Mailing List Archive: Wikipedia: Foundation

[Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

monomium at gmail

Aug 11, 2012, 8:05 PM

Post #1 of 15 (272 views)
Permalink

[Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki?

Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical?

Some options:

A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address.
B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address.
C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing.
D) Move content to Meta and leave it open.
E) Do nothing.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

wikipedia at frontier

Aug 11, 2012, 8:37 PM

Post #2 of 15 (262 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On 8/11/2012 8:05 PM, Mono wrote:
> Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical?
>
> Some options:
>
> A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address.
> B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address.
> C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing.
> D) Move content to Meta and leave it open.
> E) Do nothing.
I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014
(to say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).

I wouldn't mind having the content migrate to Meta. I know there were
well-considered reasons why the strategy wiki and various others were
created as separate sites, but I'd like to see us do that more as
dedicated spaces within a common site.

As to marking content as historical, I'm not sure that's really the best
use of the material. Many strategic questions do not really go away, and
they can and should be revisited as part of the next planning process. I
would favor refactoring and merging, it should become a living space
again, not an archive.

--Michael Snow

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

meta.sj at gmail

Aug 11, 2012, 11:45 PM

Post #3 of 15 (263 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional
meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly.

Sam.

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] frontier>wrote:

> On 8/11/2012 8:05 PM, Mono wrote:
>
>> Should we lock StrategyWiki as historical?
>>
>> Some options:
>>
>> A) Prevent all editing and keep content at current address.
>> B) Restrict editing to admins and keep content at current address.
>> C) Move content to Meta and mark as historical, lock editing.
>> D) Move content to Meta and leave it open.
>> E) Do nothing.
>>
> I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
> couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
> think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to
> say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).
>
> I wouldn't mind having the content migrate to Meta. I know there were
> well-considered reasons why the strategy wiki and various others were
> created as separate sites, but I'd like to see us do that more as dedicated
> spaces within a common site.
>
> As to marking content as historical, I'm not sure that's really the best
> use of the material. Many strategic questions do not really go away, and
> they can and should be revisited as part of the next planning process. I
> would favor refactoring and merging, it should become a living space again,
> not an archive.
>
> --Michael Snow
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

keegan.wiki at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 12:07 AM

Post #4 of 15 (262 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:

> I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional
> meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly.
>
> Sam.

I disagree. Strategy work is Wikimedia Foundation's focus planning. Meta
is Wikimedia projects. I think it's important to delineate the two.

--
~Keegan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keegan
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

meta.sj at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 3:45 AM

Post #5 of 15 (255 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Keegan Peterzell <keegan.wiki [at] gmail>wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Samuel Klein <meta.sj [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > I would like to see this become an open part of Meta. It is traditional
> > meta-work, and rewarding to improve and revisit regularly.
>
> I disagree. Strategy work is Wikimedia Foundation's focus planning. Meta
> is Wikimedia projects. I think it's important to delineate the two.
>

Have you reread the proposals on the Strategy wiki recently? Most are by
and about the projects.

You can argue over whether the 5-yr strategic plan that was based on that
work in 2010 was simply for the WMF's part in the movement, or for the
movement as a whole... But the vast majority of the work done there was
thinking and planning for the future of the projects. Which is
traditionally Meta material.

I agree that different organizations drawing from shared strategic
brainstorming should clearly delineate their plans from those of other
groups in the movement. That doesn't require a different wiki for every
organization with a plan. A simple style guide for plans should suffice.

Sam.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

thomas.dalton at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 3:54 AM

Post #6 of 15 (260 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On 12 August 2012 04:37, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] frontier> wrote:
> I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
> couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
> think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to
> say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).

I would hope the next plan is prepared on meta. I think we've learned
that new wikis for things like this don't generally work very well
(the strategy wiki was one of the more successful ones, probably
because it was so well publicised, but I think the evidence says that
putting things on meta works better).

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

richard.symonds at wikimedia

Aug 12, 2012, 5:04 AM

Post #7 of 15 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking
everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location
that's easy for newbies to find.

Richard Symonds
Wikimedia UK
0207 065 0992
Disclaimer viewable at
http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia:Email_disclaimer
Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk

On 12 August 2012 11:54, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton [at] gmail> wrote:

> On 12 August 2012 04:37, Michael Snow <wikipedia [at] frontier> wrote:
> > I don't favor locking it. We will need to update the strategic plan in a
> > couple years. The original plan was intended to last through 2015, and I
> > think the next planning process will need to start no later than 2014 (to
> > say nothing of interim updates to the current plan).
>
> I would hope the next plan is prepared on meta. I think we've learned
> that new wikis for things like this don't generally work very well
> (the strategy wiki was one of the more successful ones, probably
> because it was so well publicised, but I think the evidence says that
> putting things on meta works better).
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

thehelpfulonewiki at gmail

Aug 12, 2012, 8:14 AM

Post #8 of 15 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On 12 August 2012 13:04, Richard Symonds
<richard.symonds [at] wikimedia>wrote:

> I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking
> everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location
> that's easy for newbies to find.
>

Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for
Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import
pages cross-wiki with full history via
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things
into a new Strategy: namespace?

--
Thehelpfulone
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

vandijk at wmnederland

Aug 12, 2012, 8:28 AM

Post #9 of 15 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
"popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
Kind regards
Ziko

2012/8/12 Thehelpfulone <thehelpfulonewiki [at] gmail>:
> On 12 August 2012 13:04, Richard Symonds
> <richard.symonds [at] wikimedia>wrote:
>
>> I'd also support this sort of thing going to meta. Perhaps not marking
>> everything as historical, but certainly a slow move to a central location
>> that's easy for newbies to find.
>>
>
> Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for
> Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import
> pages cross-wiki with full history via
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things
> into a new Strategy: namespace?
>
> --
> Thehelpfulone
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

--

-----------------------------------------------------------
Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
dr. Ziko van Dijk, voorzitter
http://wmnederland.nl/

Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
-----------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

z at mzmcbride

Aug 12, 2012, 8:32 AM

Post #10 of 15 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

Thehelpfulone wrote:
> Strategy Wiki has already been configured as an import source for
> Meta-Wiki, so any admins on Meta (there are plenty) will be able to import
> pages cross-wiki with full history via
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Import. Perhaps we could put things
> into a new Strategy: namespace?

Maybe, though I'd like to see a clearer definition of what would go in that
namespace. Would the final Strategic Report go at "Strategy:Report" or
"Strategy:Strategic Report"? Or what's wrong with just "Strategic Report"
(in the main namespace)?

Someone will need to audit strategy.wikimedia.org's content for what we want
and don't want (there's likely some garbage) and then figure out where it
best fits on Meta-Wiki. I don't think a flat Strategy namespace will do
anything but duplicate work (pulling everything in, then sorting all of it
in a year or two when we realize that we didn't want everything and it's not
well classified).

I imagine you'll want namespaces for Proposals or Workgroups or whatever
kind of high-level content separation you can find that might also be
helpful to Meta-Wiki generally. I thought there was some planning about this
on Meta-Wiki already somewhere.

MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

z at mzmcbride

Aug 12, 2012, 8:45 AM

Post #11 of 15 (258 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.

I'm not sure what a WCA is.

<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_fragmentation> discusses "many of the
reasons that people fragment what are otherwise sensible critical-mass
communities or projects into multiple beautiful-but-subcritical communities
which fade over time."

MZMcBride

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

ktc at ktchan

Aug 12, 2012, 8:55 AM

Post #12 of 15 (257 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
>> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
>> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
>> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
>> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
>> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
>
> I'm not sure what a WCA is.
>

<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association>?

KTC

--
Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

monomium at gmail

Aug 13, 2012, 5:58 PM

Post #13 of 15 (247 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

Please weigh in at
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan <ktc [at] ktchan> wrote:

> On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
>>> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
>>> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
>>> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
>>> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
>>> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what a WCA is.
>>
>>
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_**Association<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association>
> >?
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

jalexander at wikimedia

Aug 13, 2012, 6:18 PM

Post #14 of 15 (246 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and
haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts:

- Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into
meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much
- I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done
was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would have
been as successful without doing it.
- I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the
foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly
created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt
their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was the
'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the
most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they want
their results, but forget that they're different.
- There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it
short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh
community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around the
projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh
community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community with
it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new
community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki
proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh, new,
name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have the
flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for
example etc).

Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to
a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for
the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd
imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using
Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be
helpful.

James

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:

> Please weigh in at
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan <ktc [at] ktchan> wrote:
>
> > On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> >> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> >>
> >>> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
> >>> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
> >>> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
> >>> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the whole
> >>> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
> >>> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what a WCA is.
> >>
> >>
> > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_**Association<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association>
> > >?
> >
> > KTC
> >
> > --
> > Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> > - Heinrich Heine
> >
> >
> > ______________________________**_________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
James Alexander
Manager, Merchandise
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

rodrigo.argenton at gmail

Aug 13, 2012, 8:50 PM

Post #15 of 15 (241 views)
Permalink

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Should we lock StrategyWiki? [In reply to]

(e)

I don't see any reason for changes...

On 13 August 2012 22:18, James Alexander <jalexander [at] wikimedia> wrote:

> I'll weigh in on wiki later today or tomorrow (I've been very sick and
> haven't been on much) but I did want to put in a couple of my thoughts:
>
>
> - Part of me doesn't have an enormous issue with merging content into
> meta if people really want it though I don't think it helps much
> - I think creating StrategyWiki as it's own entity when it was done
> was necessary and important. I don't think the strategy process would
> have
> been as successful without doing it.
> - I don't think that creating strategyWiki was part of a 'fad' by the
> foundation or others to create new wikis. We have certainly
> created separate wikis which I do not think needed to be made (and hurt
> their purpose) but Strategy was not one of them and, if anything, was
> the
> 'start' of the fad and, like most fad starters, was the one with the
> most legitimate reasons. Everyone follows the trendsetter because they
> want
> their results, but forget that they're different.
> - There are many reasons the separate wiki was/is good but to keep it
> short I'll give the biggest one: The StrategyWiki required a fresh
> community with as much activity and new blood as possible from around
> the
> projects and the movement as a whole. Meta was not, and is not, a fresh
> community. It does many things well but it is still it's own community
> with
> it's own rules and structure. Sadly you just can't invite a fresh, new
> community into an old community (it's the same reason the travelWiki
> proposers were saying that it would be best to start off with a fresh,
> new,
> name etc). I don't think it would have done as well if it didn't have
> the
> flexibility that a new community allowed (turning on liquid threads for
> example etc).
>
>
> Overall I think the strategy project actually showed that splitting off to
> a new wiki can be helpful at times and I think that it should be done for
> the new strategy plan (likely to start next year, at the latest, I'd
> imagine) should do the same and either use Strategy or a new wiki. Using
> Strategy would probably be best and keeping the historic pages could be
> helpful.
>
> James
>
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Mono <monomium [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > Please weigh in at
> >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Strategy_Wiki
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Katie Chan <ktc [at] ktchan> wrote:
> >
> > > On 12/08/2012 16:45, MZMcBride wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ziko van Dijk wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> It seems to me that there was a period in the WMF history when it was
> > >>> "popular" to install new wikis, for strategy or outreach, instead of
> > >>> using Meta. I don't see the advantages of having seperate wikis, or
> > >>> disadvantages of Meta. Meta has always been the platform for the
> whole
> > >>> movement, not only the wiki content websites. By the way, the WCA
> > >>> decided not to have a wiki of its own but to use Meta.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure what a WCA is.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_**Association<
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Chapters_Association>
> > > >?
> > >
> > > KTC
> > >
> > > --
> > > Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
> > > - Heinrich Heine
> > >
> > >
> > > ______________________________**_________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l [at] lists**org <Wikimedia-l [at] lists>
> > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
>
>
>
> --
> James Alexander
> Manager, Merchandise
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l [at] lists
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>

--
Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton
rodrigo.argenton [at] gmail
+55 11 7971-8884
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l [at] lists
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads