odd comment that does not match anecdotal experience. New women users seem little different to men
I, too, failed to see any difference in dozens (mainly female) librarians editing, when watching them for several hours multiplied by several days. Of course said librarians are not representative of the general population, as pointed out by others in this thread.
Anyway, it would be nice to see a conclusion to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Gender_micro-survey , data was collected almost a year ago. Personally I was and am disturbed by the assumption that women might be less editing-capable, but I'm interested in actual data.
Nemo
Phototypesetters were typically professionals, therefore not strictly comparable. There is a significant difference to learning a complex system because you are going to earn a living from it, and learning the same system so you can spend your free time doing unpaid work with it. Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of James Salsman Sent: 01 June 2014 05:26 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]
(non-CS) engineer friends ... upon hitting that edit button, basically went "Gak! No way!"
Wikitext is simpler than what phototypesetter operators in the 1960s-1990s had to deal with, and they had a much better gender balance.
Wikitext resitricts editing to pretty much only "computer science professionals, highly computer-literate professionals (which excludes most of Academia -- have you ever done IT support for a university?), and westerners with enough leisure time to learn it the hard way".
There are abundant counter-examples.
... selects strongly against women.
Where is the evidence that women have more difficulty understanding wikitext than men?
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7601 - Release Date: 05/31/14
On 01/06/2014 12:00, Peter Southwood wrote:
Phototypesetters were typically professionals, therefore not strictly comparable. There is a significant difference to learning a complex system because you are going to earn a living from it, and learning the same system so you can spend your free time doing unpaid work with it. Cheers, Peter
Which explains the gender bias, yes?
On 06/01/2014 07:13 AM, edward wrote:
Which explains the gender bias, yes?
At least in large part; Risker explained it more eloquently than I. There is a bias against women because the skillsets currently useful to be able to edit wikitext (programming, heavy markup languages) are more common in professions where women are underrepresented.
I didn't mean to imply that women were less skilled, but that the pool of potentially skilled editors had much fewer women in it than men.
-- Marc
I have seen little evidence either way.
-----Original Message----- From: wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of edward Sent: 01 June 2014 01:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Increase participation [WAS: The first three weeks]
On 01/06/2014 12:00, Peter Southwood wrote:
Phototypesetters were typically professionals, therefore not strictly comparable. There is a significant difference to learning a complex system because you are going to earn a living from it, and learning the same system so you can spend your free time doing unpaid work with it. Cheers, Peter
Which explains the gender bias, yes?
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4592 / Virus Database: 3955/7601 - Release Date: 05/31/14
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org