Wikimedia-l October 2011

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

164 participants
136 discussions

[Foundation-l] "almost wikipedia" talk
by phoebe ayers 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

Of interest: Benjamin Mako Hill is giving a talk at the Berkman Center on October 11, entitled: "Almost Wikipedia: What Eight Collaborative Encyclopedia Projects Reveal About Mechanisms of Collective Action" It will be webcast: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/events/luncheon/2011/10/makohill cheers, phoebe -- * I use this address for lists; send personal messages to phoebe.ayers <at> gmail.com *

3 2

Re: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian Wikipedia back on now?
by Donaldo Papero 06 Oct '11

06 Oct '11

We'd be nice as well to have it back asap. And we are prompt to do so. But, please, take into account that the article you linked is actually totally not accurate, not to say that is just wrong: at the moment the law is unapproved, the controversial piece of the law is absolutely unchanged. What we have achieved is that there is a general orientation to discuss some improvements (which will met our point), and today will be the critical day for the related discussions in the Italian Parliament. The it.wiki community is currently oriented to wait until this afternoon, to see if the promised improvements are real or if are only political tactics: there is an OPEN discussion about this point here<http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Sciopero:_il_punto_d…>. Few more hour of patience to see if we have achieved real results and we'll be back. Pap3rinik > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 07:27:14 +0300 > From: Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)wikia-inc.com> > Subject: [Foundation-l] Given that we have won, can we turn Italian > Wikipedia back on now? > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: <4E8D2E22.2040706(a)wikia-inc.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > http://www.linkiesta.it/wikipedia-law > > It'd be nice to have Italian Wikipedia back up as people are waking up > in Italy. >

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
by Mike Godwin 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Domas writes: > Except that WMF as steward of the open information can roll any of that blackout crap back. > Primary mission is spreading the knowledge, and now it.wikipedia obviously fails at it. I believe this interpretation is both unfair and incorrect. The Italian Wikipedians are trying to preserve a legal environment in which spreading the knowledge is possible. Arguably, if the Italian Wikipedians did *not* challenge this law, they would have failed in their mission. --Mike

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
by WereSpielChequers 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Hi Jalo, Re "Italian police will get my name using my IP" it would be interesting to know whether the WMF or Google would give the Italian police an IP address in such circumstances. Perhaps someone from the Foundation could answer that one, and you might want to ask Google re your Gmail account. I'm also intrigued as to how this would affect former editors. Would the law just be interested in current administrators? There's also the question of retrospective legislation. Especially if the WMF or anyone else was to keep a copy of the Italian Wikipedia from before this legislation came into effect. Article 7 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_7_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_… the 6th title of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_Fundamental_Rights_of_the_European_… prohibit retrospective legislation. If someone tried to use this law to force an editor to publish a rebuttal of something posted before the freeze, then surely that would be retrospective legislation? WereSpielChequers > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 18:00:25 +0200 > From: Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <CADJoiUTaHs8Vr6KkWdCTU_0x4M2rPZ+HfF6vkKs-PSepW6Q10Q(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > Does the proposed law say who is responsible for compliance? I would be > > surprised if it was anyone other than the WMF. Legally speaking, we're > all > > just users of the website > > > Maybe you're right, but it's not so obvious. [Sorry for my english] There > is > a lawsuit opened by a person against WMItaly, 'cause wikipedia was stating > something against him (all referenced). > > WMItaly is not related to it.wikip, but the lawsuit is brought, and we have > to spend money for lawyers 'till the lawsuit conclusion. > > It'll be the same for this law. Italian police will get my name using my > IP, > the italian political will bring a lawsuit against me 'cause I didn't > published his amendment, and I'll have to spend money (too much money, to > me) 'till the judge will says he's a stupid. > > I cannot do this, almost all it.wikip users cannot do, and so I'll stop > contributing. > > I remember you, if it's necessary, that the amendment must be published > without comment and unmodifiable, so we'll have to block all articles in > which an amandment is required (almost all politicals articles, sport > players articles, merchandising sellers articles and so on). > > Jalo > > >

3 2

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
by J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Forwarding on behalf of a non subscriber. User:AlexandrDmitri on all Wikimedia projects ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Giuseppe Profiti <gamma2(a)users.sourceforge.net> Date: 2011/10/5 Subject: Blackout at Italian Wikipedia To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org I'm sorry for breaking the thread, I'm reading the link via the website so I don't have a previous post to reply to. About Theo's question: > I am sure other people can fill in, but I heard there has been some movement > within the parliament in reaction. They are reconsidering a portion of that > law that might affect us, or so I have been told. > > http://www.rainews24.rai.it/it/news.php?newsid=157111 > > Can someone clarify? Modifications have been proposed (by various members of the parliament), most of them want to modify the law in order to affect only online newspapers and news websites that requires prior registration under the Italian law (i.e. those with an editor in chief and that are already affected by the law in their paper/video form). You can find the proposed amendments here (Italian only, sorry) http://www.camera.it/_dati/leg16/lavori/odg/cam/fascicoli/20111005/20111005… looking for the words "comma 29". About emijrp post in the other thread: > When people reuse content in other websites/blogs/etc, they have to copy the > article text and link to Italian Wikipedia where you can check the entire > history and authors. That is how attribution is given. It is explained here > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reusing_Wikipedia_content > > Now, most of all the attributions to Italian Wikipedia contents on the > Internet are broken. If you dig the archives of this list, back when the license change was implemented, you can see tons of debate about that issue. Regards, Giuseppe PS: I'm sorry if my wiki* username is missing, but I don't want to associate this e-mail address (and my name) to my account

1 0

Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia
by Craig Franklin 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

> Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2011 13:58:51 -0700 > From: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Blackout at Italian Wikipedia > To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List > <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> > Message-ID: > <CAGZ0=LN0xLr-0A0AJOCu-7eX1bKQfYnVV5xETQY5uY9LqduoSw(a)mail.gmail.com > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > The Wikimedia Foundation first heard about this a few hours ago: we don't > have a lot of details yet. Jay is gathering information and working on a > statement now. > > It seems obvious though that the proposed law would hurt freedom of > expression in Italy, and therefore it's entirely reasonable for the Italian > Wikipedians to oppose it. The Wikimedia Foundation will support their > position. > > The question of whether blocking access to Wikipedia is the best possible > way to draw people's attention to this issue is of course open for debate > and reasonable people can disagree. My understanding is that the decision > was taken via a good community process. Regardless, what's done is done, > for > the moment. > > Thanks, > Sue Of late I've often round reasons to be critical of the choices the WMF has made, but in this case you've made the best choice possible - supporting the community on it.wikipedia in a decision that they've come to as a group, even though that decision is controversial in some places. Bravo Sue, and Bravo WMF. Cheers, Craig

2 1

[Foundation-l] Blanking a Wikipedia, a very bad idea
by emijrp 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Hi all; The events regarding Italian Wikipedia blanking[1][2] of all its content are a serious precedent IMHO. They can make a lot of noise using other procedures, like a big blinking site notice, but giving no choice to read the content is against the main goal of Wikipedia.[3] Italian Wikipedia has about 500,000 page views per hour,[4] and readers are getting worried about how long is this going to last. A global encyclopedia managed in these ways is not trustworthy. This is worst in public image than any gender, global south or image filtering media flame war. Furthermore, this only make me more concerned about the missing updated, secure and trustworthy mirrors of Wikipedia content. Fortunately, you still can read the mobile version, but it is "limited".[5] (Please, spread the word about this) Regards, emijrp [1] http://it.wikipedia.org [2] http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Comunicato_4_ottobre_2011 [3] http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision [4] http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/Sitemap.htm [5] http://it.m.wikipedia.org/

17 25

[Foundation-l] We need more information (was: Blog from Sue about ...)
by Lodewijk 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

(not responding to anyone in particular) I'm one of the people who tried to participate in the discussion without taking a strong standpoint (intentionally - because I'm quite nuanced on the issue, and open for good arguments of either side) and I have to fully agree with Ryan. I have yet been unable to participate in this discussion without either being ignored fully (nothing new to that, I agree) or being put in "the opposite camp". I basically gave up. So I do have to say that I agree with the sentiment that the discussion is not very inviting, and is actually discouraging people who want to find a solution in the middle to participate. In that respect I do agree with Sue's analysis. However, considering the background and the 'German issue' I don't have the feeling it was particularly helpful in resolving that either. Anyhow, about the filter issue. I think at this stage it is very hard to determine any opinion about "the filter" because everybody seems to have their own idea what it will look like, what the consequences will be and how it will affect their and other people's lives. I myself find it hard to take a stance based on the little information available and I applaud the visionaries that can. Information I am even more missing however (and I think it would have been good to have that information *before* we took any poll within our own community) is what our average 'reader on the street' thinks about this. Do they feel they need it? What parts of society are they from (i.e. is that a group we are representative of? Or one we barely have any interaction with?) What kind of filter do they want (including the option: none at all). Obviously this should not be held in the US, but rather world wide - as widely as possible. With that information we can make a serious consideration how far we want to go to give our readers what they want - or not at all. I don't think we should be making that choice without trying to figure out (unless I missed a research into that) what they actually do want. We are making way too many assumptions here which don't strike me as entirely accurate (how do people get to an article page for example (by Béria), or how many people are offended by the image on the autofellatio article (by Erik)) - and we don't have to do that if we would just ask those people we're talking about - rather than talking about them on our ivory mountain. One final remark: I couldn't help but laugh a little when I read somewhere that we are the experts, and we are making decisions for our readers - and that these readers should have to take that whole complete story, because what else is the use of having these experts sit together. (probably I interpreted this with my own thoughts) And I was always thinking that Wikipedia was about masses participating in their own way - why do we trust people to 'ruin' an article for others, but not just for themselves? Hoping for a constructive discussion and more data on what our 'readers' actually want and/or need... Lodewijk No dia 30 de Setembro de 2011 11:40, Béria Lima <berialima(a)gmail.com>escreveu: > I'll go by pieces in your mail Erik. > > *The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is not > to > > talk specifically about the referendum results or the image hiding > feature" > > (...) So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp > poll > > regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. ;-) > > * > > > It is quite surprise yes, since she gave half of the post to de.wiki main > page "issue"[1]. And also, if we decide to > ABF<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ABF>of the other side (like > that post pretty much does) I would say that she > doesn't mention because would not help her case. > > *Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the > elephant > > in the room until it's resolved what will actually be implemented and > how. > > * > > > You forgot the "*IF*": IF the elephant will be or not implemented. > > *What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and > > expectations of our readers fully into account > > * > > > Well, if we consider the "referendum" a good place to go see results[2] we > can say that our readers are in doubt about that issue, pretty much 50%-50% > in doubt - with the difference that our germans readers are not: They DON'T > WANT it. > > *Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article (...) If > > you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll > > notice that there are two big banners: "Wikipedia is not censored" and > "If > > you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask > them", > > with further instructions. (...) And yet, it's a deeply imperfect > solution. > > The autofellatio page has been viewed 85,000 times in September. The > > associated discussion page has been viewed 400 times. The "options not > to > > see an image" page, which is linked from many many of these pages, has > been > > viewed 750 times. We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much > further > > into the data that there's a significant number of people who are > offended > > by images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond. > > * > > > No we can not. With 85,000 views, would be childish to imagine that only > 400 > people could see the "Discussion" tab over the article. If they got to the > article (and the article is not on MP) we need to assume that: > 1. They looked for "*autofellatio*" in Google - thefore they knew what they > would might find. > 2. They placed that into the search box - thefore they know at least a bit > how wikipedia works and know what is a discussion page and how to get > there. > 3. They got to the article by the links in another article. And by the > links > of "What Links here< > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Autofellati… > >" > feature there are no article no related with sex and sexuality that links > to > this one, so that reader would know what they would find - like the 1. - > and > knows how wikipedia works - like 2. > > In any of the cases, I can only imagine that 1 has any reason to be > offended > and don't know how to find the talk page. Even in that case - if we divide > by 3 the number of viewers (assuming here that 1, 2 and 3 has exactly the > same contribution to the number, that is 28,333 people. Which means that - > from the other 56,667 people - only 400 decided to check what is the talk > page. Which is 0,7% of the readers. From those, I can only see 3 people > complaining, which is 0,75% of everyone who goes in the talk page. Can you > see the idea? Only ~0,7% of all people who say that article is offended by > it. So, no, we can't assume that people get offended. > > *An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of wiki > > syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on specific > > articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and seeing small > print > > at the top that says: > > > > "This article contains explicit images that some readers may find > > objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]]."* > > > > That would indeed be a better idea - to be implemented as a gadget to log > in > users. - and to be implemented in a way that prevents any kind of > "censorship categories" > > *Our core community is 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception > > biases (and yes, occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and > discussions > > in our community are typically not only dominated by that core group, > > they're sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting > > sufficient edit count criteria, etc.* > > > > Yes it is. That does not mean girls get more offend by that. The 9% of the > girls are not screaming to tire apart all images, are they? In the > opposite, > we can see the same 50%-50% pro-oppose in the female community as well. (As > example: the only 2 girls who commented here - phoebe and me - are in > opposite sides. Have a vagina don't make us more or less offend for see one > in the main page. > > > > [1]: Note there a page who was elected featured article be in the main page > is not a issue, whatever the subject is. > [2]: I don't, for the very simple reason that was badly written, as several > people already said. > _____ > *Béria Lima* > <http://wikimedia.pt/>(351) 925 171 484 > > *Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter > livre > acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a > fazer <http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos>.* > > > On 30 September 2011 09:44, Erik Moeller <erik(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 11:45 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The complete absence of mentioning the de:wp poll that was 85% against > > > any imposed filter is just *weird*. > > > > The intro and footer of Sue's post say: "The purpose of this post is > > not to talk specifically about the referendum results or the image > > hiding feature" > > > > She also wrote in the comments: "What I talk about in this post is > > completely independent of the filter, and it’s worth discussing (IMO) > > on its own merits" > > > > So it's perhaps not surprising that she doesn't mention the de.wp poll > > regarding the filter in a post that she says is not about the filter. > > ;-) > > > > Now, it's completely fair to say that the filter issue remains the > > elephant in the room until it's resolved what will actually be > > implemented and how. And it's understandable that lots of people are > > responding accordingly. But I think it's pretty clear that Sue was > > trying to start a broader conversation in good faith. I know that > > she's done lots of thinking about the conversations so far including > > the de.wp poll, and she's also summarized some of this in her report > > to the Board: > > > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Sue%27s_report_to_th… > > > > The broader conversation she's seeking to kick off in her blog post > > _can_, IMO, usefully inform the filter conversation. > > > > What Sue is saying is that we sometimes fail to take the needs and > > expectations of our readers fully into account. Whether you agree with > > her specific examples or not, this is certainly generally true in a > > community where decisions are generally made by whoever happens to > > show up, and sometimes the people who show up are biased, stupid or > > wrong. And even when the people who show up are thoughtful, > > intelligent and wise, the existing systems, processes and expectations > > may lead them to only be able to make imperfect decisions. > > > > Let me be specific. Let's take the good old autofellatio article, > > which was one of the first examples of an article with a highly > > disputed explicit image on the English Wikipedia (cf. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_1 ). > > > > If you visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autofellatio , you'll > > notice that there are two big banners: "Wikipedia is not censored" and > > "If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to > > mask them", with further instructions. > > > > Often, these kinds of banners come into being because people (readers > > and active editors) find their way to the talk page and complain about > > an image being offensive. They are intended to do two things: Explain > > our philosophy, but also give people support in making more informed > > choices. > > > > This is, in other words, the result of reasonable discussion by > > thoughtful, intelligent and wise people about how to deal with > > offensive images (and in some cases, text). > > > > And yet, it's a deeply imperfect solution. The autofellatio page has > > been viewed 85,000 times in September. The associated discussion page > > has been viewed 400 times. The "options not to see an image" page, > > which is linked from many many of these pages, has been viewed 750 > > times. > > > > We can reasonably hypothesize without digging much further into the > > data that there's a significant number of people who are offended by > > images they see in Wikipedia but who don't know how to respond, and we > > can reasonably hypothesize that the responses that Wikipedians have > > conceived so far to help them have been overall insufficient in doing > > so. It would be great to have much more data -- but again, I think > > these are reasonable hypotheses. > > > > The image filter in an incarnation similar to the one that's been > > discussed to-date is one possible response, but it's not the only one. > > Indeed, nothing in the Board resolution prescribes a complex system > > based on categories that exists adjacent to normal mechanisms of > > editorial control. > > > > An alternative would be, for example, to give Wikipedians a piece of > > wiki syntax that they can use to selectively make images hideable on > > specific articles. Imagine visiting the article Autofellatio and > > seeing small print at the top that says: > > > > "This article contains explicit images that some readers may find > > objectionable. [[Hide all images on this page]]." > > > > As requested by the Board resolution, it could then be trivial to > > selectively unhide specific images. > > > > If desired, it could be made easy to browse articles with that setting > > on-by-default, which would be similar to the way the Arabic Wikipedia > > handles some types of controversial content ( cf. > > http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D8%B6%D8%B9_%D8%AC%D9%86%D8%B3%D9%8A > > ). > > > > This could possibly be entirely implemented in JS and templates > > without any complex additional software support, but it would probably > > be nice to create a standardized tag for it and design the feature > > itself for maximum usability. > > > > Solutions of this type would have the advantage of giving > > Wiki[mp]edians full editorial judgment and responsibility to use them > > as they see fit, as opposed to being an imposition from WMF, with an > > image filter tool showing up on the page about tangential > > quadrilaterals, and with constant warfare about correct labeling of > > controversial content. They would also be so broad as to be not very > > useful for third party censorship. > > > > Clearly, one wouldn't just want to tag all articles in this fashion if > > people complain -- some complaints should be discussed and resolved, > > not responded to by adding a "Hide it if you don't like it" tag; some > > should be ignored. By putting the control of when to add the tag fully > > in the hands of the community, one would also give communities the > > option to say "Why would we use this feature? We don't need it!" This > > could then lead to further internal and external conversations. > > > > I don't think this would address all the concerns Sue expresses. For > > example, I think we need to do more to bring readers into > > conversations, and to treat them respectfully. Our core community is > > 91% male, and that does lead to obvious perception biases (and yes, > > occasional sexism and other -isms). Polls and discussions in our > > community are typically not only dominated by that core group, they're > > sometimes in fact explicitly closed to people who aren't meeting > > sufficient edit count criteria, etc. For good reasons, of course -- > > but we need to find ways to hear those voices as well. > > > > Overall, I think Sue's post was an effort to move the conversation > > away from thinking of this issue purely in the terms of the debate as > > it's taken place so far. I think that's a very worthwhile thing to do. > > I would also point out that lots of good and thoughtful ideas have > > been collected at: > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image_filter_referendum/Next_steps/en > > > > IMO the appropriate level of WMF attention to this issue is to 1) look > > for simple technical help that we can give the community, 2) use the > > resources that WMF and chapters have (in terms of dedicated, focused > > attention) to help host conversations in the communities, and bring > > new voices into the debate, to help us all be the best possible > > versions of ourselves. And as Sue said, we shouldn't demonize each > > other in the process. Everyone's trying to think about these topics in > > a serious fashion, balancing many complex interests, and bringing > > their own useful perspective. > > > > Erik > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

8 10

[Foundation-l] Con rispetto per questa azione coraggiosa
by Anneke Wolf 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

Hi folks, the german community made the decision to have a short notice about the issue on the front page as well (see: Wikipedia aktuell) http://de.wikipedia.org In addition there's a support letter you can sign: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Solidarit%C3%A4tserkl%C3%A4rung_mit_… Good luck to all italian people :-) Anneke

2 1

[Foundation-l] Image filter again (was: WMF blog post...)
by Lodewijk 05 Oct '11

05 Oct '11

(changing the topic, since hijacking a thread is considered inpolite) I think indeed they are incomparable. One is an internal political discussion, the other is totally external and legal. That alone makes it a totally different discussion - because I still believe the Wikimedia Foundation will be reasonable in this and if there is a true majority against it, I can hardly see them implementing it without further ado. If the WMF would persue this, you would still have the option to fork Wikipedia - and continue elsewhere. However, forking a country has proven to be more controversial and is significantly harder. And if you dont cooperate with the image filter, the worst thing really that could potentially (and still unlikely) happen, is getting blocked from *editing* Wikipedia. In the Italian case, you would get sued and pay high fines. We're talking about totally different ball parks here. Lodewijk No dia 5 de Outubro de 2011 10:53, Thomas Morton < morton.thomas(a)googlemail.com> escreveu: > On 5 October 2011 09:26, Jalo <jalo75(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If you don't even think that is a comparable situation, then you > clearly > > > don't understand at all what some people think the image filter is all > > > about. > > > > > > > You're comparing a wiki without images with a world (the italian world) > > without wiki. <mumble> To me, it seems to be "slightly" different > > > it.wiki are specifically saying that they feel this new law would impact > their ability to provide free and open content. > > de.wiki are saying much the same about the image filter... > > Tom > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

2 1

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l October 2011