Hoi,
What I explicitly say is that when the whole of the community is seen as
the community of en.wp then I truly think there is something fundamentally
wrong with the notions pandered.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 28 January 2017 at 18:54, Rogol Domedonfors <domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Gerard,
If you think it is particularly bad for the WMF to be asked to engage with
the community, perhaps you could tell us how, in your view, the way the WMF
plans its activities and spends the donors' money, and supports the people
who write the contents of the projects the WMF hosts, could be made
particularly good?
Do you perhaps believe that there is nobody at all any where in the world
who is not already on the WMF staff who has anything of any use to
contribute to the WMF strategic planning process? If so, by all means say
so explicitly.
"Rogol"
On Sat, Jan 28, 2017 at 5:40 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
When an argument has it that something will not workshop because of en
wp,
I am disgusted. Yet another argument on less of
50% of our traffic.
It is particulariteit bad when the wmf is asked to engage the community.
What community?
Thanks,
GerardM
Op za 28 jan. 2017 om 18:27 schreef Rogol Domedonfors <
domedonfors(a)gmail.com
> Anna
> > To be clear, I’m engaged in understanding your perspective. I’m
> > not promising to do any specific thing at this time. I like
understanding
> > problems and wondering how we might solve seemingly complicated ones
in
simple ways. It’s kind of a sickness.
Got it, thanks for asking.
>
> > So for example, in the
> > field of software planning one might expect that an engagement
between
> > members of the community with an
interest in and experience of
software
> > > issues as they affect contributors, and the WMF management
developing
the
> > software roadmap would be effective.
>
>
> I think I understand your point here, but I'd like to be sure that I
do.
> > Let’s take your software example (though other forms of work may also
> > clearly apply). Are you saying that they should co-conceive of what
to
>
build (a la Community Tech)? Or are you saying once something is
decided
> > upon
> > they consult members on how to build it? Or are you saying both?
> >
>
> I am saying that co-creation is more than the Community proposing
bright
ideas at
the tactical level, while the Foundation decides strategy in
some
> ivory tower. I am proposing that Community and Foundation engage at
the
strategic
level. To take a couple of exmples: The WMF decided to do a
lot
of work on Gather, a social media addon for
Wikipedia. Early
consultation
> would have revealed that this ran completely counter to the
> English-language Wikipedia community's policy that Wikipedia is not a
> social media site; that the curation that the add-on required was extra
> work the community had no desire to do; and that the technical
> implementation made it all but impossible to do that work
satisfactorily
> even if it had been consistent the the
community policy and practice.
> Another example: suppose the community comes to believe that the
projects
really
need support for some major extension to the knowledge
representable
> by linear Ascii text, such as music, dance, mathematics, hieroglyphics,
> genomics, railway networks, family trees, climate change, phonetics,
...
.
This is way beyond the Community Tech ambit and
requires a lot of
collaborative consideration, scoping, costing and planning. It would
also
require a Roadmap, see below.
The current notion being instantiated in the proposed Technical
guidelines
is very much about a wise and benevolent
Foundation steering its ideas
through a reluctant community. That is frankly insufficient.
> > I do hope the WMF decides to try that
> > some time.
>
>
> How is what you are proposing different from Community Tech? That’s
not a
> > challenge, that's genuine inquiry. Is it that what you are proposing
is
> not
> > like Community Tech *in kind *or that Community Tech has just not
> achieved
> > *the
> > scale* you would like to see (e.g. are you hoping that we would build
> > everything that way?). Either way, I have some thoughts, but I’ll
wait
to
hear what
you actually mean before launching into my POV.
Explained above. In a nutshell, Community Tech is tactical, short term
and
> transactional; as opposed to strategic, long term and partnering.
>
> >
> > Maybe not. But if it could strike a deeper cord around transparency,
I
wanted to show up for that conversation. Talk openly.
Let people know
that
we are listening, that we believe in
transparency… that’s why we all
fought
for it.
To be clear, I have no sense whether it did strike a cord around
transparency, but I enjoyed the conversation nevertheless.
My experience of the Foundations notion of Transparency has been patchy
at
> lest -- and that's a polite way of saying breathtakingly awful. What
has
> changed in the last fortnight to make me
expect that it will be
different
> this year?
>
> >
> >
> > > In the middle ground, there is the
> > > issue of the current product roadmap and its delivery. Perhaps an
> > > indication of what that roadmap is may help to refine and revise
the
plan
> that will have to be drawn up for executing
the work that is left
hanging
> > by these events.
> >
>
> I wonder if you'll be surprised to know that I distinctly recall you
> mentioning roadmaps previously. Perhaps more than once. I wouldn’t go
so
far as to
call it your mantra, but I’ve heard you repeat it numerous
times.
Yes. I have on numerous occasions asked the WMF to publish it roadmap
and
> it has consistently declined to do so. It has also consistently
refused
to
> even say why it does not do so. Do you have any ideas on the matter?
I
can think
of several possibilities, which I will take a moment to
enumerate.
1. The Foundation does not believe in a Roadmap and prefers an Agile
lurch from one thing to another like Frankenstein's monster
2. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap but has found it
too
> difficult and is embarassed to admit that it isn't able to do it
> 3. The Foundation thinks it ought to have a Roadmap and is
embarrased
to
admit that it has not yet got round to doing
it
4. The Foundation has a Roadmap but is afraid to publish it as it
knows
the Community would not like it
5. The Foundation has a Roadmap but cannot be bothered to take the
effort to publish it
6. The Foundation has no interest in what the Community thinks on a
wide
> range of subjects including this one
>
> Is any of those close to the truth, do you think?
>
>
>
> >
> > I’d like to understand more. I can think of many reasons why someone
> > would/should want a roadmap. For which reasons would you like one?
What
> > would it allow you to do? For example,
is a roadmap a transparent
> > publication? A platform to build on top of? A means to some other
end?
> >
>
> It woud enable the Community to contribute to the planning and help
with
> the implementation; to spot possible gaps;
to propose partnerships; to
> identify areas of misunderstanding between Foundation and Community; to
> better understnd when and where to propose requests for enhancements;
to
> plan its own work in terms of transitioning
project content to new
> technologies and systems.
>
>
> > And would you be willing to rank the relative importance of having
the
> > ability to do those things versus
solving potentially other important
> > problems.
> >
>
> Yes, of course, but unfortunately the Foundation seems to have no
desire
to
expose its view of those problems.
> >
> > "Rogol"
> >
>
> and, if you're willing, I'd like to understand the quotes around your
> name... how come they are there? Again, genuine question. Not mocking
or
even
challenging. Just curious. Annoyingly so.
To make it completely clear that the name under which I post is not my
real
> name, just in case anyone was under the impression that I was a
fictional
wizard
from the far future.
"Rogol"
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Anna Stillwell
<
astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Rogol,
> >
> > Good to hear from you.
> >
> > "I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in some
way
> > > answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
> >
productive
> > form of engagement between the two sides."
> >
> > Rogol, I'd like to hear more about what you mean here, specifically
in
> this
> > instance. Then, would you be willing to generalize in categories: a
> > spectrum of the least productive forms of engagement between the
> > communities and WMF to the most productive forms of engagement?
> >
> > "But doing planning better is a lesson for management to learn, not
for
> the
> > Community."
> >
> > Yes. Agreed. Though generally I would say that everybody should
always
> be
> > > learning on all sides of the fence, but I can't disagree with your
> > > statement.
> > >
> > > /a
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 2:30 PM, Rogol Domedonfors <
> > domedonfors(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am surprised by the notion that WMF middle management is in
some
way
> > > answerable to the Community. I would have thought that was the
least
> > > > productive form of engagement between the two sides. The issue
is
> > what,
> > > if
> > > > anything, will happen to the tools that the contributors want and
> need
> > to
> > > > carry on doing their work. Wes Moran says that they will be
> delivered
> > on
> > > > schedule and I presume he is in a position to make that happen.
> > > >
> > > > It's disturbing to read that the failure of this team is
attributed
by
> > > Chris Koerner to planning. But doing planning better is a lesson
for
> > > > management to learn, not for the Community. It so happens that I
> have
> > > > advocated for involving the Community in the planing more,
earlier
> and
> > > at a
> > > > higher level. But I do not regard this setback as attributable
to
> the
> > > > Foundation's reluctance to do that.
> > > >
> > > > "Rogol"
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:18 AM, James Heilman <
jmh649(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I guess the question is was this a request for input on what
the
> > > > community
> > > > > thinks of the Interactive Team or the strategy of the discovery
> team?
> > > Or
> > > > > was it simply a "for your information", we have
decided to do
X,
Y,
> and
> > > Z.
> > > > The first is much more preferable to the second, but it appears
the
> > > second
> > > > was what was intended. We as Wikipedians, of course, while give
you
> > our
> > > > > opinions on these decisions whether you request them or not :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Now to be clear I am not requesting an official response. I am
> > > expressing
> > > > > 1) my support for the work that the Interactive Team was
carrying
>
out.
> > 2)
> > > > my great appreciation to Yuri for the years he has dedicated to
the
> WM
> > > > movement. IMO him being let go is a great loss to our movement.
> People
> > > who
> > > > both understand tech and can explain tech to the non expert are
few
> > and
> > > > far
> > > > > between and Yuri was both. While I imagine and hope that he
will
> > > continue
> > > > > on as a volunteer, it is easy to get distracted by working to
put
food
> on
> > > the table. Maybe another team within the WMF or within the
Wikimedia
> > > > movement will pick him up.
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > > James
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:52 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > astillwell(a)wikimedia.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> peteforsyth(a)gmail.com
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Anna,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've now read what you quoted for a third time, and can
confirm
I
> > did
> > > > > > understand, and agree with, what you said. I'm sorry my
summary
was
> > > > > inadequate, and may have made it seem otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > As for planning, I am not making assumptions, but perhaps
> > interpreting
> > > > > differently from you. I'm happy to defer to Pine on the
details;
> > > their
> > > > > > recent message captures the gist of what I intended.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't give a solid estimate of the
"half-life," but I do
not
> > > think
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > enthusiasm I've seen (and the metrics I cited in
my initial
> > message
> > > > on
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > > thread) constitute a passing crush. I do think a
"pause"
that
> > > > > > necessitates
> > > > > > > addressing uncertainty when discussing popular
features can
> have
> > a
> > > > > > > significant impact, and therefore should be minimized
to
> whatever
> > > > > degree
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > attainable. I could be wrong, but that's my
belief.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Got it. (I add color so I can see. I think I need better
> glasses.
> > > > Sad!).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As for the request for more time, I guess I'm just
not sure
> what
> > to
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > of it. I make no demands, and I'm not sure
I've heard Pine,
> > James,
> > > > DJ,
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > anybody in this thread make demands. Is there somebody
with
> > > standing
> > > > to
> > > > > > > grant such a request? I've heard it, and it makes
sense.
It's
> >
> > worthwhile
> > > > > to
> > > > > > know that the team needs more time, and plans to share more
on
> a
> > > > scale
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > sounds like days-to-weeks. But if there's
something
specific
> > being
> > > > > asked
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > me (or others on this list), I'm not clear on what
it is.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I was just asking whether you thought it was reasonable to
give
> > them
> > > > the
> > > > > > time that they asked for. It wasn't a governance
question,
or
a
> > > > > discussion
> > > > > > about authority. I was just asking if those who commented,
who
> all
> > > > seemed
> > > > > > to have legitimate concerns, were willing to have the team
get
back
> > to
> > > > them
> > > > > with any answers that they could fairly, justly, respectfully
and
> > > > legally
> > > > > > provide, but more likely they would talk about the future
work.
> > > >
> > > > In my mind I've been clear and consistent: "Hey, do you guys
think
> it
> > > is
> > > > > reasonable to give these guys some time?" But it seems like
I've
> > not
> > > > made
> > > > > > this point clear. Would singing it at karaoke help?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd be happy to chat if you come back to it at the
end of
Q3,
if
> > > you'd
> > > > > > like.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks. I'll reach out.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Pete
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 01/25/2017 06:38 PM, Anna Stillwell wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Pete Forsyth <
> > > peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Anna,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Pete,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Your points are valid and well taken. If I may
summarize
what
I
> > > think
> > > > I
> > > > > >>> heard, it's basically: "Getting things
right can be hard,
and
> if
> > > full
> > > > > >>> preparations weren't made ahead of time,
thorough answers
may
> > not
> > > > be
> > > > > > >>> readily available. Be
compassionate/patient." Is that
about
> > > right?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I appreciate that you are trying to understand
what I
mean.
> Thanks.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> No, I didn’t say getting things right can be hard. I said,
“This
> > > > > >> communication thing is hard, especially when people
are
> involved.
> > > > > >> Sometimes
> > > > > >> there are laws that constrain what we say. Sometimes we
don’t
> know
> > > > > whether
> > > > > >> we are right yet and we need a further unpacking of the
facts.
> > The
> > > > > truth
> > > > > > >> is
> > > > > > >> that there can be a whole host of reasons for
partial
> > > communication
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >> aren’t related to competence or the intent to
deceive.”
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As for the preparations, it seems that a lot of
assumptions
> are
> > > > being
> > > > > > >> made.
> > > > > > >> As for thorough answers, some might already be
known and
> others
> > > > known
> > > > > > once
> > > > > > >> more planning is completed. However, it could be
that the
> > > > explanations
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > >> want are not legal to share. There are many issues
where
> > > employment
> > > > > law
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >> worker protections are crystal clear, as they
should be.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> As for compassion, I don’t require it. That seems
like
extra
> to
> > > me.
> > > > I
> > > > > > >> usually prefer just paying attention, but that’s
my
personal
> > > choice.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> The team asked for some time. I wondered if that
would be
a
> > > > reasonable
> > > > > > >> request to grant them.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> If so, I agree in principle and in spirit, but I
think the
> point
> > > is
> > > > in
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> tension with
> > > > > > >>> another one:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Community and public enthusiasm for software
can be a
rare
> and
> > > > > > important
> > > > > > >>> thing. The conditions that make it grow,
shrink, or
sustain
are
> > > > > complex,
> > > > > >>> and largely beyond the influence of a handful of
mailing
list
> > > > > >>>
participants.
> > > > > >>> The recent outputs of the Interactive Team have
generated
> > > enthusiasm
> > > > > in a
> > > > > >>> number of venues, and many on this list (both
volunteers
and
> > > staff)
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > >>> like to see it grow or sustain, and perhaps
throw a
little
> > weight
> > > > > > behind
> > > > > > >>> an
> > > > > > >>> effort to make it grow or sustain.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Good points. I mean that. Glad to hear of
these recent
> outputs
> > > > > generate
> > > > > > >> excitement. I’m personally also getting quite
excited
about
> ORES
> > > > > > >>
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Objective_Revision_
> > > > > Evaluation_Service>
> > > > > > >> and
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> what’s going on with the Community Tech Wish List,
Labs,
and
> New
> > > > > > Readers.
> > > > > > >> But I also get that you want to be clear:
you'd like to
see
the
> > > > > >> interactive
> > > > > >> team’s work grow or sustain. Makes sense.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> The only thing I heard is that the team said that they
needed
to
> > > > pause,
> > > > > >> have a bit of time, and get back to everybody. “The
team's
aim
> > > during
> > > > > this
> > > > > >> period is to get its work to a stable and maintainable
state.”
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> But that enthusiasm has a half-life. What is
possible
today
may
> > not
> > > be
> > > > > >>> possible next week or next month. The zeitgeist may
have
> evolved
> > or
> > > > > moved
> > > > > >>> on by then.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> I'm not in disagreement with your main point
about
enthusiasm
> for
> > > > > >> software.
> > > > > >> I think it's a very good one. Enthusiasm with a
half life
of a
> > week,
> > > > > >> however, sounds more like a passing crush.
Nevertheless,
your
>
point
> > > > still
> > > > >> stands.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> -Pete
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> [[User:Peteforsyth]]
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> /a
> > > > >> [[User:Annaproject]]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Anna Stillwell <
> > > > astillwell(a)wikimedia.org
> > > > >>> >
> > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> You make substantive points, Tim. Thank you.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> "An employee should not experience their time
off as a
period
> > > where
> > > > > his
> > > > > >>>> [her/they] work load is just temporarily
buffered until
his
> > > > > [her/they]
> > > > > > >>>> return, but where colleagues will step in
and take care
of
> > > > > business."
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> I take this point seriously and don't
wish you to think
> > > otherwise.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > >>>> theory, I absolutely agree. In practice,
sometimes we
all
face
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> constraints.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> There are roughly 300 of us (order of
magnitude). Every
now
> > and
> > > > > then,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> there
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> are not enough of us to go around on
everything on a
> timeline
> > > that
> > > > > > meets
> > > > > > >>>> the legitimate need that you present here.
We'll
continue
to
> > work
> > > on
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> this.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> But, to clarify, no one ever said it was a
"useful
practice"
> > nor
> > > > did
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> anyone
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> suggest that it was generalized across the
org.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> What I was wondering about in my previous
email and now
> > > > reiterating
> > > > > in
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>> this
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> one too, are people willing to grant their
request: a
bit
of
> > time
> > > > and
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> allow
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> for one person to return to work?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Does that seem like a way to move forward?
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Warmly,
> > > > > >>>> /a
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Tim
Landscheidt <
> > > > > >>>> tim(a)tim-landscheidt.de
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Anna Stillwell <astillwell(a)wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> […]
> > > > > >>>>>> I also hear that the pause on the
interactive work is
> > temporary.
> > > > > I’ve
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> heard
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> them request time. I am comfortable
granting that
request,
but
> > no
> > > > one
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> required to agree with me. They’ve also said
that the
person
> > with
> > > > the
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> most
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> information is on vacation. As someone
who has seen
> employees
> > go
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> through
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> considerable stress in the last years, the
entire
executive
> > team
> > > is
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> working
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> to establish some cultural standards
around supporting
> > > vacations.
> > > > We
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> want
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> people here to feel comfortable taking
proper vacations
and
> >
> sometimes
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> that
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> can even need to happen in a crisis. People
often plan
their
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> vacations
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> well
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> in advance and may not know that something
tricky will
come
> up.
> > > Just
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> so
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> you
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> understand one bias I bring to this
conversation.
> > > > >>>>>> […]
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>> I concur with DJ in his initial mail that this
is not a
use-
> > > > >>>>> ful
practice, and I doubt very much that it relieves
employ-
> > > > >>>>> ees'
stress. It conveys the organizational expectation
that
> > > > > >>>>> employees are SPOFs without any backup. An
employee
should
> > > > > > >>>>> not experience their time off as a
period where his
work
> > > > > >
>>>>> load is just temporarily buffered until his return, but
> > > > > > >>>>> where colleagues will step in and take
care of
business.
> > > > > >
>>>>> Especially such a major decision like "pausing" a team
> > > > > > >>>>> should not depend on the inner
thoughts of one
employee,
> but
> > > > > > >>>>> be backed and explainable by others.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Tim
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines
at:
> > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > >>>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > >>>>> 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>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>> "If you have knowledge, let others
light their candles
in
> > it." -
> > > > > > >>>> Margaret
> > > > > > >>>> Fuller
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Anna Stillwell
> > > > > > >>>> Director of Culture
> > > > > > >>>> Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > > >>>> 415.806.1536
> > > > > > >>>> *www.wikimediafoundation.org
<http://www.
> > >
wikimediafoundation.org
> > > > >*
> > > > > > >>>>
_______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > >>>> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > > >>>> 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
> > > > > > >>> 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
> > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles
in
it."
-
> > > Margaret
> > > > > Fuller
> > > > >
> > > > > Anna Stillwell
> > > > > Director of Culture
> > > > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > > > 415.806.1536
> > > > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.
wikimediafoundation.org
*
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > > James Heilman
> > > > MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
> > > >
> > > > The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
> > > >
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> > > 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>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it."
-
> Margaret
> > > Fuller
> > >
> > > Anna Stillwell
> > > Director of Culture
> > > Wikimedia Foundation
> > > 415.806.1536
> > > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org
*
> > >
_______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> >
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
> > 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>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "If you have knowledge, let others light their candles in it." -
Margaret
> > Fuller
> >
> > Anna Stillwell
> > Director of Culture
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 415.806.1536
> > *www.wikimediafoundation.org <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>*
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > 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
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
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
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>