Jungi Kim | 1 Jun 2012 11:36
Picon

Call for Participation: People's Web Meets NLP workshop at ACL 2012

[Our apologies if you have received multiple copies of this announcement.]

The 3rd workshop on the People's Web Meets NLP: 
Collaboratively Constructed Semantic Resources and their Applications to 
NLP 

Jeju, Republic of Korea
July 13, 2012
http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de/scientific-community/acl-2012-workshop

==Registration==

Information on registration is provided at the ACL 2012 website 
(http://www.acl2012.org/). 

==Program==

July 13, 2012

09:15-09:30   Opening Remarks

09:35-10:05   Sentiment Analysis Using a Novel Human Computation Game / 
               Claudiu Cristian Musat,  Alireza Ghasemi,  Boi Faltings 

10:10-10:30   A Serious Game for Building a Portuguese Lexical-Semantic 
               Network / Mathieu Mangeot and Carlos Ramisch 

10:30-11:00   Coffee break

11:00-11:20   Collaboratively Building Language Resources while 
(Continue reading)

Anatoliy Gruzd | 7 Jun 2012 01:39
Picon

Last Call: #Influence12: Symposium & Workshop on Measuring Influence on Social Media

Apologies for cross-posting
********************************
CALL FOR POSITION PAPERS AND RESEARCH-IN-PROGRESS POSTERS

What: #Influence12: Symposium & Workshop on Measuring Influence on Social Media
Where: School of Information Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
When: September 28-29, 2012
Website: http://SocialMediaLab.ca/influence12      
Twitter hashtag: #Influence12

Industry Keynote Speaker: Gilad Lotan, VP of Research & Development, Socialflow.com

ABOUT THE EVENT:
This is a two-day symposium and workshop organized and hosted by the Social Media Lab (http://SocialMediaLab.ca) at Dalhousie University and supported by MITACS, SSHRC, NCE GRAND, Dalhousie’s Faculty of Computer Science.

It is no secret that social media has become mainstream in recent years, and its adoption has skyrocketed. As a result of its growing popularity, users’ online contributions and membership in online social networks have exploded. With a multitude of voices all talking at once on social media, finding interesting and influential voices among the masses can be difficult. The objective of this 2-day workshop is to bring together experts in social media and online social networks from both the academic and business worlds, to share ideas on the best practices around how to study the impact of social media on our society, and specifically how to measure influence on social media. The workshop will provide researchers in this area an opportunity to present and debate their ideas, and provide graduate students with the opportunity to build academic and professional contacts, present their research, and learn about latest research in this area from a multidisciplinary perspective.

SCHEDULE:
During the first day, the participants will present and conduct discussions based on their work in this area. Over the second day, the participants will be tasked to brainstorm and develop new metrics for studying and measuring influence and engagement on social media.

REGISTRATION FEE: None

STUDENT TRAVEL SUBSIDIES:
A limited number of competitive travel subsidies ($500 + 3-night shared accommodation with another student in a local hotel) will be available to PhD and Postdoctoral students from Canadian academic institutions. Please indicate on your submission whether you would like to be considered for a travel subsidy.

TYPES OF SUBMISSIONS:
1)    Position Papers: Proposals should be in the form of a position paper (up to 1,000 words excluding references) and formatted using the ACM Proceedings Format (a template is available at http://www.acm.org/sigs/publications/proceedings-templates). The position paper must be on a completed or well-developed project relating to the main theme of the workshop.  If selected, the author(s) will be invited to give a 15-minute oral presentation followed by a 5 min Q&A period.

2)    “Work-in-progress” Posters: Posters will display visual presentations of early-stage projects. Proposals should be in the form of a short abstract (up to 500 words excluding references). If selected, author(s) will have an opportunity to present their poster as part of a dedicated poster session during the workshop.

*All submissions are due June 15, 2012, 23:59 (Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time)* and must be submitted via the EasyChair website at
https://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=influence12

TOPICS OF INTEREST INCLUDE:
•    Influential User Detection
•    Information Visualization in Social Media
•    Mobile Applications
•    Online and Offline Social Networks
•    Online Community Detection
•    Online Identity
•    Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis
•    Political Mobilization & Engagement on Social Media
•    Scalability Issues and Social Media Data
•    Social Media and Academia (Alternative Metrics. Learning Analytics, etc.)
•    Social Media Mining
•    Social Network Analysis
 
All submissions will be peer-reviewed by the Program Committee and evaluated based on their relevance and potential contribution to the main theme of the workshop: How do we define and measure influence on social media? The goal is to select and invite up to 50 researchers to participate in the workshop. Accepted and finalized papers and posters will be published on the Social Media Lab website after the event and promoted through various media channels. The workshop presentations will also be streamed online.

IMPORTANT DATES:
•    Submission Deadline: June 15, 2012, 23:59 (Hawaii-Aleutian Standard Time)
•    Notification Date: July 15, 2012
•    Camera-Ready Deadline: August 30, 2012
•    Workshop Dates: September 28-29, 2012

PROGRAM COMMITTEE:

    *     danah boyd, Microsoft Research, USA
    *     Jean Burgess, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
    *     Amy Bruckman, Georgia Institute of Technology, USA
    *     Alvin Chin, Nokia Research Center, Beijing
    *     Greg Elmer, Ryerson University, Canada
    *     Andrea Forte, Drexel University, USA
    *     Keith N. Hampton, Rutgers University, USA
    *     Carolyn Hank, McGill University, Canada
    *     Caroline Haythornthwaite, University of British Columbia, Canada
    *     Susan Herring, Indiana University, USA
    *     Bernie Hogan, University of Oxford, UK
    *     Karrie Karahalios, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA
    *     Rhonda McEwen, University of Toronto, Canada
    *     Catherine Middleton, Ryerson University, Canada
    *     Anabel Quan-Haase, University of Western Ontario, Canada
    *     Diane Rasmussen Neal, University of Western Ontario, Canada
    *     Anthony Rotolo, Syracuse University, USA
    *     Marc Smith, Social Media Research Foundation, USA
    *     Louise Spiteri, Dalhousie University, Canada
    *     Monica Whitty, University of Leicester, UK


For further inquiries, please contact Dr. Anatoliy Gruzd at gruzd <at> dal.ca
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Taha Yasseri | 22 Jun 2012 00:15
Picon

Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

Dear Wikipedia researchers!
Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869

I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.

bests
.Taha


Dr. Taha Yasseri.
---------------------------------------------
www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri

Department of Theoretical Physics
Institute of Physics
Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Budafoki út 8.
H-1111 Budapest, Hungary

tel: +36 1 463 4110
fax: +36 1 463 3567
---------------------------------------------


--
Taha.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Sumana Harihareswara | 22 Jun 2012 04:16
Picon
Gravatar

Our fundraising staff at TechWeek Chicago

This weekend, TechWeek Chicago starts: http://techweek.com/

The Foundation's Peter Gehres is copresenting the analytics presentation
"How Wikipedia Doubled its Online Fundraising" this Saturday.  If you're
at TechWeek, he and other Wikimedians want to meet with you and talk shop!

http://schedule.techweek.com/event/003fc017e0530c08eb34f08033c50f86

Saturday June 23, 2012 4:00pm - 4:45pm  <at>  1 - Main Stage (222 Merchandise
Mart Plaza, Chicago, IL)

"In 2010, online donations to Wikipedia more than doubled, from $7.5
million to $16 million and, in 2011, increased another 33%. Much of this
increase was driven by user research conducted in Chicago. Design
researcher Billy Belchev from Webitects will get into the nitty-gritty
of form design and testing, user interviews. Do one-step forms work
better than multi-step? Does PayPal help or hurt your numbers? What are
the effect of “Jimmy” banners? The answers are based on data from the
fifth most trafficked website in the world."

--

-- 
Sumana Harihareswara
Engineering Community Manager
Wikimedia Foundation
Kerry Raymond | 25 Jun 2012 09:26
Picon

Re: Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there are good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d welcome your thoughts.

 

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are well-established.

 

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin and then continue it in Pumpkin).

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

From: wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Taha Yasseri
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 8:15 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

 

Dear Wikipedia researchers!
Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869

I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.

bests
.Taha


Dr. Taha Yasseri.
---------------------------------------------
www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri

Department of Theoretical Physics
Institute of Physics
BudapestUniversity of Technology and Economics

Budafoki út 8.
H-1111 Budapest, Hungary

tel: +36 1 463 4110
fax: +36 1 463 3567
---------------------------------------------


--
Taha.

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
WereSpielChequers | 25 Jun 2012 10:29
Picon

Re: Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

Hi Kerry,

There have been several nationalistic and or religious disputes that have involved the same protagonists over numerous articles on that contentious topic. Pretty much any topic that is controversial in real life will be controversial on Wikipedia, with the added possibility that the Internet is a wonderful device for putting people into contact with people from very different cultures and with viewpoints that might not exist in their real life society/culture/country

One good list of things that have been controversial on Wikipedia is the list of general sanctions decreed by ARBCOM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions#General_sanctions

TTFN

WereSpielChequers

On 25 June 2012 08:26, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there are good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d welcome your thoughts.

 

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are well-established.

 

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin and then continue it in Pumpkin).

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

From: wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Taha Yasseri
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 8:15 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

 

Dear Wikipedia researchers!
Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869

I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.

bests
.Taha


Dr. Taha Yasseri.
---------------------------------------------
www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri

Department of Theoretical Physics
Institute of Physics
Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Budafoki út 8.
H-1111 Budapest, Hungary

tel: +36 1 463 4110
fax: +36 1 463 3567
---------------------------------------------


--
Taha.


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Dariusz Jemielniak | 25 Jun 2012 14:18
Picon

Re: Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

hi,

> My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant
> can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the
> existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected
> early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a
> consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are
> well-established.

the simplest approach would be to automatically detect 3R violations
(or 2R, if it made sense).

best,

dj
Taha Yasseri | 25 Jun 2012 14:55
Picon

Re: Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

Dear Kerry,
Thank you for the comment and questions. Actually what comes in the following is not published and completly proven, these are just some preliminary results which are going to be completed soon.

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are well-established.


yes and no. Actually the metric is especially more sensitive to the bigger wars, and assuming that wars are fairly small at the beginning, it makes it a bit difficult to use the metric as a monitoring tool. However, as the fights get a bit serious, the metric grows fast enough and in principle could be used to monitor and detect medium size conflicts. As for prediction (this is also often asked), unfortunately our efforts fail, especially in the case of external-driven-conflicts. For instance when something in real world happens and leads to a burst of aggressive activities, since we are not able to predict that external event, all our predictive modellings fail.

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin and then continue it in Pumpkin).

Actually your suspicion is very much relevant! We started following active warriors. We observed not only same people and same pairs appear in articles topically related, but also they cause conflicts around the same topics in other language Wikipedias! Actually it is difficult to determine that the fighting pairs are more fighting because of their beliefs and opinions or it has become more personal after a while of fighting. But I think the first case is more likely, as we could see the same pairs more in the rather related topics whereas if it is a personal fight it would spread into completely different topics. Now our focus is mainly on users than articles and we are trying to find activity patterns of trouble makers.

thanks again for the questions,
.taha

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Kerry Raymond <kerry.raymond <at> gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for sharing your paper. I found it very interesting that there are good metrics that enable detection of articles with conflict. I have a couple of questions, which might well go beyond your current study but I’d welcome your thoughts.

 

My first question is whether or not you think this metric or some variant can be used to detect current conflict in articles (rather than the existence of past conflict). My thinking is that if conflict can be detected early, it may be possible for the peacemakers to guide the conflict to a consensus rather than attempt to do so once hostilities are well-established.

 

Another question relates to warring editors. If I read it right, you looked for pairs (or groups) of editors that were reverting one another’s changes (i.e. an edit war) in an article. However, is conflict limited to just one article? Is it possible that warring editors on one article may then engage in conflicts over other articles simultaneously or later, either because of the same issue that caused the earlier disagreements or because they had developed a dislike for one another and were ready to find excuses to be unpleasant to each other. That is, are we just looking at articles that are controversial (in some way) or are we also looking at pairs (or groups) of editors who are actively hostile to one another. It might be interesting to know if editors who have been involved in edit wars go on to peacefully co-exist with one another on other articles, go to war with them over other articles, or simply never happen to encounter each other again (WP being a big place). If they do go on to war again, was it because they are both active on articles within similar categories (e.g. sexuality) or because one/both is stalking the other (which you might suspect if they had conflicts across a range of topics, especially where one of them had no prior edit history in that category (e.g. start warring over Ben Franklin and then continue it in Pumpkin).

 

Kerry

 

 

 

 

 

From: wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces <at> lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Taha Yasseri
Sent: Friday, 22 June 2012 8:15 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Dynamics of Conflicts in Wikipedia

 

Dear Wikipedia researchers!
Our manuscript on is now released by PLoS ONE and available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038869

I would delightedly take your comments and remarks.

bests
.Taha


Dr. Taha Yasseri.
---------------------------------------------
www.phy.bme.hu/~yasseri

Department of Theoretical Physics
Institute of Physics
Budapest University of Technology and Economics

Budafoki út 8.
H-1111 Budapest, Hungary

tel: +36 1 463 4110
fax: +36 1 463 3567
---------------------------------------------


--
Taha.


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Taha.
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Tilman Bayer | 26 Jun 2012 22:39
Picon

The Wikimedia Research Newsletter 2(6) is out

The new Wikimedia Research Newsletter is out:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2012-06-25

In this issue:

1 Dynamics of edit wars
2 Who deletes Wikipedia
3 Evaluating and predicting interlingual links in Wikipedia
4 "Wikipedia Academy" preview
5 Special issue of "Digithum" on Wikipedia research
6 Briefly

••• 26 publications were covered in this issue •••
Thanks to Piotr Konieczny, Evan Rosen and Daniel Mietchen for their
contributions

There's more:
* Follow us on https://twitter.com/#!/WikiResearch or
https://identi.ca/wikiresearch
* Receive this newsletter by mail:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/research-newsletter
* Subscribe to the RSS feed:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/c/research-2/wikimedia-research-newsletter/feed/
* Download the full 45-page PDF of Volume 1 (2011) and a dataset of
all references covered in it: http://blog.wikimedia.org/?p=10655

Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli

--

-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Floeck, Fabian (AIFB | 27 Jun 2012 19:05
Favicon

More accurate revert detection in Wikipedia, alternative to MD5 identical revision method

For those of you who are interested in reverts:
I just presented our paper on accurate revert detection at the ACM Hypertext and Social Media conference 2012, showing a significant accuracy (and coverage) gain compared to the widely used method of finding identical revisions (via MD5 hash values) to detect reverts, proving that our method detects edit pairs that are significantly more likely to be actual reverts according to editors perception of a revert and the Wikipedia definition. 35% of the reverts found by the MD5 method in our sample are not assessed to be reverts by more than 80% of our survey participants (accuracy 0%). The provided new method finds different reverts for these 35% plus 12% more, which show a 70% accuracy. 

Find the PDF slides, paper and results here:
I'll be happy to answer any questions.


More in detail:
The MD5 hash method employed by many researchers to identify reverts (as some others, like using edit  comments) is acknowledged to produce some inaccuracies as far as the Wikipedia definition of a revert ("reverses the actions of any editors", "undoing the actions"..) is concerned. The extent of these inaccuracies is usually judged to be not too large, as naturally, most reverting edits are carried out immediately after the edit to be reverted, being an "identity revert" (Wikipedia definition: "..normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously"). Still, there has not been a user evaluation assessing how well the detected reverts conform with the Wikipedia definition and what users actually perceive as a revert. We developed and evaluated an alternative method to the MD5 identity revert and show a significant increase in accuracy (and coverage). 
34% of the reverts detected by the MD5 hash method in our sample actually fail to be acknowledged as full reverts by more than 80% of users in our study, while our new method performs much better, finding different reverts for these 34% wrongly detected reverts plus 12% more reverts, showing an accuracy of 70% for these newly found edit pairs actually being reverts according to the users. The increased accuracy performance between the reverts detected only by the MD5 and only by our new method is highly significant, while reverts detected by both methods also perform significantly better than those only detected by the MD5 method.

Trade-off: 
Although this method is much slower than the MD5 method (as it is using DIFFs between revisions) it reflects much better what users (and the Wikipedia community as a whole) see as a revert. It thereby is a valid alternative if you are interested in the antagonistic relationships between users on a more detailed and accurate level. There is quite some potential to make it even faster by combining the two methods, decreasing the number of DIFFs to be performed, let's see if we can come around doing that :)

The scripts and results listed in the paper can be found at http://people.aifb.kit.edu/ffl/reverts/

Best, 

Fabian


-- 
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description Methods

Dipl.-Medwiss. Fabian Flöck
Research Associate

Building 11.40, Room 222
KIT-Campus South
D-76128 Karlsruhe

Phone: +49 721 608 4 6584
Skype: f.floeck_work
E-Mail: fabian.floeck <at> kit.edu
WWW: http://www.aifb.kit.edu/web/Fabian_Flöck

KIT – University of the State of Baden-Wuerttemberg and
National Research Center of the Helmholtz Association

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l <at> lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Gmane