Thanks Lodewijk.
I do not know about Ziko, but my personal position which I also expressed
during the strategy consultations is that oral traditions can not be taken
to Wikipedia. They might still be a separate WMF project, which is likely
to be problematic (since it is really difficult to differentiate between
say folk tales and the oral traditions which state that Earth is flat and
that all US presidents report to the Zionist Occupational Government), but
at least I see how it can exist. We certainly do have WMF projects which
allow original research.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:19 PM, Lodewijk <lodewijk(a)effeietsanders.org>
wrote:
(first I'll respond to Ziko/Yaroslav, and then
I'll ponder a bit about the
direction in a more general sense)
Just to check, Ziko and Yaroslav: are you talking about Wikipedia, or the
sum of all human knowledge? Are you arguing that Wikipedia should only make
use of secondary sources, or are you arguing that the whole Wikimedia
movement should limit itself to that?
I can see pathways (although they won't be easy) of how oral knowledge can
be collected, described, analyzed, compared and turned into a secondary
source in Wikimedia projects. Maybe Wikipedia is not the most suitable
project for that - this is something we could discuss. This is a typical
topic that is super important to a part of our community.
This is probably true for many things: what doesn't work for Wikipedia
(right now), may well work within other projects. Not each component of the
strategy is equally applicable to every single person and every single
situation.
But in general, there are two ways that the strategic direction can be
improved - and they are in direct contradiction. The first is to make
everything more acceptable to everyone. That is basically what you're
arguing here. The second is what was a resonating feedback I heard at
Wikimania: to make clearer choices. Actually setting a direction.
We are an incredibly diverse community (even if we are underrepresented in
many groups), and people will want to go in different directions. After
reading the current direction, I'm acknowledging there's more
'direction',
but still feel left hanging.
I don't understand what exactly that direction is headed towards, there is
too much space for a variety of interpretation. The one thing that I take
away though, is that we won't place ourselves at the center of the free
knowledge universe (as a brand), but want to become a service. We don't
expect people to know about 'Wikipedia' in 10 years, but we do want that
our work is being put to good use. Is this a correct (simplified)
interpretation?
Lodewijk
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 5:31 AM, Yaroslav Blanter <ymbalt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I fully support Ziko on this point. Making oral
tradidions welcome, in
particular, making them welcome at Wikipedia, will open the door to all
king of fringe POV theories. We were able to distinguish ourselves
exactly
because these fringe theories had no place on
Wikipedia. Allowing them
meaning shoot our own feet.
Cheers
Yaroslav
On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 2:16 PM, Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> Dear Guillaume,
>
> Thank you for making your point of view clear, I appreciate that.
Please
allow me
to make two points clear myself.
(A) It is not my opinion that only active Wikipedians are „community“.
There are other Wikimedia wikis, and also activities, that have a
community
character. I do reject the idea to open the term
community to literally
everybody/anybody „and beyond“. It would be necessary that the draft
paper,
> instead, explains what should be understood by „movement“ or
„community“
in
order to avoid certain ambiguities.
(B) I also do not deny that there is an overweight of content that is
related to Western countries and culture. On (English) Wikipedia, the
average Dutch village is certainly much better described than a larger
city
> in, for example, Ethiopia or Guatemala. I am always supportive of
> initiatives that want to do something about this lack of balance. (And
I
> suppose that most people on the Berlin
conference meant that, too).
>
> But the wording in the further strategy process was much different. The
> concept of „reliable sources“ was called a Western bias, while „oral
> traditions“ should be considered to be reliable as well.
>
> I know that writing the history of many countries is difficult because
of
the lack
of written material. That makes it also difficult to write a
more
complete history of, for example, Celtic and
Germanic tribes in ancient
times.
But „oral traditions“ are just not reliable in the way scholarly
literature
> is. Historians provide us with numerous examples how people fail in
> remembering what they heard a long time ago, or even recently. The
human
> brain is simply not made by nature to be a
historian or a data storage;
> human memory is fragile and changes. Also, additionally some people
have
a
malicious intent when giving their testimony to a
historian or a well
meaning platform for „oral history“. A historian‘s work is to collect
several testimonies, compare them to each other (= the transcripts of
their
> interviews) and corroborate them with other material - and finally
write
> their own account of their research.
>
> Imagine, I would claim that I am a descendant of Charlemagne (source:
my
father
and grandfather told me so). Or that national socialism had a
positive impact on Germany and many other lucky countries in Europe
(source: what someone told me at family meetings). - Wikipedia works
because we use „secondary sources“, scholarly literature. That is where
(some major aspects of) the quality comes from. That is why people like
Wikipedia and donate for it.
It would be necessary to make Wikipedia the great (even greater)
encyclopedia it could be. With an integration of Wikidata and Commons,
and
good interfaces. With the focus on readability,
with a well thought
through
concept of providing content for the general
public, for special groups
and
> for scholars. With an understanding of what we do and what we
explicitly
don’t do,
with whom we can partner up (and where are the limits). This
more
cautious vision makes me not very enthusiast, to
say the least, about
widening the scope to a degree that we loose recognizability.
Kind regards,
Ziko
o
Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org> schrieb am Mi. 4. Okt. 2017
um
> 04:37:
>
> > Dear Ziko,
> >
> > For context, I want to preface this by saying that I am speaking as a
> > former member of the strategy team, not as a Foundation employee. My
> > perspective was always that the team leading the movement strategy
> process
> > was working in service of the movement, not of the Foundation.
> >
> > I hear that you are unsatisfied with some of the content of the
> document. I
> > hear that you disagree with particular elements like advocacy or new
> forms
> > of knowledge. I hear that you question the broad definition of
> "community",
> > which in your opinion should only include active Wikipedians.
> >
> > I don't agree with all your points, but I understand them and I
relate
to
> some.
>
> I appreciate that you hold very strong opinions on some of those
topics.
> I
> > would like you to see that other people in the movement can hold
> > dramatically different opinions that are just as valid.
> >
> > Many people (in and outside the movement) pushed for Wikimedia
> > organizations to become much more active politically. Others
expressed
> > concerns about becoming too political.
In the end, the document gave
a
> nod
> > to political advocacy but didn't make it the number-one priority of
the
> > movement. There was a balance to
strike, and I would like you to
> understand
> > that need.
> >
> > I would also like you to understand that your approach and language
may
>
alienate other members of our communities. When you call oral
traditions
> > one of "the most terrible things from the paper" and disparage
experts
> who
> > shared their opinion with us, your words unwittingly cast away
> communities
> > who have been historically left out, and you contribute to
perpetuating
> > their structural oppression.
> >
> > You argue that the notions of new forms of knowledge, oral
traditions,
> and
> > Western bias were pushed by experts and by the Foundation, and didn't
> come
> > from the communities. And yet, at the 2017 Wikimedia conference in
> Berlin,
> > whose participants were coming from Wikimedia communities, the
> > most-voted-for statement at the end of the conference was this one:
> >
> > *Knowledge is global: we must move beyond western written knowledge,
> > towards multiple and diverse forms of knowledge (including oral and
> > visual), from multiple and diverse peoples and perspectives, to truly
> > achieve the sum of all human knowledge.*
> > [
> >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Conference_
> 2017/Documentation/Movement_Strategy_track/Day_3
> > ]
> >
> > What I am trying to convey is that for each of your concerns, there
are
>
people within our movement and communities who have fought, like you
are
> > fighting now, for those elements to be part of the movement's
strategic
direction. And they have outweighed you. On some other
topics, your
opinion
> is the one that prevailed. On many topics, we all agreed. It is now
time
to
> accept the outcome and focus on what motivates us to contribute
> individually to parts of the strategic direction, so that we can
advance
> as
> > a movement.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 2017-10-03 13:38 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com>om>:
> >
> > > Hello Guillaume,
> > >
> > > Thank you for sharing your point of view. But I cannot agree with
you
>
that
> > this is a case of „negativity bias“ or „tunnel visions“ or
„begrudging
> > fashion“. I have fundamental concerns
about the redefinition of the
> > community and the widening of the movement‘s purpose, and I fully
join
> > Frank Schulenburg‘s statement that the
draft paper says hardly
anything
to
> the average Wikipedian.
>
> As I do not know your prerogatives given from above, I cannot judge
about
> > your personal role. I don’t want to and I have nothing against you
> > personally, on the contrary. Indeed, you took some of the most
terrible
> > > things from the paper - such as the „oral traditions“. But they
still
> > > appear as a residue in the
„Appendix“, and how could it happen in
the
>
first
> > place that they were ever pushed forward by the WMF? Challenge 2
called
> our
> > work with reputable sources a „Western bias“. Where did that come
from?
> Not
> > from the communities (my definition), but from „experts“ such as a
man
who
> runs a company for storytelling and claims that he can trace his
ancestry
> > to the middle ages via „oral traditions“!
> >
> > As Andreas pointed out, there is much more in the Appendix such as
the
> > > cooperations with Youtube and Google, „new incentives“ etc. and
also
> the
> > > opinion that „Wikimedia“ should become more „political“.
Certainly,
I
was
> against SOPA and like to see the WMF fight
copyright problems. But
what I
> > saw at Wikimania made me wonder about the common ground. The WMF is
> > partnering up with the ACLU that endorses the freedom of speech for
the
> > > KuKluxKlan. The WMF is already approaching EU laws from an American
> point
> > > of view and dismisses the possibility that Europeans may think
> > differently.
> > >
> > > If we keep all those things in the draft paper and in the Appendix
-
> the
> > > WMF will have carte blanche to do literally anything it likes,
being
a
> > > social movement fighting whatever technical, political or social
> > inequity.
> > > But well, the WMF will claim that that is what the „community“
wants
-
> > > given the new definition of community, that would even be true. :-(
> > >
> > > Certainly, people can set up a page on Meta to express their
concerns
> about such an unready draft paper. Is this an
announcement that
> endorsements of the draft paper will be welcomed at the main gate,
while
> > the concerns will have to use the backyard entrance?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Ziko
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Guillaume Paumier <gpaumier(a)wikimedia.org> schrieb am Mo. 2. Okt.
2017
> > um
> > > 22:36:
> > >
> > >> Hello,
> > >>
> > >> If you feel a strong urge to reject the text, there is obviously
> nothing
> > >> preventing anyone from creating a Meta-Wiki page to that purpose.
> > However,
> > >> I would first ask to reflect on the process, its outcome, and
where
> it's
> > >> going.
> > >>
> > >> Strategy is complicated. Building a movement strategy even more
so [
>>
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/05/19/wikimedia-strategy-
>> 2030-discussions/
>> ]. One person's serious issue may be another person's slight
preference.
> >> People's serious issues may be at odds with each other (and I can
tell
> you
> >> from experience that they are indeed). Balancing all those
priorities
> > is a
> > >> difficult exercise, and I certainly don't claim to have done it
> > perfectly.
> > >> But I do think the outcome we've arrived at represents the shared
> vision
> > >> of
> > >> a large part of the movement.
> > >>
> > >> As I was writing, rewriting and editing the text of the
direction, I
> did
> > >> consider everything that was shared on the talk page, and the last
> > version
> > >> is indeed based on those comments, as well as those shared during
> > multiple
> > >> Wikimania sessions, individual chats, comments from the Drafting
> group,
> > >> from affiliates, from staff, and so on.
> > >>
> > >> While I did consider all of those, I didn't respond to every
single
>
>> comment, and there is little I can do about that except apologize
and
> >> endeavor to do better. I should
have set clearer expectations that
not
> >> every comment would be integrated
in the text. I ran into an issue
all
> > too
> > >> familiar in the Wikiverse where one person had to integrate
comments
and
> >> feedback from a large group of people at the same time.
> >>
> >> High-level vision and strategy integration isn't really something
that
can
>> be spread across a group of people as easily as writing an
encyclopedia
>> article, and so I ended up being a
bottleneck for responding to
comments.
>> I
>> had to prioritize what I deemed were issues that were shared by a
large
>> group, and those that seemed to be more
individual concerns.
>>
>> Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not the "everything must be
positive,
> >> fantastic, yeehaw-we-are-number-one" type. If anything, I'm rather
the
> > >> opposite, as I think many Wikimedians are. If we had unlimited
time,
> I'd
> > >> probably continue to edit the draft for years, and I'm sure there
> would
> > be
> > >> other perfectionists to feed my obsession.
> > >>
> > >> However, others in my personal and professional circles have
helped
me
> > >> realize in the past few weeks that even getting to this stage of
the
>
>> process is remarkable. As Wikimedians, we often focus on what's
wrong
> > and
> > >> needs fixing. Sometimes, our negativity bias leads us to lose
focus
of
the
>> accomplishments. This can clash with the typical American culture,
but I
> >> think somewhere in the middle is where those respective tunnel
visions
> >> widen and meet.
> >>
> >> One thing I've learned from Ed Bland, my co-architect during this
> process,
> >> is that sometimes things can't be perfect. Sometimes, excellence
means
> > >> recognizing when something is "good enough" and getting out
of the
> > >> asymptotic editing and decision paralysis loop. It means accepting
> that
> > a
> > >> few things annoy us so that a larger group of people is excited
and
> > >> motivated to participate.
> > >>
> > >> From everything I've heard and read in the past two months, the
last
>
>> version of the direction is agreeable to a large part of
individuals,
> >> groups, and organizations that have
been involved in the process.
Not
> > >> everyone agrees with everything in the document, even within the
> > >> Foundation, and even me. But enough people across the movement
agree
>
with
> >> enough of the document that we can all use it as a starting point
for
> > the
> > >> next phase of discussions about roles, resources, and
> responsibilities.
> > >>
> > >> I do hope that many of you will consider endorsing the direction
in
a
> > few
> > >> weeks. While I won't claim to know everyone involved, I think I
know
> you
> > >> enough, Ziko and Fæ, from your work and long-time commitment in
the
> > >> movement, to venture that
there is more in this document that you
> agree
> > >> with than that you disagree with. I hope that the prospect of
moving
in
> a
> >> shared direction will outweigh the possible annoyances. And so I
hope
> > that
> > >> we'll endorse the direction together, even if it's in our
typically
>
>> Wikimedian begrudging fashion.
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-02 6:56 GMT-07:00 Ziko van Dijk <zvandijk(a)gmail.com>om>:
> >>
> >> > Hello Katherine,
> >> >
> >> > This is actually sad news. In my opinion, the draft is far away
from
> > >> being
> > >> > a useful and appropriate document for our future.
> > >> >
> > >> > The serious issues from the talk page are only partially
addressed
in
> >> the
> >> > rewrite. So I contest your claim: "The version on Meta-Wiki is
based
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> > feedback you offered."
> > >> >
> > >> > You have announced that organizations and individuals are
invited
to
> > >> > endorse the draft. Will there also be a possibility to reject
the
> > >> draft? I
> > >> > remember the 2011 image filter referendum, when the WMF asked
the
> > >> community
> > >> > how important it finds the filter, but not giving the option to
be
>> against
>> > it.
>> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_
>> referendum/en&
>> > uselang=en
>> > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_filter_
>> referendum/en&uselang=en>
>>
>> >
>> > The drafts tries to enforce a new definition of the "community":
"from
> >> > editors to donors, to organizers, and beyond". I thought that
> >> "community"
> >> > were people who are contributing to the wiki Wikipedia on a
regular
> > >> basis
> > >> > as volunteers.
> > >> >
> > >> > I am very positive of having an open Wikimedia *movement*. But
if
in
> > >> future
> > >> > more or less everybody will be *community*: that is in fact
> abolishing
> > >> the
> > >> > community.
> > >> >
> > >> > Kind regards,
> > >> > Ziko van Dijk
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > 2017-09-30 22:28 GMT+02:00 Katherine Maher <
kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
>:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Since my update last month, we have been collecting,
processing,
> and
> > >> > > including your most recent input into the lastest version of
the
> > >> movement
> > >> > > strategic direction. This version is available on
Meta-Wiki.[1]
>
>> > >
> >> > > We're so close! The direction will be finalized tomorrow,
October
1.
> >> > > Starting tomorrow, we will begin to invite individuals and
groups
to
> >> > > endorse our movement's strategic direction. I want to share
my
> >> greatest
> >> > > thanks and appreciation for the work and contributions so many
of
> you
> >> > have
> >> > > made throughout this first phase (Phase 1) of developing a
shared
> > >> > strategic
> > >> > > direction.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > In the coming weeks we will be preparing for Phase 2, which
will
>
>> involve
> >> > > developing specific plans for how we achieve the direction we
have
> >> built
> >> > > together. I do not have many more details to share right now,
but
> >> will of
> >> > > course offer an update as they become available.
> >> > >
> >> > > *Strategic direction*. Thank you to everyone who provided
feedback
> > on
> > >> the
> > >> > > draft introduced at Wikimania. The version on Meta-Wiki is
based
> on
> > >> the
> > >> > > feedback you offered.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *Endorsements*. Once the strategic direction closes
tomorrow,
> > >> > > organizations, groups, and individuals within the movement
will
be
> > >> > invited
> > >> > > to endorse the direction, in a show of support for the
future
we
> are
> > >> > > building together. We'll be sending an update next week
on the
> > process
> > >> > and
> > >> > > timeline.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *Concluding Phase 1*. Please join me in offering thanks to
the
> > >> > volunteers,
> > >> > > staff, and contractors who came together to make this
possible!
As
> we
> >> > > transition into Phase 2, some of these roles will be concluded
and
> new
> >> > ones
> >> > > created in their place. We'll keep you updated.
> >> > >
> >> > > *Wikimedia CEE Meeting 2017*. I was fortunate to join
Wikimedians
> from
> >> > > Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) last weekend at the sixth
annual
> > >> > Wikimedia
> > >> > > CEE Meeting[2] in Warsaw, Poland. Nicole Ebber and Kaarel
Vaidla
> > led a
> > >> > > series of discussions on the direction, including what it
means
for
> >> > CEE.[3]
> >> > > Thank you our hosts, Wikimedia Polska, and to all of the
attendees
> > for
> > >> > such
> > >> > > a wonderful event!
> > >> > >
> > >> > > *In other news.* I've heard from many people how much
you
> appreciate
> > >> > these
> > >> > > updates as a means of keeping track about what is going on.
I'm
> > >> talking
> > >> > to
> > >> > > the Communications department about keeping them going once
the
>
>> strategic
> >> > > planning process concludes, with a focus on more general
updates.
> Keep
> >> > the
> >> > > feedback coming.
> >> > >
> >> > > Since my last update, our planet has reminded us of its
incredible
> and
> >> > > often unforgiving strength. My thoughts, and those of many
within
> > the
> > >> > > Wikimedia Foundation, are with our Wikimedia family which
have
> been
> > >> > > affected by the natural disasters of recent weeks. We have
been
in
> > >> touch
> > >> > > with our affiliates in the areas impacted, and will offer
any
> > support
> > >> we
> > >> > > can.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Finally, as our CFO Jaime mentioned last week,[3] the
Foundation
> is
> > in
> > >> > the
> > >> > > process of moving into our new office, in One Montgomery
Tower.
We
> >> invite
> >> > > you to visit its new page on Meta-Wiki.[4]
> >> > >
> >> > > We are at the halfway mark of this movement strategy process,
and
> I
> > am
> > >> > > incredibly proud of the work we have done together on the
> strategy.
> > >> Thank
> > >> > > you, again, to everyone for your contributions to this
process.
We
> > >> have
> > >> > > more work ahead but should be proud of what we have
achieved
> > already.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Ten cuidado (Spanish translation: “Be safe”),
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Katherine
> > >> > >
> > >> > > [1]
> > >> > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/
> > >> > 2017/Direction
> > >> > > [2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_CEE_Meeting_
2017
>> > > [3]
>> > >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CEE_meeting_2017_%
>> > > E2%80%93_Movement_Strategy.pdf
>> > > [4]
>> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2017-
>> > > September/088654.html
>> > > [5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_
>> headquarters
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Katherine Maher
>> > > Executive Director
>> > >
>> > > *We're moving on October 1, 2017! **Our new address:*
>> > >
>> > > Wikimedia Foundation
>> > > 1 Montgomery Street, Suite 1600
>> > > San Francisco, CA 94104
>> > >
>> > > +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6635 <(415)%20839-6885>
>> > > +1 (415) 712 4873 <(415)%20712-4873>
>> > > kmaher(a)wikimedia.org
>> > >
https://annual.wikimedia.org
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>> ,
>> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org
?subject=unsubscribe>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wik
>> > i/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
>> wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Guillaume Paumier
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/
mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=
unsubscribe>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Strategy mailing list
> > > Strategy(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/strategy
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Guillaume Paumier
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/ mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
<mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
