Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
Hi Zubin,
not that I know of.
Cheers Yaroslav
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg wrote:
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
hi Zubin,
thanks for being a newcomer to Wikimedia, and also for your interest in the issue of bureaucracy. I think you're right that it is something worth analyzing. A chapter of my "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) was dedicated to studying the issue. You can peruse it, also to see other references on the topic. I am not aware of strong quantitative studies of the problem though, as it is quite difficult to account for all the factors, in different projects, etc.
best,
dj "pundit"
Hi Zubin,
As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
It's interesting you mention this. I was discussing Wikipedia the other week with participants in another online learning community, and it really struck me just how much of a focus Wikipedia has on very dense rules about content, and how little a focus we have on community and positive interactions.
There are an immense number of guidelines and policies, but discourse on-wiki is often mainly a string of references to these policies and guidelines - which is baffling for anyone unfamiliar with them, and doubtless a big turnoff for anyone who *isn't* familiar with them who wants to take part (even if you can navigate the technical aspects of talking to people.) By contrast, praise, thanks and encouragement are fairly scarce.
Regards,
Chris
Hi Zubin,
I'd like to respond to this in multiple ways.
1. Yes, there are lots of rules and guidelines with varying degrees of clarity and authority. This seems to me to be an understandable outcome of a bottom-up process for developing many of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think that many of those rules and guidelines were created with good intentions, and the complex nature of an encyclopedia requires considerable thought being invested in the encyclopedia's structure.
2. However, the maintenance, coordination, organization, and harmonization of the guidelines and rules is difficult with the diffuse nature of Wikipedia and its community. A Wikipedia community, such as English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, could by consensus delegate some responsibility to a committee for one or more of these functions. If a community wanted to make such a delegation, there would also need to be people who have the time, skills, and willingness to execute the role well. A chronic problem with Wikipedia communities is that we have far greater need that we can possibly fill with our limited human resources.
3. If we move up a level of abstraction to consider "user friendliness", of which the rules and guidelines are one aspect, we probably can make improvements, although again we are limited by human resource constraints (and also by financial constraints). I am working on a long term project to develop training resources for English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. I hope that these resources will decrease the steepness of the learning curve. I believe that similar work is already happening for Italian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, and that at least one other person is working on improving the documentation for Visual Editor on English Wikipedia.
4. I think that in-context help for Wikipedia and its sister projects could be very beneficial. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple. WMF does not have dozens or hundreds of spare engineers, designers, and researchers who can be easily reassigned to work on improving the interface. WMF does have a significant amount of money its its reserves, and I believe that a good choice would be to shift the WMF's priorities away from increasing the size of the reserve and toward improving the interface.
I realize that this is a complex and perhaps disappointing reply to your thoughtful email. I think that we can make improvements on user friendliness in multiple ways, that some of this work is ongoing, and that perhaps WMF can be convinced to spend more resources in this area.
Thanks for speaking up.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg wrote:
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain _______________________________________________ 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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Hoi, Yes, there are many rules. Yes, they have arisen because of the need felt by some. It is totally obvious that these rules are created with the "best intentions". Given the state of play these rules are not analysed for their effect particularly not for their side effects.
The rules and the consensus associated with them are produced by an in-crowd that is either directly affected because they get a result that they seek because it enables them to manage whatever in the way they see fit or they are in it because they made a career out of it. The participation in these processes is low and consensus may be defined by a functionary who has an interest in the result. It is true that there are too few people involved in applying these rules but given the toxicity involved and the power politics it is quite obvious for me that I keep an arm length's distance as much as I can help it. My problem is that I seek ways to share the information we have and seek mechanisms to share more widely. I care passionately about this and the best personal reply is a ban or a rejoinder that it is always the same thing I bring up. Even though arguments have an effect in that they help change the models I propose I seldom hear arguments probably because they expose the weaknesses in the way "we do things".
When we are reminded that the rules are an impediment to joining our projects as a volunteer. The best answer there is "because". The problem is that "because" is not good enough because there are too few people maintaining the texts, the data we hold. We do not seek mechanisms that help all of us maintain known basic information. There are two options to do more; it is to be smart at what we do, automate where we can or seek more people. When we automate our way out of a problem, the existing biases are maintained and get solidified. When this is noted, it is already even more problematic even more difficult to change.
The consequence for me is that a different perspective to mitigate what ails us is needed. The primary objective is and remains that we share in the sum in the information that is available to us. This in the best way possible to us. For me the sense of superiority of Wikipedians is a serious impediment in achieving results. So to gain a foothold we should break down things that will help us improve and things that will help us expand. Let me explain this with an example that helps us improve: For winners of the George Polk Award there is a list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Polk_Award_winners on the English Wikipedia. It has over five hundred entries. It consists of blue and red links. There are many false friends in both the blue and red links; a reference is made to the wrong person or the person exist under a different spelling/name. The winners are being added to Wikidata by me to demonstrate the effect of a curated list. The differences between "my Listeria list" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User%3AGerardM%2FGeorge_Polk_Award and the Wikipedia list are something I am willing to resolve when I know the result is structural. It will be structural when, not noticed by readers or uninterested Wikipedia editors all links are associated with Wikidata items. We can expand our information provision from that for red links; we can show data structured to be informative. We can even generate texts when we so choose but that is politically hardly possible given that the "dissemination of the knowledge we have" is not a priority by the Wikipedia powers that be.
When information is shared among multiple Wikipedias, the benefits becomes more pronounced. I have an interest in the Ottoman Empire and added information for Sultans and Grand Viziers in the past. This query https://query.wikidata.org/#SELECT%20%3Fsultan%20%3FsultanLabel%20%3Fsultan_start%20%3Fsultan_end%20%3Fvizier%20%3FvizierLabel%20%3Fvizier_start%20%3Fvizier_end%20WHERE%20%7B%0A%20%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fsultan%20p%3AP39%20%3Fsultan_stmt%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fsultan_stmt%20ps%3AP39%20wd%3AQ15315411%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fsultan_stmt%20pq%3AP580%20%3Fsultan_start%20%7D%20.%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fsultan_stmt%20pq%3AP582%20%3Fsultan_end%20%7D%20.%0A%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fvizier%20p%3AP39%20%3Fvizier_stmt%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fvizier_stmt%20ps%3AP39%20wd%3AQ15063567%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fvizier_stmt%20pq%3AP580%20%3Fvizier_start%20%7D%20.%20%20%20%20%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fvizier_stmt%20pq%3AP582%20%3Fvizier_end%20%7D%20.%0A%20%20%0A%20%20%20%20FILTER%20%28%28%3Fvizier_start%20%3C%3D%20%3Fsultan_end%29%20%26%26%20%28%3Fvizier_end%20%3E%3D%20%3Fsultan_start%29%29%0A%20%20%0A%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22%5BAUTO_LANGUAGE%5D%2Ctr%22.%20%7D%0A%7D%20ORDER%20BY%20%3Fsultan_start%20%3Fvizier_start brings the data together. It shows Sultans and their Grand Viziers. (Thank you for the query Jheald). This query can be the basis for information in every Wikipedia. Given the current interest in Turkey and regaining access for the Turkish Wikipedia, improving data about the Ottoman Empire is something to explore. I learned by adding this information that the Catalan Wikipedia covers more information about the Ottoman Empire than the English. I learned that because of the many spellings for these people it is not trivial to add information that is consistent over all the Wikipedias. I expect that there is room for improvement.
To get back to the topic of the track. There is a need for change. Many changes, like the one I propose, can start very low level with little or no visibility. One major benefit is that we will cooperate more because that is the only way whereby we can even attempt to share the sum of all knowledge let alone the easier objective of the sum of the knowledge, information that is available to us. When we do, arguments like "lets ditch Wikidata wholesale" become impossible; they are as silly as "lets ditch Commons".
As to spend our way out of the problem; there is not enough money to waste when we insist on maintaining problematic premises Thanks, GerardM
On 11 March 2018 at 05:55, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Zubin,
I'd like to respond to this in multiple ways.
- Yes, there are lots of rules and guidelines with varying degrees of
clarity and authority. This seems to me to be an understandable outcome of a bottom-up process for developing many of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think that many of those rules and guidelines were created with good intentions, and the complex nature of an encyclopedia requires considerable thought being invested in the encyclopedia's structure.
- However, the maintenance, coordination, organization, and harmonization
of the guidelines and rules is difficult with the diffuse nature of Wikipedia and its community. A Wikipedia community, such as English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, could by consensus delegate some responsibility to a committee for one or more of these functions. If a community wanted to make such a delegation, there would also need to be people who have the time, skills, and willingness to execute the role well. A chronic problem with Wikipedia communities is that we have far greater need that we can possibly fill with our limited human resources.
- If we move up a level of abstraction to consider "user friendliness", of
which the rules and guidelines are one aspect, we probably can make improvements, although again we are limited by human resource constraints (and also by financial constraints). I am working on a long term project to develop training resources for English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. I hope that these resources will decrease the steepness of the learning curve. I believe that similar work is already happening for Italian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, and that at least one other person is working on improving the documentation for Visual Editor on English Wikipedia.
- I think that in-context help for Wikipedia and its sister projects could
be very beneficial. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple. WMF does not have dozens or hundreds of spare engineers, designers, and researchers who can be easily reassigned to work on improving the interface. WMF does have a significant amount of money its its reserves, and I believe that a good choice would be to shift the WMF's priorities away from increasing the size of the reserve and toward improving the interface.
I realize that this is a complex and perhaps disappointing reply to your thoughtful email. I think that we can make improvements on user friendliness in multiple ways, that some of this work is ongoing, and that perhaps WMF can be convinced to spend more resources in this area.
Thanks for speaking up.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg wrote:
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some
of
the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition
and
the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that
it's
unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just
to
communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor
from a
few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on
the
future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Fair comment Cheers, Peter
-----Original Message----- From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: 11 March 2018 06:56 To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Time to simplify the Bureaucracy ?
Hi Zubin,
I'd like to respond to this in multiple ways.
1. Yes, there are lots of rules and guidelines with varying degrees of clarity and authority. This seems to me to be an understandable outcome of a bottom-up process for developing many of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think that many of those rules and guidelines were created with good intentions, and the complex nature of an encyclopedia requires considerable thought being invested in the encyclopedia's structure.
2. However, the maintenance, coordination, organization, and harmonization of the guidelines and rules is difficult with the diffuse nature of Wikipedia and its community. A Wikipedia community, such as English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, could by consensus delegate some responsibility to a committee for one or more of these functions. If a community wanted to make such a delegation, there would also need to be people who have the time, skills, and willingness to execute the role well. A chronic problem with Wikipedia communities is that we have far greater need that we can possibly fill with our limited human resources.
3. If we move up a level of abstraction to consider "user friendliness", of which the rules and guidelines are one aspect, we probably can make improvements, although again we are limited by human resource constraints (and also by financial constraints). I am working on a long term project to develop training resources for English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. I hope that these resources will decrease the steepness of the learning curve. I believe that similar work is already happening for Italian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, and that at least one other person is working on improving the documentation for Visual Editor on English Wikipedia.
4. I think that in-context help for Wikipedia and its sister projects could be very beneficial. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple. WMF does not have dozens or hundreds of spare engineers, designers, and researchers who can be easily reassigned to work on improving the interface. WMF does have a significant amount of money its its reserves, and I believe that a good choice would be to shift the WMF's priorities away from increasing the size of the reserve and toward improving the interface.
I realize that this is a complex and perhaps disappointing reply to your thoughtful email. I think that we can make improvements on user friendliness in multiple ways, that some of this work is ongoing, and that perhaps WMF can be convinced to spend more resources in this area.
Thanks for speaking up.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg wrote:
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some of the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition and the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that it's unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just to communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor from a few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on the future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
I wonder if some of the problem is that we have made a mash-up of policies and guidelines on the same pages, thereby making it very hard for newcomers to figure out what they must know and all the stuff that is simply nice to know. Take a look at Verifiability at enwiki. [1] How much of this is really a policy? The whole policy is in the nutshell template!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:55 AM, Pine W wiki.pine@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Zubin,
I'd like to respond to this in multiple ways.
- Yes, there are lots of rules and guidelines with varying degrees of
clarity and authority. This seems to me to be an understandable outcome of a bottom-up process for developing many of Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think that many of those rules and guidelines were created with good intentions, and the complex nature of an encyclopedia requires considerable thought being invested in the encyclopedia's structure.
- However, the maintenance, coordination, organization, and harmonization
of the guidelines and rules is difficult with the diffuse nature of Wikipedia and its community. A Wikipedia community, such as English Wikipedia or German Wikipedia, could by consensus delegate some responsibility to a committee for one or more of these functions. If a community wanted to make such a delegation, there would also need to be people who have the time, skills, and willingness to execute the role well. A chronic problem with Wikipedia communities is that we have far greater need that we can possibly fill with our limited human resources.
- If we move up a level of abstraction to consider "user friendliness", of
which the rules and guidelines are one aspect, we probably can make improvements, although again we are limited by human resource constraints (and also by financial constraints). I am working on a long term project to develop training resources for English Wikipedia, Commons, and Wikidata. I hope that these resources will decrease the steepness of the learning curve. I believe that similar work is already happening for Italian Wikipedia and German Wikipedia, and that at least one other person is working on improving the documentation for Visual Editor on English Wikipedia.
- I think that in-context help for Wikipedia and its sister projects could
be very beneficial. However, the Wikimedia Foundation is not Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, or Apple. WMF does not have dozens or hundreds of spare engineers, designers, and researchers who can be easily reassigned to work on improving the interface. WMF does have a significant amount of money its its reserves, and I believe that a good choice would be to shift the WMF's priorities away from increasing the size of the reserve and toward improving the interface.
I realize that this is a complex and perhaps disappointing reply to your thoughtful email. I think that we can make improvements on user friendliness in multiple ways, that some of this work is ongoing, and that perhaps WMF can be convinced to spend more resources in this area.
Thanks for speaking up.
Pine ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:42 AM, Zubin JAIN jain16276@gapps.uwcsea.edu.sg wrote:
Hello, As a rare newcomer to the Wikimedia project, I've been thinking of some
of
the factors that seem to discourage me from contributing and one of the primary ones seem to be the fact that the way the administration is organized and rules enforced is often vague and unclear. The definition
and
the method of collection of the vague idea of "Consensus" aren't easily found and take a lot of digging to get out.
A lot of the guideline is often mixed with philosophical rants that often seem to contradict each other and has grown in size to the point that
it's
unreasonable for any newcomer to have read through it all. The project designed to work on consensus and community often seems unresponsive and automated as anarchic communication structure impedes effective communication by forcing users to learn an obscure markup language just
to
communicate.
I'm wondering if there have been any whitepapers on addressing these problems especialy the ones about bureaucracy, reading through the news I remember a lot of hay being made about a decline in Wikipedia editor
from a
few years back but that seems ot have faded. Is there any hard data on
the
future trajectory of the project?
-- Sincerely, Zubin Jain _______________________________________________ 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@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org