Man, that essay reads like someone spent a grand total of 5 days reading Wikipedia policies, ventured into some politically fraught articles with a right-wing agenda, got taken to AN/I for it, and subsequently blocked or banned.
Dan On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 6:41 AM Vi to <vituzzu.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't know whether crossing the line "musk [...] fixing [...] Wikipedia" > gives me more disgust or fear. > > Vito > > Il giorno lun 12 dic 2022 alle ore 05:12 reybueno1--- via Wikimedia-l < > wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> ha scritto: > >> This just up in /r/trueunpopularopinion and YCombinator: >> >> >> https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/comments/zieyyf/wikipedia_is_not_so_great_and_is_overrated/ >> >> >> Quoted below because it was explicitly released under public domain: >> >> You all have heard by now that Elon Musk said that Wikipedia has a "left >> wing bias" when the article about Twitter Files had been suggested for >> deletion. This has been received with mixed responses from liberals and >> conservatives alike; the former dismissing it as "an attack on free >> knowledge" and the latter cheering the move as "against censorship" and >> vindication of their beliefs that Big Tech is biased against them. >> >> True, Wikipedia is supposedly editable by anyone around the world and I >> had been an on and off editor there for years mostly doing small-ish edits >> like fixing typos and reverting obvious vandalism. This is done while on IP >> as opposed to using accounts because I would rather that some edits (i.e. >> sensitive topics like religious and political areas) not tied to my name >> and identity. However, reality is far from the preferred sugar-coated >> description of Wikipedia, particularly its editing community. >> >> The editing community in overall is best described as a slightly >> hierarchical and militaristic "do everything right" structure, >> traditionally associated with Dell and recently Foxconn and now-defunct >> Theranos. Exceptions apply in quieter and outlier areas such as local >> geography and space, usually the top entry points for new users wanting to >> try their first hand. There are higher tolerance of good-faith mistakes >> such as point-of-view problems and using unreliable resources, which are >> usually explained in detail on how to correct by them rather than a mere >> warning template or even an abrupt block. >> >> Ultimately those sub-communities which can be said as populated by >> exopedians, have relatively little to no power over the wider and core >> communities, mostly dominated by metapedians. A third group called >> mesopedians often alternates between these inner and outer workings. >> Communities can have shared topical interest which are grouped by >> WikiProject, an example being WikiProject Science >> >> I spend a lot of time casually browsing through edit wars (can be so lame >> at times) like a fly on the wall, along with meta venues of Wikipedia such >> as Articles for Deletion, Centralized discussion Neutral Point of View >> Noticeboard, Biographical of Living Persons Noticeboard, Conflict of >> Interest Noticeboard, Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents, Sockpuppet >> investigations, Arbitration Committee noticeboard which is the "supreme >> court" in Wikipedia community for serious behavioral and conduct disputes. >> Therefore I can sum up how the editing community really functions, although >> not really as extensive as you might expect because I am not a >> "Wikipedioholic" with respect to inner workings. >> >> Deletionism and inclusionism >> This has been very perennial and core reasons for just about any disputes >> on Wikipedia ever D Deletionists treat Wikipedia as another "regular >> encyclopedia" where information has to be limited once it become very much >> to be covered; like cutting out junk, while inclusionists treats Wikipedia >> as a comprehensive encyclopedia not bound by papers and thus can afford to >> cover as much information as it can take; one man's junk could be another >> man's treasure. Personally I support the latter and often the conflict >> between two editing ideologies leads to factionalism, where attempts to >> understand mutual feelings and perspectives are inadequate or even none at >> all. >> >> There are no absolute standards of what defines "encyclopedic knowledge" >> and "notability". Inclusionism posits that almost everything could become >> valuable and encyclopedic in the future, even if they're aren't today. An >> example I can think of is events, figures and stories from World War II. >> Deletionism has been closely related to "academic standard kicks" and rely >> on the premise that Wikipedia has to be of high standard and concise. There >> are people who deem an addition of something as useful, and there are those >> who think it's "trivia" or "crufty" something that is nominally discouraged >> if not prohibited by Wikipedia's documentation (see this in particular, >> although sometimes exceptions are applied through the spirit of "Ignoring >> all rules for sake of improvement", which are frequent at entertainment and >> gaming topics). >> >> On pages, notability debates around a person subject and otherwise are >> frequently the main point of discussion in Articles for Deletion threads, >> where articles deemed not substantial enough (such as very few sources) are >> suggested for deletion. Usually they will run for a week but they can be >> quickly closed if there are too many votes in favor of "keep", "delete" and >> so on, the AFD nomination is withdrawn by the initiator, or that the >> nomination is found to have been done in bad faith (such as to "censor" >> articles from public view for questionable motives like ideology, paid >> editing or so). >> >> Here I believe that deletionists are seen far more harshly by >> inclusionists, than the vice versa. The chief reason is to add something, >> you have to navigate through the user experience unfriendly editing >> interfaces (although somewhat improved in recent years) all the while >> having to scroll through the internet to find sources and references to >> add. When you found some you have to go through an extra hoop to assess >> whether they are reliable or not, before finally transcribing the >> information through your own words which has to stick to the neutral point >> of view (NPOV) policy; paraphrasing that are so close are not allowed >> because, copyright. Non-English speaking editors would often find the >> latter very difficult. >> >> In contrast, as per an old adage, destroying something is easier than >> building something, deletions are comparatively easier than addition. This >> could be the reason why deletionism currently maintains dominance over the >> whole site as I see it, since in order to become an established an esteemed >> editor, one has to garner a high amount of edits which are not reverted. >> Thus, many editors like to gain these "scores" by deleting "unuseful >> information" from passages up to entire articles by interpreting the >> documentations and rules strictly, the latter through processes such as >> Articles for Deletion and if confident enough, Proposed Deletion that >> doesn't require discussion. Simply speaking, it's a feature not a bug and >> aren't necessarily beholden to any political ideology; a liberal is as >> equally likely as a conservative to become a hated deletionist. >> >> Even though every edit changes are recorded and displayed through page >> histories which you can see for any given articles by clicking "View >> History" at the top, the bone of contention remains particularly when page >> deletions results in the redaction of these histories from public view. >> This will be explained further later. >> >> Some historical contexts that can be think of regarding the current >> prominence of deletionism are the excessive amount of Pokemon pages during >> or before 2007 which had alienated some readers and editors alike because >> search engines back then are not quite as adequate as today in terms of >> finding precise information. Another is that child predators like Nathan >> Larson used to sneak in as inclusionists to warp Wikipedia to fit their >> agenda all the time, which are indelibly horrendous to all of us here and >> those back then. Think of the poisoning of the well and the fruits from a >> poisonous tree. Furthermore there are also large portion of userbases from >> tech companies like Intel and those from the academic world (maybe instead >> of GLAMs, short for galleries, libraries, archives and museums) that gained >> top positions such as administrators, bringing along their work culture and >> so-called "academic standards kick" respectively. To be absolutely fair, I >> find that there are instances where deletionism is right enough, >> specifically the removal of copyright violation and libel materials on >> biographical pages of any living persons. >> >> Regardless of whether a page is deleted or not, they remain available in >> Wikipedia's servers and accessible to administrators or higher only. >> >> Eventually, what defines as "encyclopedic knowledge" are vulnerable to >> systemic biases as well. Different from some Musk's thoughts about it, >> users who are white, male, US/UK/CA/EU/AU/NZ, middle or old aged, and >> English speaker tend to have the greatest advantage above the rest in the >> editing community. With this in mind, a prominent musical artist in Zambia >> may be treated as too small-bore enough for a page on Wikipedia by an >> editor in Canada. Shopping malls in the US are less likely to be deleted >> than those in Vietnam. Such a bias doesn't go one way; the hypothetical >> artist in Zambia would be "unimportant" to someone in Peru. >> >> This is the top causes of animosity between editors and also why many >> editors chose to quit or rather fell from grace. You will always hate that >> kid who like to ruin your LEGO structure every time you have assembled the >> blocks. >> >> Neutral point of view >> Different from mere deletions and additions, this normally means that how >> to present a given information in a way to the readers ideally so that no >> disproportionate biases towards or against something are left in their >> impressions. You see arguments and conflicts concerning such a lot in >> political articles, historical articles and geography topics of areas under >> dispute from two or more nations. Say that a political figure is engaged in >> activities that are remotely linked to extremism. Side A would argue that >> the figure is therefore an extremist and it should be made prominent on >> that page and any other linked pages, but Side B wants to tone it down by >> writing it something like "Political figure was engaged in activities which >> were sometimes reported by some as extremist" and limit it to a mere >> mention on a single page. Another is a nation should be said as a >> "partially recognized state" because some UN members don't recognize it as >> such and instead as part of a bigger country, with others expressing views >> that simply having an effective sovereignty for its own and different from >> another nations would be enough to be deemed as a state. >> >> It can come into play on cases involving "fringe theories" as well, like >> Bigfoots, UFOs and medical treatments, although Wikipedia indeed has a >> preference of giving prominence to mainstream views in these cases, >> something I don't find a problem with and is quite different from regular >> harmful biases. >> >> Venues for resolution in this case are Neutral Point of View noticeboard, >> along with Request for Comment. The latter entails a process where a notice >> is put up in a centralized noticeboard all the while a pool of >> experienced/established editors receive notifications to comment, provide >> insights and make suggestions on a given issue. A month is usually on how >> these discussions are up and running unless there is a need of extension >> because of reasons such as unbroken deadlock. >> >> Along with deletionism and inclusionism, this is a major cause of editors >> "going naughty" and getting blocked/banned/kicked out, whether for right or >> spurious reasons. >> >> Conduct >> The most important part of this post in my honest opinion. I'll start >> this section by writing about edit war. Usually when you change something >> in Wikipedia and it was undone/reverted by somebody else, then you have >> only two tries before you get reported to the edit-war noticeboard if >> you're stubborn enough not to go to the article's talk page ("Talk" in the >> top left) for discussion, either by the person undoing your edits or by a >> third party. In the meantime you get notifications on your personal talk >> pages ("Talk" on the top right) inviting you for such discussion and if >> lucky enough, the Wikipedia Teahouse for further help by some kind-hearted >> editors, increasingly a rarity these days. In some quieter or outer areas >> where as said before are slightly lenient, you may get up to approx. five >> chances counting your original edit before getting referred to the admins. >> >> The tries count are reset after 24 hours but can be retained further just >> as a guard against "gaming the rules". Clearer cut vandalism (like putting >> gibberish such as "LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL" at any pages) usually gets reported to >> a separate noticeboard for administrators to intervene, although first time >> vandals regularly get warnings on their talk pages beforehand. When a >> report is there and if found guilty of edit-warring, administrators would >> either give ultimatums to the users in question or block their accounts for >> a day. They could escalate to multiple days, weeks and up to indefinite >> (practically infinite) period should the behavior continues beyond that. >> The same goes for vandalism, although they are dealt more harshly with many >> prompt indefinite blocks (indeffs) for "vandalism-only accounts". >> >> Regular editors can be in danger of falling from grace too either by >> themselves or by others. Because Wikipedia is commonly seen by so many as >> the biggest comprehensive encyclopedia in the world, sometimes equated to >> history itself, many vested interests, feelings and sentiments have been >> invested on the website. >> >> Those who are nationalists or otherwise fanatics of any imaginable >> notions found themselves having incentives to make Wikipedia to support >> their narratives both as an end itself or rather just means for other ends >> such as "proving that they're great in the long annals of great history". >> The same applies to run off the mill "promotional editing" by corporations >> and individuals, along with those made by their supporters or fans. On the >> opposite many people find it extremely attractive to twist it to denigrate >> any ideologies, corporations, people, and just about anything they >> personally oppose. For instance, they can make an article and fill it with >> disparaging information against them, which is called an "attack page". >> >> I find that there are kernels of truth in the commonly-held viewpoint >> that "Wikipedia is a placeholder of information" and that "Wikipedia is >> history". A MIT report described how judges' behavior are increasingly >> influenced by Wikipedia articles, while there are initiatives by space >> missions such as Beresheet and Peregrine to perform civilizational backups >> of humanity with all of English Wikipedia (version as of a given date) in >> the event of collapse. >> >> After having their way, to keep their changes forever in "annals of >> history" or simply the "placeholders of information" in general, >> gate-keeping measures are utilized. A simple example would be using >> excessively harsh language against editors who made a change challenging a >> given status quo. In contrast, if anybody has a reason to radically change >> a page and make sure it stays unassailable afterwards, the same set of >> actions are used too but arguably these would be "antigatekeeping" measures >> instead. >> >> In gatekeeping/antigatekeeping one would resort to different levels of >> intepretation regarding PAGs (policies and guidelines) and user essays, the >> latter sometimes used as a basis of many editorial and administrative >> actions. The documentations can often contradict each other, like how "not >> indiscriminate" is to "not a paper encyclopedia", and on top of all, can be >> overruled by ignoring these if anybody sees fit. Hence, whoever has the >> "biggest fist" gets to be the most advantageous in Wikipedia community. In >> order to have the "biggest fist", they can befriend anyone sharing >> interests with their own and form a cabal/gang that look after their own. >> To increase their power and when enough time had passed they can nominate >> each other for administrator positions giving them extra privileges of >> blocking users, deleting pages, protecting an article from editing by >> lower-ranked users. You don't get paid for spending your efforts and time >> on editing Wikipedia unless perhaps you've listed a Venmo link or a crypto >> address on your user profile, and these administrative tools alone are so >> addictive and appealing given that you are essentially in control of the >> important bits of "writing history" if you have these, apart from usual >> human nature. Wikipedia is among the top 10 visited websites in the world >> after all. >> >> Even more, there are additional ranks above administrator positions. Two >> of those are CheckUsers (CU) and Oversighters. CU has the power to look >> through IP address used by an account to see if it was a sockpuppet account >> of a person, while Oversighters have super-delete rights to hide contents >> or pages, even beyond the reach of administrators. >> >> Those on the other end of the power-tripping, gate-keeping and so on >> rarely fares well. One would find them belittled, bullied by those editors. >> Should they attempt to properly resolve an issue through established >> processes such as talk page discussions, dispute resolution noticeboard, >> and up to the infamous Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents (ANI), they >> would expect to find obstructions upon obstructions along the way. If the >> victim decides to invite other editors to give balanced/impartial opinions >> and suggestions on a problem they would find themselves stonewalled on the >> grounds that these are "canvassing". It can be quite hypocritical if the >> "bully" had their gang friends informed beforehand, which is reasonably >> believed to often be the case. Finally, if it escalates into the ANI, this >> is where it start to get out of hand. >> >> The reason why I use the term "infamous" is because ANI is the >> mother-lode of all kinds of ugly dramas. It is frequently the first place >> in getting an editor sanctioned or so on. The bullies (I do not use the >> term lightly) would then put all sorts of allegations and aspersions >> against other for any types of wrongdoing, whether real or perceived, big >> or small, or whether the result is a real harm or just a nothing burger. >> Regardless, if they twisted the rules (derisively referred as >> "wikilawyering" or otherwise "gaming the system") and played the victim >> good enough, the passing administrators would then close the discussion and >> place administrative actions against the "real" victim. Common egregious >> example of such an action is the "not here to build an encyclopedia" >> indefinite/permanent block that can be arbitrary interpreted from any given >> actions. It's ironic given that the bullies are guilty of such as well. A >> prime example of twisting the rules to railroad/squeeze out other editors >> would start with so-called bad faith negotiation, where they promised a >> victim not to remove content at other pages if the victim lets the bully >> keep their changes in a page. Soon the bully reneged it and when confronted >> by the victim the bully immediately accused them of being "tendentious" or >> "POV pusher". >> >> The bullies, which can consist of most editors operating at the inner >> workings, aren't necessarily beholden to any ideologies and come in all >> stripes. The only attribute that they all share is the addiction to power. >> >> After such permablocks, most would be forced to leave it for good, >> further bleeding the editors numbers. Still, because Wikipedia's so >> preeminent and no viable competitors are currently available, some would >> rather stay behind, disguise their identity and either continue editing or >> start over in different areas. For those with knowledge of foreign >> languages, they could simply switch to other language Wikipedias to >> continue their work far from most perturbances. A smaller number would come >> back as vandals to spite editors who had wronged them. >> >> This is where "sockpuppetry investigations" kick in, mostly referred as >> SPI. Editors go there to start a new case if they suspect that an account >> is an alt/sock account of someone else particularly users who evaded the >> blocks/bans. When a user is blocked or banned for good, they are relegated >> to a pariah status much akin to "unpersoning", Scientology's suppressive >> persons, and the lowest ones in North Korea's Songbun, in the respect that >> any and all edits by them under other accounts or IPs are liable to be >> reverted/undone pursuant to policy pertaining to block evasion. While the >> original goal of not separating the wheat from the chaff is expressedly to >> prevent them from gaining further recognition and diminish the spirit of >> the block, in practice this means a Monkey's Paw that any further potential >> good contributions from them would be lost forever, handicapping the >> improvement of encyclopedia as a whole in a way or more. Other editors have >> the exception from edit-war policy to revert and undone any changes from >> the violators of the blocks, perhaps as well as anybody who helped them. In >> effect this is like what the Meatball Wiki said, a "PunishReputation". >> >> During a SPI, there are "clerks" who will look through the user's >> contribution history to see if there is a similarity in pattern to warrant >> a block for abuse of multiple accounts (sockpuppetry). If that alone is not >> enough, the CheckUsers can then be called upon to check and compare the IP >> used by the accounts. >> >> If a user is determined to have engaged in sockpuppetry, the userpage of >> original and alt accounts used are then replaced with a scarlet letter >> notice such as this example boasting that which sock account belongs to who >> and therefore blocked. Forget about "denying recognition", this is simply a >> punitive name-and-shame. >> >> The SPI case, now listing the accounts and IP used, would then be >> archived in a separate page, still publicly viewable. This is despite >> recent GDPR regulations and the implication that major privacy-improving >> adjustments should've been made for the process while keeping it viable. >> Try that in Reddit and you'd be instantly banned for doxxing, I can assure >> you. >> >> In there you can effectively cosplay as a CSI although substantive >> attention are given to clerks, administrators and CheckUsers. Keep in mind >> that the results and outcomes of most if not all sockpuppet investigations >> aren't really 100% accurate, given that there are a lot of unforeseen >> variables such as the imitation of writing and behavior styles that are >> mostly a result of multiple people pushing any particular editorial change >> for any reasons i.e. brother helping his sister, along with the use of >> software that can mask your IP addresses such as VPNs and TeamViewer. Those >> admins in charge of sockpuppetry investigations often aren't privy to the >> root cause of a "sockpuppetry" or "block evasion" and as such tend to for >> example, underestimate the amount of users who has the right reasons to >> support an edit made in violation of a block. >> >> VPN IP addresses, which are used for obvious privacy reasons, are blocked >> in sight by any administrators pursuant to policy against open proxies. >> They even have a dedicated WikiProject and a bot specializing in finding >> and blocking these proxies, with the result being a great inconvenience for >> people wishing to edit from countries such as Russia and China. >> >> In time, if someone continues a behavior the other editors deemed as >> "disruptive" or "vandal" past the initial block, they end up getting >> displayed in so-called "Long Term Abuse" caselist. Right there, their >> accounts and/or IP addresses, along with a likely-skewed description of >> what they've done were listed out. The places they've been and accounts >> outside of Wikipedia were frequently exposed there, as if it's an >> opposition research and spiteful doxxing. Things that'll get you quickly >> banned here are just a normal Tuesday over at Wikipedia, with GDPR out of >> the window. >> >> As I see it, there are two categories of LTAs/vandals/whatever you call >> it. The first are the inherent vandals who had been problematic and >> disruptive for Wikipedia upon their first edit, and the other are those who >> had been regular or good standing users in the past until their fall from >> grace, normally caused by themselves such as being too overworked over one >> thing but could be by others, like the bullying example. >> >> There is a reasonable possibility that some of those LTAs/vandals would >> be redeemed and become a good editor once again if enough diplomacy and >> mediation were tried. However, those would be a time-consuming process >> compared to simply actioning them, and I reasonably suspect that some of >> those are intentionally provoked by corrupt admins or their friends into >> vandal or disruptive editing in order for them to increase that admin >> actions count so as to further their own standing in the community, and to >> stay away from losing their cherished tools if their KPI fell low enough in >> a given period. >> >> It's fearful that the cycle of toxicities in Wikipedia could eventually >> led to real-world harm, though I will not further speculate how that might >> transpire for fear of stuffing the beans and giving bad ideas. However, >> VICE had reported in 2016 that an editor had nearly driven to suicide after >> being subjected to online abuse by the editors despite what the >> documentation say about community collegiality. Furthermore, just before >> Musk' comment against Wikipedia, the Anonymous group hacked a Chinese >> ministry site and a satellite system out of the suspicion that a state >> actor has manipulated Wikipedia's system and process to censor information >> about their hacking activities against China. It was a hot news in Taiwan >> then. >> >> Afterthoughts >> Theoretically a deep and comprehensive reform is past due for Wikipedia >> in order to (re-)foster collegiality among the members of Wikipedia >> community and reduce the amount of synergies that leads to intractable >> conflicts, as opposed to sinecures such as blockings and SPI which often >> treats the symptoms but not the cause. >> >> Still, it appears that the core editors and/or administrators are so >> content enough for the present status quo and thus doom any effort to >> change the system. An example would be the temporary ban of an >> administrator made in 2019 by the Wikimedia Foundation (ultimately >> responsible for maintaining English Wikipedia and any other projects such >> as Wikimedia Commons for photos and Wikipedias written in other languages), >> nearly causing the split of Wikipedia into two or more. This is not to >> mention that presently Wikipedia has a financial cancer and having to beg >> for donations despite having sufficient funds so it may be worthwhile to >> put your donations for the Internet Archive instead. >> >> A key to a solution may lie in the comparative analogy that Wikipedia is >> like the only restaurant in a food desert. It could be a McDonald's, KFC, >> BK, Taco Bell, White Castle, or so on, but customers are forced to go there >> to dine in every time, even if some does not really like their food. Thus, >> they will be really happy if a second restaurant is opened at the location. >> >> If Musk is really serious in fixing whatever problems Wikipedia has >> brought as a result of its internal problems, then he would be wise in >> angel-investing any alternatives which aims to become a better or >> next-level version of Wikipedia. >> >> The hypothetical rival alternatives could come in the form of a more >> comprehensive encyclopedia, close to the level of a compendia. It can come >> in a format similar to GitHub where anyone can present in their preferred >> version of a subject instead of edit-warring at a small point, and if >> version is good enough then they can be merged/pushed/vouched by other >> users to work upon and goes to the top in ranks. >> >> In fact, every edition of page histories are logged by Wikipedia when a >> change is make, but in addition to heuristic placements which make these to >> be perceivably obscure, those would get redacted if the page in question is >> deleted. >> >> Forking contents from English Wikipedia isn't really a big problem since >> all you can do is to go to the Wikimedia dump site and look for enwiki, but >> the biggest issues are how to convince editors and readers alike to move >> over to the alternative. One possible solution that I can think of in terms >> of editors would be a pitch promising that the contents will eventually get >> copied into discs that lasts for billions of years and launched to the Moon >> and beyond for posterity. >> >> It is entirely possible that if such solution with out-of-the-world >> approach had been thought about earlier, the synergies that led to all sort >> of intractable conflicts in Wikipedia could be cut by a half or so. Perhaps >> inside Wikipedia the environment would not resemble an authoritarian police >> state like now. After all, you can find so many real stories echoing the >> same theme on Wikipediocracy, Wikipedia Review and Wikipediasucks.co, which >> are like how Xenu.net is to Scientology. >> >> Finally this post is released under Creative Commons CC0, which is a >> public domain as the only thing I want is let everyone know how Wikipedia >> really works in the inside given the recent attention to Musk's comments >> against it and to dispel idealistic notions (as seen in WhitePeopleTwitter >> regarding Musk's tweet) that overrated it beyond what should've been, while >> hoping for alternatives to spring up to provide greater opportunities for >> anyone to preserve histories without corrosive influence from systemic >> biases such as those in Wikipedia. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/DUHTE6FSKQB6PX4QD5GWX3OHXFYUHPT5/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/ZPL4Z5F22AS75M4NBKAENXTBJFFKGMNT/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VDQPVHJMDHD3XJD2H5GV4LUUWEX6EU2L/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
