Wikimedia-l October 2017

115 participants
66 discussions

[Foundation-l] Improving search in Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery
by Brian J Mingus 09 Sep '22

09 Sep '22

This paper (first reference) is the result of a class project I was part of almost two years ago for CSCI 5417 Information Retrieval Systems. It builds on a class project I did in CSCI 5832 Natural Language Processing and which I presented at Wikimania '07. The project was very late as we didn't send the final paper in until the day before new years. This technical report was never really announced that I recall so I thought it would be interesting to look briefly at the results. The goal of this paper was to break articles down into surface features and latent features and then use those to study the rating system being used, predict article quality and rank results in a search engine. We used the [[random forests]] classifier which allowed us to analyze the contribution of each feature to performance by looking directly at the weights that were assigned. While the surface analysis was performed on the whole english wikipedia, the latent analysis was performed on the simple english wikipedia (it is more expensive to compute). = Surface features = * Readability measures are the single best predictor of quality that I have found, as defined by the Wikipedia Editorial Team (WET). The [[Automated Readability Index]], [[Gunning Fog Index]] and [[Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level]] were the strongest predictors, followed by length of article html, number of paragraphs, [[Flesh Reading Ease]], [[Smog Grading]], number of internal links, [[Laesbarhedsindex Readability Formula]], number of words and number of references. Weakly predictive were number of to be's, number of sentences, [[Coleman-Liau Index]], number of templates, PageRank, number of external links, number of relative links. Not predictive (overall - see the end of section 2 for the per-rating score breakdown): Number of h2 or h3's, number of conjunctions, number of images*, average word length, number of h4's, number of prepositions, number of pronouns, number of interlanguage links, average syllables per word, number of nominalizations, article age (based on page id), proportion of questions, average sentence length. :* Number of images was actually by far the single strongest predictor of any class, but only for Featured articles. Because it was so good at picking out featured articles and somewhat good at picking out A and G articles the classifier was confused in so many cases that the overall contribution of this feature to classification performance is zero. :* Number of external links is strongly predictive of Featured articles. :* The B class is highly distinctive. It has a strong "signature," with high predictive value assigned to many features. The Featured class is also very distinctive. F, B and S (Stop/Stub) contain the most information. :* A is the least distinct class, not being very different from F or G. = Latent features = The algorithm used for latent analysis, which is an analysis of the occurence of words in every document with respect to the link structure of the encyclopedia ("concepts"), is [[Latent Dirichlet Allocation]]. This part of the analysis was done by CS PhD student Praful Mangalath. An example of what can be done with the result of this analysis is that you provide a word (a search query) such as "hippie". You can then look at the weight of every article for the word hippie. You can pick the article with the largest weight, and then look at its link network. You can pick out the articles that this article links to and/or which link to this article that are also weighted strongly for the word hippie, while also contributing maximally to this articles "hippieness". We tried this query in our system (LDA), Google (site:en.wikipedia.org hippie), and the Simple English Wikipedia's Lucene search engine. The breakdown of articles occuring in the top ten search results for this word for those engines is: * LDA only: [[Acid rock]], [[Aldeburgh Festival]], [[Anne Murray]], [[Carl Radle]], [[Harry Nilsson]], [[Jack Kerouac]], [[Phil Spector]], [[Plastic Ono Band]], [[Rock and Roll]], [[Salvador Allende]], [[Smothers brothers]], [[Stanley Kubrick]]. * Google only: [[Glam Rock]], [[South Park]]. * Simple only: [[African Americans]], [[Charles Manson]], [[Counterculture]], [[Drug use]], [[Flower Power]], [[Nuclear weapons]], [[Phish]], [[Sexual liberation]], [[Summer of Love]] * LDA & Google & Simple: [[Hippie]], [[Human Be-in]], [[Students for a democratic society]], [[Woodstock festival]] * LDA & Google: [[Psychedelic Pop]] * Google & Simple: [[Lysergic acid diethylamide]], [[Summer of Love]] ( See the paper for the articles produced for the keywords philosophy and economics ) = Discussion / Conclusion = * The results of the latent analysis are totally up to your perception. But what is interesting is that the LDA features predict the WET ratings of quality just as well as the surface level features. Both feature sets (surface and latent) both pull out all almost of the information that the rating system bears. * The rating system devised by the WET is not distinctive. You can best tell the difference between, grouped together, Featured, A and Good articles vs B articles. Featured, A and Good articles are also quite distinctive (Figure 1). Note that in this study we didn't look at Start's and Stubs, but in earlier paper we did. :* This is interesting when compared to this recent entry on the YouTube blog. "Five Stars Dominate Ratings" http://youtube-global.blogspot.com/2009/09/five-stars-dominate-ratings.html… I think a sane, well researched (with actual subjects) rating system is well within the purview of the Usability Initiative. Helping people find and create good content is what Wikipedia is all about. Having a solid rating system allows you to reorganized the user interface, the Wikipedia namespace, and the main namespace around good content and bad content as needed. If you don't have a solid, information bearing rating system you don't know what good content really is (really bad content is easy to spot). :* My Wikimania talk was all about gathering data from people about articles and using that to train machines to automatically pick out good content. You ask people questions along dimensions that make sense to people, and give the machine access to other surface features (such as a statistical measure of readability, or length) and latent features (such as can be derived from document word occurence and encyclopedia link structure). I referenced page 262 of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance to give an example of the kind of qualitative features I would ask people. It really depends on what features end up bearing information, to be tested in "the lab". Each word is an example dimension of quality: We have "*unity, vividness, authority, economy, sensitivity, clarity, emphasis, flow, suspense, brilliance, precision, proportion, depth and so on.*" You then use surface and latent features to predict these values for all articles. You can also say, when a person rates this article as high on the x scale, they also mean that it has has this much of these surface and these latent features. = References = - DeHoust, C., Mangalath, P., Mingus., B. (2008). *Improving search in Wikipedia through quality and concept discovery*. Technical Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/6/68/DeHoustMangalat…> - Rassbach, L., Mingus., B, Blackford, T. (2007). *Exploring the feasibility of automatically rating online article quality*. Technical Report. PDF<http://grey.colorado.edu/mediawiki/sites/mingus/images/d/d3/RassbachPincock…>

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers
by GerardM 09 Aug '22

09 Aug '22

Hoi, I have asked and received permission to forward to you all this most excellent bit of news. The linguist list, is a most excellent resource for people interested in the field of linguistics. As I mentioned some time ago they have had a funding drive and in that funding drive they asked for a certain amount of money in a given amount of days and they would then have a project on Wikipedia to learn what needs doing to get better coverage for the field of linguistics. What you will read in this mail that the total community of linguists are asked to cooperate. I am really thrilled as it will also get us more linguists interested in what we do. My hope is that a fraction will be interested in the languages that they care for and help it become more relevant. As a member of the "language prevention committee", I love to get more knowledgeable people involved in our smaller projects. If it means that we get more requests for more projects we will really feel embarrassed with all the new projects we will have to approve because of the quality of the Incubator content and the quality of the linguistic arguments why we should approve yet another language :) NB Is this not a really clever way of raising money; give us this much in this time frame and we will then do this as a bonus... Thanks, GerardM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: LINGUIST Network <linguist(a)linguistlist.org> Date: Jun 18, 2007 6:53 PM Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers To: LINGUIST(a)listserv.linguistlist.org LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831. Mon Jun 18 2007. ISSN: 1068 - 4875. Subject: 18.1831, All: Call for Participation: Wikipedia Volunteers Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Eastern Michigan U <aristar(a)linguistlist.org> Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry(a)linguistlist.org> Reviews: Laura Welcher, Rosetta Project <reviews(a)linguistlist.org> Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/ The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, and donations from subscribers and publishers. Editor for this issue: Ann Sawyer <sawyer(a)linguistlist.org> ================================================================ To post to LINGUIST, use our convenient web form at http://linguistlist.org/LL/posttolinguist.html ===========================Directory============================== 1) Date: 18-Jun-2007 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers -------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:49:35 From: Hannah Morales < hannah(a)linguistlist.org > Subject: Wikipedia Volunteers Dear subscribers, As you may recall, one of our Fund Drive 2007 campaigns was called the "Wikipedia Update Vote." We asked our viewers to consider earmarking their donations to organize an update project on linguistics entries in the English-language Wikipedia. You can find more background information on this at: http://linguistlist.org/donation/fund-drive2007/wikipedia/index.cfm. The speed with which we met our goal, thanks to the interest and generosity of our readers, was a sure sign that the linguistics community was enthusiastic about the idea. Now that summer is upon us, and some of you may have a bit more leisure time, we are hoping that you will be able to help us get started on the Wikipedia project. The LINGUIST List's role in this project is a purely organizational one. We will: *Help, with your input, to identify major gaps in the Wikipedia materials or pages that need improvement; *Compile a list of linguistics pages that Wikipedia editors have identified as "in need of attention from an expert on the subject" or " does not cite any references or sources," etc; *Send out periodical calls for volunteer contributors on specific topics or articles; *Provide simple instructions on how to upload your entries into Wikipedia; *Keep track of our project Wikipedians; *Keep track of revisions and new entries; *Work with Wikimedia Foundation to publicize the linguistics community's efforts. We hope you are as enthusiastic about this effort as we are. Just to help us all get started looking at Wikipedia more critically, and to easily identify an area needing improvement, we suggest that you take a look at the List of Linguists page at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_linguists. M Many people are not listed there; others need to have more facts and information added. If you would like to participate in this exciting update effort, please respond by sending an email to LINGUIST Editor Hannah Morales at hannah(a)linguistlist.org, suggesting what your role might be or which linguistics entries you feel should be updated or added. Some linguists who saw our campaign on the Internet have already written us with specific suggestions, which we will share with you soon. This update project will take major time and effort on all our parts. The end result will be a much richer internet resource of information on the breadth and depth of the field of linguistics. Our efforts should also stimulate prospective students to consider studying linguistics and to educate a wider public on what we do. Please consider participating. Sincerely, Hannah Morales Editor, Wikipedia Update Project Linguistic Field(s): Not Applicable ----------------------------------------------------------- LINGUIST List: Vol-18-1831

3 2

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Politics
by Bill Takatoshi 25 Apr '20

25 Apr '20

>>> The people who are loudest in their demands for consensus >>> do not represent the Wikimedia movement. >> >> The voices loudest for the WMF doing something against the >> Trump administration are not representative of the Wikimedia >> movement either.... > > Is the Community Process Steering Committee currently > prepared to "engage more 'quiet' members of our community" > with a statistically robust snap survey to resolve this question? Anyone can go to Recent Changes and send a SurveyMonkey link to the most recent few hundred editors with contributions at least a year old, to get an accurate answer. Will a respected member of the community please do this? I would like to know what the actual editing community thinks of the travel ban and their idea of an appropriate response. I don't want to see community governance by opt-in participation in obscure RFCs. I would offer to do this myself, but I value keeping my real name unassociated with my enwiki userid. -Will

4 4

Fresh data on the gender gap in content
by Asaf Bartov 10 Feb '20

10 Feb '20

Hullo everyone. I was asked by a volunteer for help getting stats on the gender gap in content on a certain Wikipedia, and came up with simple Wikidata Query Service[1] queries that pulled the total number of articles on a given Wikipedia about men and about women, to calculate *the proportion of articles about women out of all articles about humans*. Then I was curious about how that wiki compared to other wikis, so I ran the queries on a bunch of languages, and gathered the results into a table, here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Ijon/Content_gap (please see the *caveat* there.) I don't have time to fully write-up everything I find interesting in those results, but I will quickly point out the following: 1. The Nepali statistic is simply astonishing! There must be a story there. I'm keen on learning more about this, if anyone can shed light. 2. Evidently, ~13%-17% seems like a robust average of the proportion of articles about women among all biographies. 3. among the top 10 largest wikis, Japanese is the least imbalanced. Good job, Japanese Wikipedians! I wonder if you have a good sense of what drives this relatively better balance. (my instinctive guess is pop culture coverage.) 4. among the top 10 largest wikis, Russian is the most imbalanced. 5. I intend to re-generate these stats every two months or so, to eventually have some sense of trends and changes. 6. Your efforts, particularly on small-to-medium wikis, can really make a dent in these numbers! For example, it seems I am personally responsible[2] for almost 1% of the coverage of women on Hebrew Wikipedia! :) 7. I encourage you to share these numbers with your communities. Perhaps you'd like to overtake the wiki just above yours? :) 8. I'm happy to add additional languages to the table, by request. Or you can do it yourself, too. :) A. [1] https://query.wikidata.org/ [2] Yay #100wikidays :) https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/100wikidays -- Asaf Bartov Wikimedia Foundation <http://www.wikimediafoundation.org> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality! https://donate.wikimedia.org

12 18

Why We Read Wikipedia in your language
by Leila Zia 06 Feb '19

06 Feb '19

Hi all, ==Background== In November 2016, I presented the result of a joint research that helped us understand English Wikipedia readers better. (Presentation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIaMuWA84bY ). I talked about how we used English, Persian, and Spanish Wikipedia readers' inputs to build a taxonomy of Wikipedia use-cases along several dimensions, capturing users’ motivations to visit Wikipedia, the depth of knowledge they are seeking, and their knowledge of the topic of interest prior to visiting Wikipedia. I also talked about the results of the study we did to quantify the prevalence of these use-cases via a large-scale user survey conducted on English Wikipedia. In that study, we also matched survey responses to the respondents’ digital traces in Wikipedia’s server logs which enabled us in discovering behavioral patterns associated with specific use-cases. You can read the full study at https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.05379 . ==What do we want to do now?== There are quite a few directions this research can continue on, and the most immediate one is to understand whether the results that we observe (in English Wikipeida) is robust across languages/cultures. For this, we are going to repeat the study, but this time in more languages. Here are the languages on our list: Arabic, Dutch, English, Hindi, Japanese, Spanish (thanks to all the volunteers who have been helping us translating all survey related documents to these languages.:) ==What about your language?== If your language is not one of the six languages above and you'd like to learn about the readers of Wikipedia in it (in the specific ways described above), please get back to me by Monday, April 24, AoE. I cannot guarantee that we can run the study in your language, however, I guarantee that we will give it a good try if you're interested. The decision to include more languages will depend on: our capacity to do the analysis, the speed at which your community can help us translate the material to the language, the traffic to that language, a couple of sentences on how you'd think the result can help your community, and your willingness to help us document the results for your language at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Characterizing_Wikipedia_Reader_Be… (Quite some work will need to go to have readable/usable documentations available and we are too small to be able to guarantee that on our own for many languages.) Best, Leila -- Leila Zia Senior Research Scientist Wikimedia Foundation

7 17

Odisha Government's Social media accounts are now under CC-BY 4.0
by Sailesh Patnaik 12 May '18

12 May '18

Hello Everyone, I am glad to share a recent collaboration of Odia Wikipedia community with the Government of Odisha. After releasing the content of 2017 Asian Athletics Championships ( https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/28/digest-asia-athletics-championships/ ) another initiative by the Government of Odisha to bridge the dearth of Information about Odisha on Wikipedia by releasing its social media accounts under CC-BY 4.0. Earlier this week, the community members met the Government officials regarding this, and after understanding the value of Open Content, it took only 24hrs to release the social media channels under CC-BY 4.0 license. As a pilot project, 8 social media accounts from Government of Odisha are under CC-BY 4.0,Now, the content is free for everyone to use, share, and build upon their work. https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/09/18/odisha-social-media-free-license/ The community is also planning to take the collaboration further and relicense some of the websites under CC-BY 4.0. -- ----------- *Sailesh Patnaik* "*ଶୈଳେଶ ପଟ୍ଟନାୟକ "* Community Advocate, Access To Knowledge Program Centre for Internet and Society Phone: +91-7537097770 *LinkedIn* : https://www.linkedin.com/in/sailesh-patnaik-551a10b4 *Twitter*: @saileshpat

12 18

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?
by Adele Vrana 20 Mar '18

20 Mar '18

Hello, I am Adele Vrana, Director of Strategic Partnerships at the Foundation. We have contacts at Amazon and will seek to clarify the questions raised on this thread. I will make sure to circle back with you once we have an update. All the best, Adele On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Simon Poole <simon(a)poole.ch> wrote: > > > Am 27.07.2017 um 18:37 schrieb Andreas Kolbe: > > > > Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden ... > > > > I will not spend an hour trying to identify the exact article version > that > > matches Alexa's output in that video best, but it's safe to assume that > > this inserted "Ed", too, came from Wikipedia, even though it had gone by > > the time the video was uploaded to YouTube. > > The current (full) answer is > > 'Edward Joseph "Ed" Snowden, the American computer professional former > CIA employee, and government contractor who leaked classified > information from the U.S. National Security Agency in 2013.' > > Now obviously there could be -lots- going on behind the scenes, for > example long term caching of search results (difficult to believe that > Bing would allow that if it is really from them, but who knows) and so on. > > Simon > > > _______________________________________________ > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- *Adele Vrana* *Strategic Partnerships - Global Reach* Wikimedia Foundation +1 (415) 839-6885 ext. 6773 avrana(a)wikimedia.org *Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. Donate. <https://donate.wikimedia.org/>*

6 7

RFC on wikimedia-l posting limits
by John Mark Vandenberg 18 Feb '18

18 Feb '18

Hi list members, The list admins (hereafter 'we', being Austin, Asaf, Shani and I, your humble narrator) regularly receive complaints about the frequent posters on this list, as well as about the unpleasant atmosphere some posters (some of them frequent) create. It is natural that frequent posters will say specific things that more frequently annoy other list members, but often the complaints are due to the volume of messages rather than the content of the messages. We are floating some suggestions aimed specifically at reducing the volume, hopefully motivating frequent posters to self-moderate more, but these proposed limits are actually intending to increasing the quality of the discourse without heavy subjective moderation. The first proposal impacts all posters to this list, and the last three proposals are aimed at providing a more clear framework within which criticism and whistle-blowing are permitted, but that critics are prevented from drowning out other discussions. The bandwidth that will be given to critics should be established in advance, reducing need to use subjective moderation of the content when a limit to the volume will often achieve the same result. -- Proposal #1: Monthly 'soft quota' reduced from 30 to 15 The existing soft quota of 30 posts per person has practically never been exceeded in the past year, and yet many list subscribers still clearly feel that a few individuals overwhelm the list. This suggests the current quota is too high. A review of the stats at https://stats.wikimedia.org/mail-lists/wikimedia-l.html show very few people go over 15 in a month, and quite often the reason for people exceeding 15 per month is because they are replying to other list members who have already exceeded 15 per month, and sometimes they are repeatedly directly or indirectly asking the person to stop repeating themselves to allow some space for other list members also have their opinion heard. -- Proposal #2: Posts by globally banned people not permitted As WMF-banned people are already banned from mailing lists, this proposal is to apply the same ‘global’ approach to any people who have been globally banned by the community according to the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans policy. This proposal does not prevent proxying, or canvassing, or “meat puppetry” as defined by English Wikipedia policy. The list admins would prefer that globally banned people communicate their grievances via established members of our community who can guide them, rather than the list admins initially guiding these globally banned people on how to revise their posts so they are suitable for this audience, and then required to block them when they do not follow advice. The role of list moderators is clearer and simpler if we are only patrolling the boundaries and not repeatedly personally engaged with helping globally banned users. -- Proposal #3: Identity of an account locked / blocked / banned by two Wikimedia communities limited to five (5) posts per month This proposal is intended to strike a balance between openness and quality of discourse. Banned people occasionally use the wikimedia-l mailing list as a substitute of the meta Request for comment system, and banned people also occasionally provide constructive criticisms and thought provoking views. This proposal hopes to allow that to continue. However people who have been banned on a few projects also use this list as their “last stand”, having already exhausted the community patience on the wikis. Sometimes the last stand is brief, but occasionally a banned person is able to maintain sufficient decorum that they are not moderated or banned from the list, and mailing list readers need to suffer month after month of the banned person dominating the mailing lists with time that they would previously have spent editing on the wikis. -- Proposal #4: Undisclosed alternative identities limited to five (5) posts per month Posting using fake identities allows people to shield their real life *and* their Wikimedia editing 'account' from the repercussions of their actions. This provision to allow fake identities on wikimedia-l is necessary for whistle-blowing, and this mailing list has been used for that purpose at important junctures in the history of the Wikimedia movement. However it is more frequently abused, especially by some ‘critics’ who have used incessant hyperbole and snark and baiting to generally cause stress to many readers. Sometimes this is also accompanied with many list posts on various unrelated threads as the ‘critic’ believes their criticism is so important that all other discussions about Wikimedia should be diverted until their problem has been resolved to their satisfaction, which is unlikely anyway. Note this explicitly does not include anyone posting using their real world identity, whether or not they have a Wikimedia account. Where a poster does not clearly link to either Wikimedia account, or does not appear to be using a real identity, and only after it is exceeding the five post limit, the list admins will privately ask the poster to either verify their identity or stop posting until the end of the month. Very frequently a whistle-blower is able and even prefers to be documenting the problem on meta, but needs the high profile of this list to spark the discussion and draw attention to their meta page. --- The five post allowance for proposals 3 and 4 are to ensure that anyone who has not been globally banned can post criticisms without repercussions, which is vital for whistleblowing and transparency generally, but they need to use their five posts per month wisely. Once they have used their five posts, community members can reply with less concern about being drawn into a direct argument with the poster. It aims to force the poster to listen to others in the community once their limit of five posts has been reached. If there is support for these proposals, the list admins would not immediately add moderation or bans, but would implement them as needed, when we notice someone has exceeded one of these limits, and we would make a note on a meta page where the community can review these actions without allowing moderation meta-discussion to dominate the discourse on the mailing list. Refinements to the list moderation limits can then occur organically as we see how these rules plays out in practise. The RFC is at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/wikimedia-l-post-limits However please also feel welcome to reply on-list if you wish to express explicit support or opposition to any of the four proposals above (please identify them by number, to ease counting). We will count votes (here and on the meta RFC) after two weeks, and post a more refined final version back to this mailing list. The list administrators will default to *enacting* all four proposals, but will refrain from enacting any proposal receiving more opposition than support. -- John Vandenberg

26 47

Windows 10 lockscreen images
by Andy Mabbett 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Those of you running Windows 10 will be familiar with the regularly-changing "lockscreen" images showing things like beautiful scenery and scenes from nature: https://www.tekrevue.com/tip/find-windows-spotlight-lock-screen-images-wind… The last one I just saw was labelled "copyright [photographer name] and Shutterstock" Is there someone at WMF, with contacts at Microsoft, who could persuade them to use some featured images from Commons, with a small piece of text explaining that people may upload their own images? That would seem to be a simple way to do a massive piece of outreach, to a new audience. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

8 8

30 Jan '18

I've been a bit out of the loop on this for a while, so please be kind to the oldbie - what's current Wikimedia policy on adaptive reuse of Wikipedia content into non-free publications? E.g. Graphiq https://www.graphiq.com/terms-and-conditions http://colleges.startclass.com/l/1929/Harvard-University and Google https://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/ https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+university I recognize that Google gives Wikimedia a lot of money, even if the foundation isn't very transparent about that, but I'd think that doesn't free the company from following CC BY-SA.

8 12

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l October 2017