Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiki-research-l] Motivations to Contribute to Wikipedia
James, I think I have replied consistently to your requests, both on wiki and by mail, stressing that this is the de facto standard procedure that was introduced with the creation of the RCom, pending a formal (as in voted) policy, and that the expectation is for whoever runs a survey or subject recruitment campaign to comply with this procedure. I appreciate that it implies a bit of bureaucracy but it's the best solution we can offer to help the community understand who runs a study and what for and help the researcher/investigator meet some basic requirements. Dario On Mar 19, 2012, at 10:06 AM, James Salsman wrote: Lane, Thanks for your message: James: I made the edit stating the research should get approval, and I did that by jumping into the game and just making the edit based on what I read in discussion boards. I did not consider it to be a new requirement For the benefit of those who haven't clicked on the link, you edited [[meta:Research:Subject recruitment]] to read, at the top: If you are doing research which involves contacting Wikimedia project editors or users then you must first notify the Wikimedia Research Committee by describing your project. After your project gets approval then you may begin. How could that not be seen as a requirement? Do you think there is a way to phrase it so that it would not be seen as a requirement? Certainly this is not your fault. As you read, Dario Taraborelli stated on February 15, this is a policy that we're enforcing ... approval is required http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research_talk%3AFAQdiff=3441309oldid=3440848 And after you made that edit, Dario thanked you for it, saying, I appreciate the documentation on the review procedure -- even though the Research Committee had explicitly rejected an approval policy requirement in September 2010, has not discussed it since, and neither the community or the Foundation has ever endorsed any of the earlier policy proposals. I would not be so upset about this if I hadn't been repeatedly accused of misconduct in failing to obtain RCom approval. Given the ease and lack of remorse with which Dr. Taraborelli, Mr. Walling, and Mr. Beaudette have all repeatedly lied about me while accusing me of misconduct, I have lost all confidence in the ability of Foundation staff to adhere to basic ethics. I intend to continue to raise this issue until it is addressed sufficiently. Sincerely, James Salsman ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiki-research-l] Motivations to Contribute to Wikipedia
Hi Lane, your proposed workflow is a good description of how I would like the SR procedure to function in an ideal world. I am not myself at the forefront of SR discussions, but I'd definitely like to see a more streamlined process and a better way of signaling to participants which projects are flagged as reviewed and which aren't. Part of the discussion that we had during the last RCom meeting of the RCom was precisely focused on this issue [1]. If you want to contribute to the SR discussion, I strongly recommend you post your proposal on this page [2] so it can be seen and discussed by others. It would also probably make sense to move the entire SR discussion to a dedicated list as I suspect many wiki-research-l subscribers are not interested in following this thread. I'll also forward this to the RCom members who have been involved in SR as they will be able to make a better judgment than mine on these matters Dario [1] http://etherpad.wikimedia.org/RComDec2011 [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Committee/Areas_of_interest/Subject_recruitment Is such a flagging system already in place? If not, shall we start one? This is what I imagine is what we have consensus to do - is this how it is supposed to work? Researcher jumps on Wikipedia unannounced and starts recruiting for surveys Some Wikipedian tells the researcher to submit their project for review Researcher goes to landing page and completes a form for their proposal The proposal is posted publicly Any volunteer can check the proposal to see if all fields are completed Volunteers tag the form as being completed or incomplete - no quality review Completed forms eventually get reviewed by RCom according to criteria which are currently undefined Approved projects get a template to stick on their project page. Researchers must show their research page to all research recruitment candidates, who would be able to see the completed form, the flagging by a volunteer, and the approval by RCom. The approval template would also link to more information about research on Wikipedia. Research subjects would only be able to agree to participate in research by following instructions at the bottom of the research description form, so they would see default notices like unflagged or unreviewed if no one has checked it. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] [Wikidata-l] introduction (community communications for Wikidata)
Welcome Lydia, it's an exciting time to work with WMDE, best of luck in your new role. Dario On Mar 9, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote: Hi everyone! I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself. I'm Lydia and just started working for Wikimedia Germany. Some of you might know me from my work in Free Software projects. I'll be a part of the team working on Wikidata (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata) - the goal of the project is to create something similar to Wiki Commons for data). It's a huge undertaking for the German and global community. Wikidata is a project I am passionate about and I am even more passionate about doing it right. Doing it right in this case obviously means making sure everyone's input is heard and taken into consideration. My responsibility will be exactly that - working with all of you to make it a successful project. A lot of things concerning how, when and where this will be used in Wikipedia are still up for discussion and decisions need to be found in the community. I will be here to facilitate this. I assume many of you have not heard from me before so let me tell you a bit about myself. I studied computer science at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. There I worked on a program to plan robot-assisted laser surgeries on human skulls and wrote my diploma thesis on collaborative and transparent Free Software development. I'm passionate about enabling people to make awesome happen around Free Culture. I've spent most of my spare time in the last 7 years on community work in KDE (http://kde.org). This includes running its mentoring programs, co-founding its community working group, serving on the board of the non-profit behind it and generally making sure everything is running smoothly. I've also helped out other projects occasionally like Kubuntu, VLC/VideoLan and openSUSE in that position. Not long ago I released a free book called Open Advice (http://open-advice.org) that is a collaborative effort to make it easier for people to start contributing to Free Software. You probably know 4 of the authors from around Wikipedia. When it comes to MediaWiki I have done developer engagement for Semantic MediaWiki Plus for the last two years and am on the steering committee of the non-profit behind Semantic MediaWiki. Due to my day only having 24 hours (even if some people claim otherwise) I have not had a chance to get into contributing to Wikipedia. Thankfully that's going to change now. (As a very regular user: Thank you!) For the next days/weeks my focus will be: * collecting ideas/doubts/other input for Wikidata that you already have for me now (I'll work through any existing discussions I can find - if you want to make sure I see something please do send me a link.) * creating some resources to explain the project better * setting up some infrastructure to keep everyone updated on the status and able to contribute * work on collecting input in a structured manner and addressing it together If you have any questions please let me know. I'll be around on the English and German Wikipedia, IRC, XMPP, Skype or whatever else you prefer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE) ). You can subscribe to the Wikidata mailing list at https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l and join the IRC channel #wikimedia-wikidata on freenode. Cheers Lydia, who is really looking forward to working with you -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Community Communications for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Eisenacher Straße 2 10777 Berlin www.wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list wikidat...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links
I put together a short explanation of how clicktracking works, what data it stores and why we use it. I'll work with Oliver to make sure this is also captured in the AFT5 FAQ. Feel free to contact me off-list if you have specific questions that I haven't answered here. Dario * What is clicktracking? Clicktracking is an extension developed by the Wikimedia Foundation during the Usability initiative [1]. It has been used since then to test a number of features or to run some small-scale usability experiments. * How does it work? The extension collects click-through data (e.g. it counts clicks on a call to action after posting article feedback) that is typically not stored in the database. An example of the data collected by this extension can be found here [2] * Why do we use clicktracking in AFT? We use clicktracking to measure aggregate click-through/completion rates as part of our analysis of AFT [3]. We randomly assign users to different buckets or experimental conditions (e.g. a specific AFT design) or to a control group. This allows us to measure how each condition performs with respect to each other. For example, we want to know how a specific AFT design affects editing behavior or how many people who see the AFT widget at a specific placement take a call-to-action. The two main reasons why we use the clicktracking extension for this purpose are (1) to capture bucket information, which is not stored in the database, and (2) to measure drop-off rates for specific funnels (e.g how many users browse away after clicking on a button). As such, the extension is used to count events for groups of users and it's not designed to track individuals, let alone store personally identifiable information. For example, it does NOT store user IDs or usernames for registered editors and it assigns and stores randomly generated tokens for every user. * Why these ugly URLs when I click on a section link? Clicktracking is usually implemented via javascript and session cookies, but in some cases it's easier to just pass a URL parameter when a form is submitted. We appreciate that the AFT5 implementation of clicktracking is not very elegant and we will disable it as soon as we've collected the data needed for the analysis. * What is the status of data collected via clicktracking? Data collected via the clicktracking extension is subject to the privacy policy [4] and as such it's not publicly released, unless in a fully anonymized or aggregate form. [1] http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ClickTracking [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Clicktracking#Log_format_specification [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Data_and_metrics [4] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy On Feb 5, 2012, at 9:32 PM, Howie Fung wrote: We would be able to look at just the edit summaries, but that would only provide us with analysis on edits that were successfully completed. By including the actual clicks in the tracking, we can do analysis on the edit/save ratio (% of total edit attempts that were successfully saved). Howie On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Brandon Harris bhar...@wikimedia.orgwrote: I'm not sure why this couldn't be done if that were all that is being measured. I suspect there's other behaviors being tracked. As I said, I'm not the person who knows most about this, so you have to take what I am saying with a grain of salt. On 2/4/12 5:21 PM, WereSpielChequers wrote: Hi Brandon, thanks for the explanation, but wouldn't it be easier to just analyse edit summaries? If you edit by section the edit summary defaults to start with the section heading... Were SpielChequers Message: 7 Date: Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:51:49 -0800 From: Brandon Harrisbhar...@wikimedia.org To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.**orgfoundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Fw: Strike against the collection of personal data through edit links Message-ID:4F2DB685.7@**wikimedia.org4f2db685.70...@wikimedia.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed (This may not be 100% accurate; the person who knows most about this is on vacation, but I'll try to explain to the best of my understanding.) Those weird URLs are part of a clicktracking process. It's a test to see how people go about editing the page *most often* (by section, or by edit tab) and further to see how effective various calls-to-action (such as those given by Article Feedback) are. The longevity of the data isn't something I can comment to but I'd be surprised if it lasted even 3 months. I do not know if there are identity markers connected to them but I wouldn't be surprised. To that end, the data is only useful in roll-ups, and wouldn't be something published anywhere except in aggregate. On 2/4/12 2:27 PM, Philippe Beaudette
Re: [Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
Kim, what about we stop naming and shaming and start thinking of how to solve problems instead? Let's sit down and discuss how to fix the various issues that have been raised on the lists, obtain community feedback and allow the researchers to resume the collection of responses they need to complete this study, which I understand you are not substantially objecting to. I appreciate your contribution on the talk page of the project and I am happy to host a conference call with Jerome some time this week if you wish to help us out. Dario On Dec 11, 2011, at 11:48 AM, Kim Bruning wrote: On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:27:34AM +0400, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote: I will do it right now, but to make it clear, we have 2 (TWO: twee, zwei, deux, dos ...) RCOM members in total who are involved: Dario and Mayo. I do not think anybody else would be able to answer any questions. And last contribution of Mayo in en.wp, from what I see, is from June. So I guess it would be difficult to have two RCom members answering questions. That is most unfortunate. Btw trolling on mailing lists is also not just a bad idea, it goes against a basic policy for beginners. With the greatest possible respect; I would suggest that the research committee does not have the kind of standing required to accuse others of disruptive behaviour, at this point in time. sincerely, Kim Bruning -- ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Regarding Berkman/Sciences Po study
with a month notice for this reason. • Is this campaign running at 100% on the English Wikipedia? No, the banner has been designed to target a subsample of the English Wikipedia registered editor population. Based on estimates by the research team, the eligibility criteria apply to about 10,000 very active contributors and about 30,000 new editors of the English Wikipedia. The target number of completed responses is 1500. • Why does the banner include logos of organizations not affiliated with Wikimedia? The design of the banner was based on the decision to give participants as much information as possible about the research team running the project and to set accurate expectations about the study. ==What we are doing now== We realize that despite an extensive review, the launch of this project was not fully advertised on community forums. We plan to shortly resume the campaign (for the time needed by the researchers to complete their responses) after a full redesign of the recruitment protocol in order to address the concerns raised by many of you over the last 24 hours. Here’s what we are doing: • Provide you with better information about the project We asked the research team to promptly set up a FAQ section on the project page on Meta [13], and to be available to address any concern about the study on the discussion page of this project. The project page on Meta will be linked from the recruitment banner itself. • Redesign the banner We understand that the banner design has been interpreted by some as ad-like (even if the goal was to make clear that this study was not being run by WMF, as it implied a redirection to a third party website for performing the experiment). In coordination with the research team, we will come up with a banner design that will be more in line with the concerns expressed by the community (for instance by removing the logos from the banner). • Make privacy terms as transparent as possible Upon clicking on the banner, participants accept to share their username, edit count and user privileges with the research team. The previous version didn’t make it explicit and we are working to address this problem. To make the process totally transparent we will make the acceptance of these terms explicit in the banner itself. Once redirected to the landing page, participants will have to accept the terms of participation in order to enter the study. The project is funded by the European Research Council: the data collected in this study is subject to strict European privacy protocols. The research team will use this data for research purposes only. The research team is not exposed to and does not record participants’ IP addresses. ==How you can help== We would like to hear from you on the redesign of the banner to make sure it meets the expectations of the community and doesn’t lend itself to any kind of confusion. We will post the new banners to Meta and try to address all pending questions before we resume the campaign. This is one of the first times we’re supporting a complex, important research initiative like this one, and I apologize for the bumps in the road. We believe that supporting research is part of our mission: it helps advance our understanding of ourselves. So thanks again for all support you can give in making this a success. Dario Taraborelli Senior Research Analyst, Wikimedia Foundation [1] http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/12/08/experiment-decision-making/ [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Harvard.2FScience_Po_Adverts [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Search_banner_Wikipedia_Research_Committee [4] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-December/070742.html [5] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/internal-l/2011-December/018842.html [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive222#Researchers_requesting_administrators.E2.80.99_advices_to_launch_a_study [7] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior#RCom_review [8] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065580.html [9] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-May/065558.html [10] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/CentralNotice_banner_guidelines [11] http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=CentralNotice/Calendaroldid=3056067 [12] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Subject_recruitment [13] meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Dynamics_of_Online_Interactions_and_Behavior ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool
The AFT v.4 data is documented here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Data Dario On Oct 26, 2011, at 5:53 AM, Tom Morris wrote: On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:09, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: *slaps own forehead* So is the data to be thrown away too? (Is there anywhere to look up the data en masse?) It's all on the Toolserver and should be in the dumps too. If you have any specific requirements for retrieving certain subsets of the data, do ask and someone with Toolserver access can run queries against the data and provide the results. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool
Hi WereSpielChequers, I worked on the data analysis for previous AFT versions and I believe I've already answered on a number of occasions your questions as to what we could test and what we couldn't in the previous phase, but I am happy to do this here and clarify what the research plans for the next version are. Subjective ratings We have definitely seen a lot of love/hate rating happen in the case of popular articles (e.g. Lady Gaga, Justin Bieber). Teasing apart ratings on the quality of the article and rater attitudes towards the topic of the article is pretty hard given the fact that an average enwiki article gets a very small number of ratings per day and articles that get a sufficient number of ratings tend to be attracting particularly opinionated or polarized visitors. To give you a measure of the problem: of the 3.7M articles in the main namespace of the English Wikipedia only 40 articles (0.001%) obtain 10 or more ratings per day. The vast majority of articles don't get any rating for several days or weeks or ever. FInding ways to increase the volume of ratings per article is one of the issues we're discussing in the context of v.5. The second problem is that we don't have enough observations on multiple ratings by the same user. Only 0.02% of unique raters rate more than one article and that means that on a single article basis we cannot easily filter out users who only rated a topic they love or hate and still have enough good data to process. This is unfortunate: the more rating data we can get per rater, the more we can identify gaming or rating biases and control them in public article feedback reports. Effects of AFT on participations I ran a number of pre/post analyses comparing editing activity before and after AFT was activated on a random sample of English Wikipedia articles, controlling for page views before and after the activation and found no statistically significant difference in the volume of edits. As I noted elsewhere the comparison between two random samples of articles is problematic because we cannot easily control for the multiple factors that affect editing activity in independent samples of articles so any result you may get out of this coarse analysis would be questionable. I agree that's a very important issue and the proper way to address it is by a/b testing different AFT interfaces (including no AFT widget whatsoever) for the same article and measuring the effects on edit activity for the same articles across different user groups: this is one of the plans we are considering for v.5 Another important limitation of AFT v.4 is that we only collected aggregate event counts for call to actions and we didn't mark edits or new accounts created via AFT, which means that we couldn't directly study the effects of AFT as an on-ramping tool for new editors (e.g. how many readers it is converting to registered users and what is the quality of edits generated via the AFT. i.e. how many users who create an account via AFT call to actions actually end up becoming editors? What is their survival compared to users who create an account in a standard way? And how many among the edits created via AFT are vandalism? How many are good faith tests that get reverted? These are all questions that we will be addressing as of v.5. We'll be still working on analyzing the current AFT data to support the design of v.5. In particular, we will be focusing on (1) correlations between consistent low ratings and poor quality or vandalism or the likelihood of an article to be nominated for deletion and (2) the relation between ratings and changes in other quality-related metrics on a per-article basis. I have also pitched the existing data to a number of external researchers interesting in article quality measurements and/or rating systems and I invite you to do the same. Hope this helps. I look forward to a more in-depth discussion during the office hours. Dario On Oct 26, 2011, at 7:33 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote: -- Message: 6 Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:11:57 +0100 From: Oliver Keyes scire.fac...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Office Hours on the article feedback tool To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Message-ID: capyupwa34cujyan_vv_chgyxwfct3ejnb4d-nrav_u20qej...@mail.gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 No, the data will remain; you can find it at http://toolserver.org/~catrope/articlefeedback/ (we really need to advertise that more widely, actually). To be clear, we're not talking about junking the idea; we will still have an Article Feedback Tool that lets readers provide feedback to editors. The goal is more to move away from a subjective rating system, and towards something the editors can look at and go huh, that's a reasonable suggestion as to how to fix the article, I'll go do that or aw, that's
Re: [Foundation-l] Editor Survey, 2011
Nikola, Amir, let me answer your points as I am one of the people behind the expert barriers survey. The design with two blocks of questions with a different framing is intentional and is based on the results of a long pilot that we ran for one month (Dec 2010-Jan 2011) prior to the official launch. If you check what is asked at the top of each block, you'll see that we are expecting participants to answer different types of questions (A: the perception of factors affecting WP participation among one's peer; B: one's individual agreement/disagreement with these statements about WP participation; C: the relation between one's agreement/disagreement and one's motivation to contribute). This is designed to allow you in principle to give 3 different answers to A, B, C and that's precisely what we want to test for. The design is in no way meant to ask the same question twice just for the sake of it or because we assume respondents are lazy or inaccurate, but to help us turn anecdotes into data we can actually study. I am sorry to hear this didn't work for you and others, the vast majority of respondents seem to have correctly understood the assignment, and we had a quite amazing response rate so far from experts, scholars and research students from a broad range of disciplines. We also have a surprising gender and age balance among participants and respondents are almost perfectly split into two groups of people with previous experience as Wikipedia contributors and people who never edited a single page. Those of you interested in following the developments and the early results of this study should keep an eye on this page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_Committee/Areas_of_interest/Expert_involvement/2011_surveyor get in touch for feedback or any other issue related to the survey at: expert_barri...@nitens.org Thanks, Dario On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.rswrote: On 03/11/2011 10:52 AM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote: I noticed the Take a WMF-sponsored survey on barriers to expert participation in Wikipedia. banner on the top of English Wiktionary the other day. I clicked it and answered a whole page of questions that were interesting and relevant. And the next page presented the same bunch of questions again, somewhat rephrased. I hate it when that happens and i immediately closed the survey; my answers to the This is sometimes done so that if someone is not seriously answering the form, the answers to similar questions will be different, and so they may be disregarded. But yeah, experts are probably not going to not seriously answer the form. relevant questions on the first page probably went to the drain. You could've just clicked 'Next' to the end. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Editor Survey, 2011
The simple answer: Maybe, but how could i know that? The smartass answer: Maybe, but how could i know that after clicking 'Next' i wouldn't be presented with a stupid JavaScript error message, punishing me for clicking 'Next' before filling the required fields? on the frontpage you can read in a prominent box: Please note that you can skip any question (or select No answer) that you do not wish to answer or that you think does not apply. there is not a single required field in this survey. Dario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
