A simple question on languages.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

A simple question on languages.

Gregory Maxwell
What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
people?


Note that I'm asking 'effectively communicate' not 'communicate in a
language historically spoken by the ancestors of each person' or other
interpretations.  Well understood and comfortably used second and
third languages are acceptable.

I think I vaguely know an answer to this, but I'd like a good citation
so that I will not be called a bigot by the sort of people who think
we must support 25,000 'languages' in order to support the world.

Ideally I'd like to know the number of people reached as a function of
supporting the N top languages.

This seems like a simple and important question which others should
have asked and answered definitively long ago, yet I can't seem to
find a good reference. It also seems to me to be the sort of question
which should play an important role in the foundation's long term
resource allocations.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Andrew Whitworth-2
On Jan 23, 2008 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
> people?

Just on a note of clarification, are we talking about the effective
communication of our websites? That is, do we exclude from this people
who don't have computer access? Also, since we are a print medium, do
we exclude people who do not have a written form of language (ignoring
transliterations which are used academically, but are not used to
communicate between speakers of that language)?

I'm pretty sure I know the answers to some of these questions, but I
want to make sure.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Hoi,
It is an irrelevant question. Research has shown that kids that learn to
write in their mother tongue first will do better academically. As our aim
is to provide educational content, it makes a difference to be aware of
this. When people apply to start a project in a language new to the WMF, it
is accepted under certain criteria. The criteria do not consider that there
is a finite number of languages that we support. Otherwise we might have had
to prevent new projects in the past because they would not fit in your
minimum number of languages. I am afraid that the aim of your question is to
maximise the number of languages that the WMF supports.

So I disagree where you say that it is an important question I would even
suggest that the languages that do not have a big reach do not cost us much
but have an inverse value to their cost. You may find that as a resource
they are of an extreme value. In my opinion good information in more
languages makes what we do more valuable not less valuable.
Thanks.
     GerardM

On Jan 23, 2008 5:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
> people?
>
>
> Note that I'm asking 'effectively communicate' not 'communicate in a
> language historically spoken by the ancestors of each person' or other
> interpretations.  Well understood and comfortably used second and
> third languages are acceptable.
>
> I think I vaguely know an answer to this, but I'd like a good citation
> so that I will not be called a bigot by the sort of people who think
> we must support 25,000 'languages' in order to support the world.
>
> Ideally I'd like to know the number of people reached as a function of
> supporting the N top languages.
>
> This seems like a simple and important question which others should
> have asked and answered definitively long ago, yet I can't seem to
> find a good reference. It also seems to me to be the sort of question
> which should play an important role in the foundation's long term
> resource allocations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

daniwo59
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
 
In a message dated 1/23/2008 11:08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
[hidden email] writes:

What is  the minimum number of languages must you write in to
effectively  communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's  literate
people?





Well, the first thing to do would be to count the number of monolinguals,  
not necessarily the number of languages spoken. For instance, in the US, Canada,
 Australia, there are a lot of tiny indigenous languages, but most of the  
speakers communicate effectively in other languages, for better or for worse.
 
Danny



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.    
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 23/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> It is an irrelevant question. Research has shown that kids that learn to
> write in their mother tongue first will do better academically.


The question was "Note that I'm asking 'effectively communicate'" -
effectively, not requiring the communication to be ideal. (e.g. en:wp
is effective as an encyclopedia for quite a large international
readership who don't have English as a first language, as is seen by
the large amount of editing from such countries and people.) You
appear to be answering the question as if it said "ideally".


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Andrew Whitworth-2
On Jan 23, 2008 11:14 AM, Andrew Whitworth <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 11:08 AM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> > effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
> > people?
>
> Just on a note of clarification, are we talking about the effective
> communication of our websites? That is, do we exclude from this people
> who don't have computer access? Also, since we are a print medium, do
> we exclude people who do not have a written form of language (ignoring
> transliterations which are used academically, but are not used to
> communicate between speakers of that language)?
>
> I'm pretty sure I know the answers to some of these questions, but I
> want to make sure.

I was looking for more generally than our website, but specifically
enough to match written communication (literate people).

I think it would be reasonable to classify a person who can
comfortably communicat *only* in languages without a written form as
illiterate and, in any case, I suspect that the total number of such
people fall below the rather arbitrary five-nines threshold that I
provided.

If we include computer access, then I expect that doing so would
exclude so many people that it would dwarf the numbers excluded due to
the inability to use some language(s).  Though the numbers may still
be interesting.    Even excluding illiterate people excludes  a much
larger number that I would expect would be excluded by not also
offering the least popular languages.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is an irrelevant question.

To you it is, to people who have limited resources to allocate and
need to consider how to best help the world it is a relevant question.

> Research has shown that kids that learn to
> write in their mother tongue first will do better academically.

I've seen a lot of people with a very simplistic notion of "mother
tongue". If you are raised simultaneously speaking multiple languages,
what, exactly, is your mother tongue?

[snip]
> The criteria do not consider that there
> is a finite number of languages that we support. Otherwise we might have had
> to prevent new projects in the past because they would not fit in your
> minimum number of languages.
[snip]

Knowing a minimum does not mandate excluding beyond that.

There is virtually no cost in putting up yet another unused, spammed,
and abandoned Wiki.  But there is also very little value.

> I would even
> suggest that the languages that do not have a big reach do not cost us much
> but have an inverse value to their cost.

A Wikipedia with 10 or 100 articles has very little cost, but does it
provide any value beyond the personal enjoyment of the people writing
it?  That value is probably enough, but lets be careful not to
overstate it.

> In my opinion good information in more
> languages makes what we do more valuable not less valuable.

.. but setting up a Wikis by itself does not create good information.
Creating good information has a cost someone will have to pay.

There are more kinds of resources that need to be allocated than
simply turning on Wikis, which is why understanding the payoff is
important.

For example, on a multi-lingual project like Commons it might be a
reasonable requirement that all policies, featured image descriptions,
etc be translated into the top N languages at a minimum.  Requiring
translations into hundreds of languages would be a impressive waste of
resources. By knowing the tradeoffs we can make better decisions.


I find it both informative and amusing that the people so frequently
involved in language advocacy avoid this kind of hard information
which would enable people who do not have linguistics and language
advocacy as their primary interest to understand the material impacts
of language coverage.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Andrew Whitworth-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is an irrelevant question. Research has shown that kids that learn to
> write in their mother tongue first will do better academically. As our aim
> is to provide educational content, it makes a difference to be aware of
> this.

If academic performance is your only metric then the number of
necessary Wikipedias would be far smaller then the number of necessary
Wikibooks or Wikiversity projects, since Wikipedia is not intended to
be educational. It certainly is an informative resource, but academic
performance is going to be based more on information presentation then
it is on information quantity or mere availability.

Beyond that, it ignores the fact that many small languages simply do
not have written forms to learn.

> So I disagree where you say that it is an important question I would even
> suggest that the languages that do not have a big reach do not cost us much
> but have an inverse value to their cost.

I would disagree with this suggestion, but i don't think it's
important either way. We have a goal of bringing free information to
people, but not necessarily ensuring that the information is presented
ideally. We can provide information to the near-entirety of the
world's population using a small fraction of all the world's
languages. If some people have to access information using a language
in which they are fluent but are not native, then that's a concession
that must be accepted. Attempting to support all languages of the
world is an exercise in both futility and arrogance.

--Andrew Whitworth

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
> people?

That's a difficult question to answer, since you need to know not just
how many people speak each language, but also how many people speak
various combinations of languages so you don't count people multiple
times. I'm pretty sure it's beyond our ability to work out even a
rough estimate based on general statistics - we need to find someone
that's actually tried to answer that precise question and taken years
working it all out.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
Hoi,
I do say that I am involved in language advocacy. I do put my money where my
mouth is. I am actively involved in promoting the localisation for
MediaWiki. The requirements for localisation have been strengthened to the
extend that some call the language committee, the "language prevention
committee". Localisation is not simple, it takes sustained effort and I am
happy to say that many people are willing to make MediaWiki this great tool
for content in so many languages.

The localisation effort is wasted on Americans because they get everything
by default anyway. There are some who appreciate the idea. I am fine with
you calling localisation an impressive waste of effort but I am happy that
there are other people who have a totally different opinion. It is those
people it is done for.

For some of the less or least languages we have a project for, they
represent a large part of the contemporary corpus for that language on the
Internet. They are created by people that belong to the language community
and consequently it is even of a scientific value.
Thanks,
    GerardM

On Jan 23, 2008 5:57 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > It is an irrelevant question.
>
> To you it is, to people who have limited resources to allocate and
> need to consider how to best help the world it is a relevant question.
>
> > Research has shown that kids that learn to
> > write in their mother tongue first will do better academically.
>
> I've seen a lot of people with a very simplistic notion of "mother
> tongue". If you are raised simultaneously speaking multiple languages,
> what, exactly, is your mother tongue?
>
> [snip]
> > The criteria do not consider that there
> > is a finite number of languages that we support. Otherwise we might have
> had
> > to prevent new projects in the past because they would not fit in your
> > minimum number of languages.
> [snip]
>
> Knowing a minimum does not mandate excluding beyond that.
>
> There is virtually no cost in putting up yet another unused, spammed,
> and abandoned Wiki.  But there is also very little value.
>
> > I would even
> > suggest that the languages that do not have a big reach do not cost us
> much
> > but have an inverse value to their cost.
>
> A Wikipedia with 10 or 100 articles has very little cost, but does it
> provide any value beyond the personal enjoyment of the people writing
> it?  That value is probably enough, but lets be careful not to
> overstate it.
>
> > In my opinion good information in more
> > languages makes what we do more valuable not less valuable.
>
> .. but setting up a Wikis by itself does not create good information.
> Creating good information has a cost someone will have to pay.
>
> There are more kinds of resources that need to be allocated than
> simply turning on Wikis, which is why understanding the payoff is
> important.
>
> For example, on a multi-lingual project like Commons it might be a
> reasonable requirement that all policies, featured image descriptions,
> etc be translated into the top N languages at a minimum.  Requiring
> translations into hundreds of languages would be a impressive waste of
> resources. By knowing the tradeoffs we can make better decisions.
>
>
> I find it both informative and amusing that the people so frequently
> involved in language advocacy avoid this kind of hard information
> which would enable people who do not have linguistics and language
> advocacy as their primary interest to understand the material impacts
> of language coverage.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

John Reaves
In reply to this post by daniwo59
On Jan 23, 2008 11:25 AM, <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> In a message dated 1/23/2008 11:08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [hidden email] writes:
>
> What is  the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> effectively  communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's  literate
> people?
>
>
>
>
>
> Well, the first thing to do would be to count the number of monolinguals,
> not necessarily the number of languages spoken. For instance, in the US,
> Canada,
>  Australia, there are a lot of tiny indigenous languages, but most of the
> speakers communicate effectively in other languages, for better or for
> worse.
>
> Danny
>
>
>
>
Yes, in term of language preservation, this kind of language shift can be
fairly detrimental.  We should incorporate other languages as best we can
(staying within reason of course).

--John Reaves
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

geni
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On 23/01/2008, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:
> What is the minimum number of languages must you write in to
> effectively communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's literate
> people?
>

99.999 % would probably be around 200. "Literate" is the killer here.
Most mass literacy programs are generally run by governments who tend
to standardize on a very small number of languages (well outside india
which has 22). So you could make a reasonable start by looking at the
number of official languages.

 99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.
--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gordon Joly
In reply to this post by daniwo59
At 13:04 -0500 23/1/08, [hidden email] wrote:
>
>In a message dated 1/23/2008 11:08:56 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>[hidden email] writes:
>
>What is  the minimum number of languages must you write in to
>effectively  communicate with 99.9999% of all the world's  literate
>people?
>


And numerate? You have six significant figures here.

>
>
>Well, the first thing to do would be to count the number of monolinguals,
>not necessarily the number of languages spoken. For instance, in the
>US, Canada,
>  Australia, there are a lot of tiny indigenous languages, but most of the
>speakers communicate effectively in other languages, for better or for worse.
>
>Danny
>

Written Chinese, English and Spanish does it for me...

Gordo

--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
[hidden email]///

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by geni
>  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.

If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
one language would require us to cater for their language.

If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
The issue is that we do not have to do anything. It is the people themselves
who do something. The best that we can do is provide a platform. The only
thing that we have to do is ensure that our platform can cope. It is a
theoretical question that has no merit unless you want this question
answered to prevent people from working on their language.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On Jan 23, 2008 7:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> >  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an
> impact.
>
> If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
> 6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
> one language would require us to cater for their language.
>
> If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
> suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

geni
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On 23/01/2008, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.
>
> If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
> 6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
> one language would require us to cater for their language.
>
> If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
> suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.
>

world population=6,600,000,000. literacy rate is about 82% so that is
5,400,000,000

5,400,000,000*0.0001 comes out at a bit over half a million.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Gregory Maxwell
In reply to this post by Thomas Dalton
On Jan 23, 2008 1:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.
>
> If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
> 6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
> one language would require us to cater for their language.
>
> If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
> suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.

I did mean five 9s, yes... it's just a little too easy to keep
pounding the key. ;)

But the threshold was arbitrary... I'd picked a number to represent
the notion of "an overwhelmingly vast majority".

If you could answer the question for another largish percentage it
would still be interesting.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Thomas Dalton
In reply to this post by geni
On 23/01/2008, geni <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/01/2008, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.
> >
> > If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
> > 6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
> > one language would require us to cater for their language.
> >
> > If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
> > suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.
> >
>
> world population=6,600,000,000. literacy rate is about 82% so that is
> 5,400,000,000
>
> 5,400,000,000*0.0001 comes out at a bit over half a million.

Where did 0.0001 come from? That's 0.01%, which is what's left from
99.9% - did you forget to convert from percent to decimal?

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Jan 23, 2008 9:03 PM, Gregory Maxwell <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Jan 23, 2008 1:41 PM, Thomas Dalton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >  99.9999% is harder since groups of say 10K are going to have more of an impact.
> >
> > If my maths is right, 99.9999% of the world's populations leaves about
> > 6,500 people that we can not cater to - a group of 10K that only speak
> > one language would require us to cater for their language.
> >
> > If Greg actually meant 99.999%, which his later email would
> > suggestion, then it's 65,000, which is slightly more doable.
>
> I did mean five 9s, yes... it's just a little too easy to keep
> pounding the key. ;)
>
> But the threshold was arbitrary... I'd picked a number to represent
> the notion of "an overwhelmingly vast majority".

Sorry, but lol-whut?

An overwhelming vast majority of *what* ?

I have resisted answering your original e-mail, in the mistaken
belief people would be very swift in reality-checking it. Too bad
that wasn't the case in fact.

There is a good case to be made, and it has been made, that
no nations in Europe survive as nation-states today, whose
"language" (scare quotes there quite deliberate, really) had
not had the bible translated to its language by 1700 or thereabouts...

I would really discourage you from using loaded terms like
"overwhelmingly vast majority" after having defined the
criteria for inclusion of consideration as tight as a gnats ass.

You can say that an "overwhelmingly vast majority" of [define terms
stringently and casuistically] are this or that, but if you define your
terms very exclusively, then words like "overwhelming" are not
yours to deploy, seriously. Nor words like "vast".

With seriously strained respect;

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: A simple question on languages.

Nikola Smolenski
In reply to this post by Gregory Maxwell
On Wednesday 23 January 2008 17:57, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2008 11:20 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Research has shown that kids that learn to
> > write in their mother tongue first will do better academically.
>
> I've seen a lot of people with a very simplistic notion of "mother
> tongue". If you are raised simultaneously speaking multiple languages,
> what, exactly, is your mother tongue?

Each of them.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123