Much more complicated situation. Really far beyond a Wikipedian's pay grade.
Fred ----- Original Message ----- From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:38:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems When we have a document signed by the king saying someone was given a certain title; and a myriad of secondary and tertiary sources saying the document says otherwise (without ever quoting the document itself), I would not have the least doubt in choosing the king's deed. That's a recurrent situation in History, and as far as I know, the recommendations are always to ignore the secondary sources when some unexplained conflict between them and the primary, original sources arises. Paulo 2018-05-12 13:31 GMT+01:00 Todd Allen <toddmal...@gmail.com>: > If a "secondary" source just parrots or copies a primary source, it's added > nothing. At that point, it doesn't matter which one you use. > > However, good, reliable secondary sources will cross-check the claims of > primary sources against one another, evaluate them for reliability, and > come up with what the real truth is actually likely to be. When those > sources are fact-checked and peer reviewed, they are much more reliable > than the primary sources, and we should prefer them to editors evaluating > primary sources themselves, or worse yet, uncritically treating them as > factual. > > Todd > > On Sat, May 12, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Paulo Santos Perneta < > paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and > > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more > reliable > > than any secondary sources quoting it. > > > > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much > > sure there is a similar saying in English as well. > > > > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should > be > > used instead of a primary source in those situations. > > > > Paulo > > > > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > : > > > > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and > have > > > similar problems. You will have to clarify: > > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and > > > verifiable? > > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary > > sources > > > produced by the subject? > > > Cheers, > > > Peter > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On > > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta > > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > > > > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are > > primary > > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original > sources, > > as > > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second > > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they > > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this > confusion > > in > > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the > > > articles. > > > > > > Paulo > > > > > > > > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <came...@cameron11598.net>: > > > > > > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and > > > traditions > > > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an > > > > encyclopedia using such sources. > > > > > > > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I > > use > > > > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those > are > > > > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an > > > > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are > typically > > > > sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources. > > > > > > > > Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and > > > > traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion. > My > > > > personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability > and > > > > notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we > > include > > > > far too much (fan cruft anyone?). > > > > > > > > - Cameron C. > > > > Cameron11598 > > > > > > > > ---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net > > > > wrote ---- > > > > > > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] > On > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > > > > > > > You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second > guessing > > > > sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we > > consider > > > > sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not > > > > written. > > > > > > > > JP > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for > > > spammers > > > > > and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved > > > > > invitation. > > > > > > > > > > If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should > > be > > > > made > > > > > at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing" > a > > > > > reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd > ask > > > > them > > > > > to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article > > accordingly > > > > > based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess > > what > > > > > sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or > > > > > whatever else have you types of information. If our references are > > > > flawed, > > > > > the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing, > not > > > > > "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources, > > we > > > do > > > > > not second-guess, dispute, or correct them. > > > > > > > > > > Todd > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood < > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people > > > > wanting > > > > > > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times > > change. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@ > lists.wikimedia.org] > > > On > > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > > > > > > > > > > > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have > > started > > > > > > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by > anyone > > > > > without > > > > > > any authority to double check before it is published? It is > doomed > > to > > > > > fail. > > > > > > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is > > not > > > > to > > > > > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change > > those > > > > > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing > > > > > knowledge. I > > > > > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are > > ready > > > > to > > > > > do > > > > > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of > > Wikipedia > > > > > when > > > > > > we opened editing to anybody. > > > > > > > > > > > > JP > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood < > > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in > > spite > > > of > > > > > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the > > > verifiability > > > > > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith > are > > > > > things > > > > > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer > > > > evidence, > > > > > > and > > > > > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is > > > > intangible, > > > > > > the > > > > > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means > > > track > > > > > > > record and proof of identity. > > > > > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not > see > > > it > > > > as > > > > > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as > a > > > > > reliable > > > > > > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without > > destroying > > > > the > > > > > > > credibility we have. > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@ > > lists.wikimedia.org] > > > > On > > > > > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra > > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50 > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and > > > > > language > > > > > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These > culture > > > > > manage > > > > > > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the > > > western > > > > > > styles > > > > > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue > > is > > > > how > > > > > > do > > > > > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we > respect > > > > them, > > > > > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently > do > > > is > > > > > not > > > > > > > the only. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our > > > current > > > > > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the > > citations > > > > > from > > > > > > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider > and > > > > value > > > > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the > > > question > > > > > is > > > > > > do > > > > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share > the > > > sum > > > > of > > > > > > all > > > > > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current > > > > knowledge > > > > > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the > > > wikipedia > > > > > but > > > > > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these > > alternative > > > > > > > knowledge streams > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <etest...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias > > where > > > a > > > > > > member > > > > > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity > > though: > > > > > > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10. > > > > > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and > > as a > > > > > > > movement > > > > > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid, > which I > > > > > > > personally > > > > > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our > personal > > > > > > > impressions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood < > > > > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> > > > > > > > > escribió: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us > to > > > > > produce > > > > > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those > constraints > > > > opens > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to > > > remain > > > > > > open > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust > > > > alternatives. > > > > > > > Other > > > > > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then > > probably > > > > not > > > > > be > > > > > > > > open > > > > > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way? > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@ > > > > lists.wikimedia.org] > > > > > > On > > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland > > > > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01 > > > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing > > problems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the > > > canon > > > > of > > > > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of > "knowledge" > > as > > > > > > > Wikipedia > > > > > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to > > that > > > > > > saying > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be > > > notable > > > > > > > enough, > > > > > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their > > canon > > > > of > > > > > > > > > knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > JP > > > > > > > > > User:Amqui > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER < > > > > > fredb...@fairpoint.net> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia. > > org> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT) > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing > > > problems > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly, > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but > will > > > > never > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > able > > > > > > > > > > to correct it." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the > > > canon > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does, > > > > > Wikipedia > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and > > > other > > > > > > bias > > > > > > > > > issues > > > > > > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest > than > > > > full > > > > > > > > > correction > > > > > > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fred > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > > > > > > > > > http://www.avg.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > GN. > > > > > > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia. > > > org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page > > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra > > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com > > > > > > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never > > Again: > > > > > > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP, > > > 2017. > > > > > > > Order > > > > > > > here > > > > > > > < > > > > > > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again- > > > > > > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > 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> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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> > _______________________________________________ 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>
