Felipe Ortega, 25/07/2009 18:06:
> * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
> needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
But I often see that even an old, quiescent page is completely
re-written or significantly improved by an "expert
> Just curious...where in WP do you think POV and specialist works
> could fit?
Well,
1) POV (best of them being articulated properly) are the only
possible ingredients (raw materials) for NPOV producing. Are you able
to create NPOV from scratch (from nothing)?
2) Specialists will (and they real
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> When I first encountered you you showed a great capacity to be a pain in
> the ass. You shared that ability with a few others who were already
> well passed their teen years. Your tenacity through all this has been
> commendable, and your continuing presence has had a me
> The company I work for employs a large number of people with with
> Doctorates in mathematics and quantum mechanics. Most are opinionated
> and argumentative but do not read wikipedia in areas that they have
> expertise in. The last discussion I had with one of them over a
> wikipedia article wen
I'm glad it was enjoyable for you also :-)
skype: node.ue
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:44 AM, John at Darkstar wrote:
> The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
> Keep up the good work to both of you!
> John =D
>
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you tha
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:45 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
>>
>> Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
>> younger users away from the project.
>>
>> All in all, I feel that we should ba
The most enjoyable dialogue this morning.
Keep up the good work to both of you!
John =D
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
> very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
> makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were no
Hoi,
When the Wikimedia Foundation is to be the centre of a movement, then it has
challenges as an enabler. The first most obvious thing to do is make it
visible. This means that we do not only reach out to people but also to
organisations. When GLAM (gallereies, libraries, archives and museums) ar
Sorry for double-posting but I felt that it was really important to
add something.
This is a great example of why it is important to keep younger editors
around. Promising intelligent young people who are comfortable with
and frequent users of Wikipedia now could be leading scientists,
artists, an
Ray, I appreciate your honesty. I'll agree with you that I was not a
very pleasant presence on the ML. Reading archives from, say, 2005
makes me cringe. I'm glad that people were not as heavy-handed as they
could (should?) have been in dealing with me at the time. I learned a
great deal about peopl
Samuel Klein wrote:
> I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how
> they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and
> visualizations of this sort of knowledge.
>
I vaguely remember some long-ago comments from Jimbo where he foresaw WP
as including
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>
>> On wikimedia, young people learn how to properly reference an article,
>> which will help them as they progress in their education.
>>
> Originally Wikipedia was about People, who could already write academic
> papers and did not need
Mark Williamson wrote:
> This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
>
> Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
> younger users away from the project.
>
> All in all, I feel that we should basically treat all users the same,
> regardless of age. If a 15
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>
>> Who are our actual users?
>>
> This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
> academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
> or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
I mean basic educational information about how things work, and how
they relate to one another; data and facts; and maps, statistics, and
visualizations of this sort of knowledge.
You cannot copyright ideas, nor should one copyright the simplest
expression of them. The merger doctrine specifies a
Noted, and added to strategic planning page :)
On Jul 29, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> As specific examples:
>
> It would be great if every publisher of any sort that does basic data
> mining and research into primary sources were to share that work
> directly on WP and sister project
> licenses -- data, overviews, and reference-style knowledge should all
Would you please explain what do you mean as "reference-style knowledge"?
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 2:21 AM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> When I say "world of WP" I mean "world post-WP" -- the world we live
> in, in which certain bus
As specific examples:
It would be great if every publisher of any sort that does basic data
mining and research into primary sources were to share that work
directly on WP and sister projects. Publishers using free media and
spending time and effort vetting their licenses should update the
licen
When I say "world of WP" I mean "world post-WP" -- the world we live
in, in which certain businesses are failing now that basic reliable
information and data are available freely...
It would be healthy to see compatibly-licensed projects that use
different sets of core principles; not just wikinfo
> - experienced professional reference-work writers (and we should help them
> find ways to sustain themselves, particularly in niche markets -- one way is
> by distributing the underlying work needed to find and organize data).
> there is room in the world-of-WP for effective, sustainable POV an
Lars makes excellent points here.
We need to include in our community
- experienced professional reference-work writers (and we should help them
find ways to sustain themselves, particularly in niche markets -- one way is
by distributing the underlying work needed to find and organize data).
the
This is precisely one of the problems that is holding us back.
Individual prejudices against younger individuals may have scared
younger users away from the project.
When I started at Wikipedia, I noticed several approaches from users:
- Some were initially unaware of my age and were surprised t
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> John Vandenberg wrote:
>> Young people have the most to gain from participating, because the
>> skills that they acquire on wikimedia will stay with them, helping
>> them in their many years to come.
>
> And what does Wikipedia get from those young people? We don't ha
Milos Rancic wrote:
> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
> started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
> that (Strategy plan).
"Long term" planning for the Foundation is not planning with
contributors who will write on Wikipedia for several d
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
> Schlottmann wrote:
>> And if there are kids with knowledge and understanding
>> on these or other topics, they will be fascinated by Wikipedia and find
>> the project on their own. We don't need to recruit these prodigy childs.
>
on 7/27/09 8:32 AM, Dennis During at dcdur...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
>
> To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
> the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
> turn relates to the value system
It is not entirely a matter of recruitment.
To me the problem appears in the form of how welcoming the projects are to
the different types of contributors and types of contributions. That, in
turn relates to the value system and cognitive and social biases of those
who control the projects.
As we
Bleh.
When did this become an either-or proposition?
You go recruit retired professionals. I'll go recruit young people.
Someone else can recruit soccer moms, and yet another person can go
after teachers. Everybody wins.
The only way to lose is if either:
A) You believe one of these groups sh
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> geni wrote:
>
>> English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
>> still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
>> different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
>> reasonable i
Do you have statistics to prove that they are "few", or that they will
find Wikipedia on their own and we don't need to recruit them?
Mark
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:22 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
>> Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in Augus
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>
> We need to recruit people who are willing to contribute for a few winter
> months. And maybe - just maybe - continue in spring or return next year
> again. Wikipedia was always intended for drive-by editing: Readers, who
> correct a fact, add so
2009/7/26 Henning Schlottmann :
> geni wrote:
>
>> English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
>> still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
>> different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
>> reasonable inclusion standards. De does
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
>> started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
>> that (Strategy plan).
>
> Am I right understanding your words following way:
> This thread was start
> The whole thread is about long-term sustainability. At least, I
> started it with this intention, mentioning that WMF started to work on
> that (Strategy plan).
Am I right understanding your words following way:
This thread was started as PR action for WMF Strategy plan?
:-P
On Sun, Jul 26, 20
Дана Sunday 26 July 2009 07:22:06 Henning Schlottmann написа:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> > Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
> > and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
> > languages since I was about 15.
>
> Great. And I never deni
xes, more friendly, etc.).
>
> So, all this makes *a lot of sense* in the current situation. Not because
> of quantity, but to improve *quality*.
>
> Best,
> Felipe.
>
>
> --- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
>
> > De: Milos Rancic
> > Asunto: Re:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:39 AM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> It is delusional to look three, five, ten years into the future.
> Wikipedia is and always will be done ad-hoc. It is fine to plan ahead
> half a year or a year, but that's it. I will not even spend time to
> think about who will write W
Mark Williamson wrote:
> Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
> and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
> languages since I was about 15.
Great. And I never denied that prodigy kids exist, but they are few -
just think of how many of
Milos Rancic wrote:
> * Also, statistically, old people are dying more often than young
> people. Fortunately our generations (20+, 30+ and 40+) will become
> retired academicians or so one day in the future and then we'll have a
> very nice expansion in the number of highly qualified contributors.
Milos Rancic wrote:
> Now, we are starting with the implementation of the Scenario 1: we
> want to attract more retired academicians and we don't care for
> younger and we are very successful in that implementation. So, during
> the next year we are getting 500 more contributors in the ages groups
erecting walls to
stop new things/users.
From: John at Darkstar
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:49:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of la
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 7:35 AM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> Don't you think it is delusional hubris to plan with editors, who stay
> in the project from 15 to retiring age? For pretty much everyone
> Wikipedia is of passing interest. The phase can be 30 days, 100 days,
> two or three years. But v
geni wrote:
> English wikipedia has 2.9 million articles and far more words and can
> still have things added to it by teenagers. And it's not just
> different inclusion standards. For example [[Langstone]] meets any
> reasonable inclusion standards. De does not have an article.
> [[Ordnance Surve
People and/or folks :)
Would you (several of you, starting from Milos) please, OH
please stop playing with me in 'Straw man'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) game!!!
> But still there is no really reason to think think we don't have
> plenty youngsters able to write science and techno
2009/7/25 Pavlo Shevelo :
> Stewardship is (I'm simplifying) top level of adminship (sysopship).
> So if we have 16 year old addmin (sysop) so it 's not big surprise to
> see 19-year old steward.
>
> ... but what about articles on nuclear phisics or same
> scientific/technology topic written by 19
Oh, Milos...
We were talking about articles on nuclear physics, aren't we?
... and you suddenly switched to stewardship. Why?
With all due respect to the institution of stewardship (and each of
our Stewards personally ;) ) what's the big deal with that in context
of what we were talking before yo
Mark,
I appreciate your input to this discussion as well as I believe you
regarding your contribution to en:WP.
Both of us (you and me) know that there are "bright" young people
(geeks etc.) and ... not so bright. Besides I'm willing not to be
snobbish geek and I trust that people (whatever thei
Do you have data to back this up? For the record, I'll be 20 in August
and the main areas I edited were pages about cultures, countries, and
languages since I was about 15.
There are lots of intelligent young people scattered across the globe,
I don't know how much they are able to contribute to d
2009/7/25 David Gerard :
> 2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega :
>
>> * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
>> needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
>
>
> Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level -
> but a rising q
2009/7/25 Felipe Ortega :
> * The main proportion of Featured Articles in all top-ten language versions
> needed, at least, more than 1,000 days (3 years) to reach that level.
Note that FA numbers on en:wp don't indicate a given quailty level -
but a rising quality level. That is, the quality s
Best,
Felipe.
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
> De: Milos Rancic
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> So, to give the answer about quantity vs. quality: We need
> quantity to
> have sustainable community development or even just a
> sustain
2009/7/25 Milos Rancic :
> I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
> with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
> with ~95% of support).
Yes. We must keep in mind that the Wikimedia projects attract some
*ridiculously* smart, clueful and ca
--- El sáb, 25/7/09, John at Darkstar escribió:
> De: John at Darkstar
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: sábado, 25 julio, 2009 3:47
> I asked a source if they may grant us
> access
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I have quite opposite experiences. One of them had become Wikimedian
> with 16-17 and two years later became a steward (by passing elections
> with ~95% of support).
BTW, one of the persons who trolled the project (sr.wp) was economist
who is
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> Let me illustrate by example:
> I started to invest good portion of my time into comforting 11 (!)
> years old boy despite the fact that his usage of "be bold" rule to
> several most popular templates was like hurricane that not each vandal
>
John,
Thanks a lot - you made my Saturday! ;)
> Is it somehow possible to let newcomers write articles together with
> oldtimers until they learn the most basic things?
But why (?) we suggest that it's impossible?
If we will put that as (realized) aim this is very possible - we
should just to em
> Pavlo, just try not to think synchronically. A teenager in her or his
> 17 is probably interested more in music than in nuclear physics, but
> just in two years she or he may be a valuable contributor in that
> scientific field. And I think that it is clever to invest time and
> energy even in 12
Hi Milos,
Thanks a lot for so informative comment.
Sorry but you provided more for my new counterargumentation than
"beat" previous portion :)
Let me start bottomup (I have such habit)
> ... we are at the dead end
Wikipedia community evolve and became different, who said that it's
signs of deat
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> Teenagers (age between 13-20 roughly) are most active in articles
> about entertainment (movies, musical bands, computer games etc.) but
> neither in articles on science & technology nor articles regarding
> museums, literature (but Harry Pot
> Finally, we can not ignore the potential benefits of large scale
> contributions coming from specific communities, specially from
> educational institutions at all levels. The potential applications of
> Wikipedia to learning environments has been also a matter of research,
> and some authors ha
Well, well, well
> ... even if your
> observations are true
Not so bad for the beginning: you can suggest that my observations
might be correct.
By the way, when I wrote "Face the facts!" I meant (and still mean)
observations first of all.
> ... You are cynical, and ...
> your conclusions are wr
Дана Friday 24 July 2009 16:42:06 Pavlo Shevelo написа:
> > Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> > Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
>
> Nothing happened and we (at least talking about me) are only realistic
> in analysis and straight in putting things
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Felipe Ortega wrote:
> You can check more precise figures and graphs in my thesis about general
> statistics for survivability for all logged editors and core editors (the top
> 10% most active editors in each month), from the beginning until Dec. 2007,
> in the
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
>> * ... Older age groups are not interesting
>> anymore in the sense of quantity
>
> Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
>
>> In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that
>> their main recruiting age i
I asked a source if they may grant us access to some statistics on users
behaviour within social media. The time series starts well before Nupedia.
John
Felipe Ortega wrote:
> --- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
>
>> De: Milos Rancic
>> Asunto: Re: [Foundat
> * ... Older age groups are not interesting
> anymore in the sense of quantity
Are we really interested in quantity as that? Are we?
> In other words, whatever we want or prefer, projects which hope that
> their main recruiting age is older than 30 -- are dead projects in the
> long run (i.e., i
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 7:04 AM, geni wrote:
> 2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann :
> > Milos Rancic wrote:
> >> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
> >> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
> >
> > Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> > Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
> > even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
>
> Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> > As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
>
> Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
>
to contribute =/= to write new articles / to add new info
#categorization
#linking
#templating
#bots making
#translating
#etc.
I know many young people who '''can''' clean up Wikipedia very well.
przykuta
___
> Henning Schlottmann wrote:
>
>> Who are our actual users?
>
> This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
> academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
> or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
> on how to treat cancer, but mig
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Who are our actual users?
This is a good question, not only with respect to level (youth or
academic), but also for topics (academic subjects like medicine,
or popular culture). Retired academics might provide useful input
on how to treat cancer, but might be out
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jonathan Hall wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 16:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter
> wrote:
> >> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
>
> There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
> there are some articles which c
--- El vie, 24/7/09, Milos Rancic escribió:
> De: Milos Rancic
> Asunto: Re: [Foundation-l] Analysis of statistics
> Para: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List"
> Fecha: viernes, 24 julio, 2009 5:25
> Whatever means in the official statistics. It would be good
> to
> There is some overlap though. I tend to find (certainly on en-wikip)
> there are some articles which could be explained in layman's terms,
> particularly in maths and physics, that don't bother and just launch
> into a forest of LaTeX.
>>
I agree that every article ideally should have a "Subject
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 16:31, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
>> level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and
>> can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb
>> down articles to th
> My point is: We don't write for students. Our articles should be on a
> level where everyone, including kids understands the introduction and
> can find further information in the main text, but we should not dumb
> down articles to the needs of school curriculums.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
There are
Initially, I wanted to ask questions; to say that we need this or that
analysis. But, I realized that I am able to make some approximations
based on my Wikimedian experience. Of course, if we get more precise
data, we would be able to make more precise conclusions.
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:48 PM,
>> Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
>> articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
>> people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
>> articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
>> (no
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
>
> But do we know how many professionals and other people from the general
> public use Wikipedia every day? One of the most active contributors to
> de-WP once told the story that he was at a pediatric with his sick child
> and the docto
> we should not dumb down articles
Exactly!
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Henning
Schlottmann wrote:
> Dennis During wrote:
>
>> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
>> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
>> users ha
> Dennis During wrote:
>> Uhm sorry but I don't think it's acceptable to confine ourselves with the
>> user vulgaris, which is by definition semi-literate imbecile :) Our target
>
> Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Dennis During wrote:
> It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
> but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our actual
> users have appropriate weight in decision making
Who are our actual users? Students are of course well known to use
Wiki
Some complementing data on users from Swedish Wikipedia,
-Youngsters 15-22- high turnover & somewhat decreasing volume - do
vandal fighting, write of computer games, music, film, sport etc (and
these areas are worthy of respect too)
-Middle aged 22-50
--An increasing number of low volume contr
Just to clarify: The passage below was one I quoted and was requoted by
Nikola. It was from another en.wikt admin, NOT ME. Moreover it is not
en.wikt policy and got negative response, but not as much as I would have
hoped, from those I believe to be retired and active academics and graduate
studen
Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Anyone else concerned by this line of reasoning? What happened to
> Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyone can edit?
Everyone may contribute, but not everyone can.*
Ciao Henning
* Mantra No.2:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Markus_Mueller/Mantras
Disclaimer: T
Henning Schlottmann wrote:
> Quite frankly, a 15 years old can't contribute to de-WP anymore. Not
> even 20 years olds can. De-WP has reached a level where undergraduates
Pavlo Shevelo wrote:
> As a matter od fact teenagers contribute mainly to articles about
> sports, movies and other enterta
2009/7/24 Henning Schlottmann :
> Milos Rancic wrote:
>> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
>> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
>
> Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
> wrong in your assumptions and therefore in
The retired academics trend is apparent at en.wikt too. There are many
valuable depth and quality contributions that they can make and few others
can.
It might be possible to rely on a population of academics as contributors
but there needs to be a mechanism to make sure that the needs of our act
> Do you have any ideas how to get them? As I still believe, for many
> articles this is a meta issue, meaning that it is likely that only a few
> people in the world have necessary expertise AND a wish to edit the
> articles, and they all speak English, but may have random mothertongues
> (not nec
> Here we are not looking at 15 year olds, we are looking
> at retired academics as the future of our user base.
That's right point!
If Wikipedia is education tool we should (!) think about something
more than "cross-education" of teenagers and students
As a matter od fact teenagers contribute m
Hello Milos,
What an informative note you made!
Thanks a lot!
There is a lot to think about but as for meantime would you please
provide more details on
> If we assume that our target groups
> are between 15 and 24...
(and you never went over age of 35 in your analisys)
?
As a part of that: do
> It is the logical step to look for retired academics, because they have
> the expertise needed. The demographics in the 15-35 range therefore are
> completely irrelevant for de-WP.
>
> Ciao Henning
>
>
> ___
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@li
> Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
> Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
> interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
> in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
>
"July 17, 2009: the method of cou
Milos Rancic wrote:
> In all cases we need to think seriously how to educate younger
> generations about Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects.
Thanks for all the data and the number crunching. But I think you are
wrong in your assumptions and therefore in your analysis at least
regarding de-WP.
Bad news is that I was right almost a year ago about trends of new
Wikimedians. Relatively good news is that the statistics may be
interpreted as not so bad ones. Good news is that WMF started to act
in relation to those problems around half a year ago.
I went to en.wp stats [1] and I've seen that
95 matches
Mail list logo
