(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 <ymb...@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 <zvand...@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 <gpaum...@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 <zvand...@gmail.com>: > > > > > > > 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 <gpaum...@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 <zvand...@gmail.com>: > > > >> > > > >> > 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 <kma...@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> > > > >> > > kma...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > > Unsubscribe: > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > >> , > > > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > , > > > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > , > > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject= > unsubscribe> > > > >> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Strategy mailing list > > > > strat...@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@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@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-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
