Wikimedia-l August 2011

wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

131 participants
100 discussions

[Foundation-l] Forkability, its problems and our problems
by Milos Rancic 14 Sep '11

14 Sep '11

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 22:43, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote: > On 08/15/11 12:25 PM, Gustavo Carrancio wrote: >> Fred: easy to fork vs hard to understand other cultures. Think a minute. >> ¿Are we making an Encyclopedia? Must we struggle to split or to get >> togeather? > > At some point we need to ask ourselves: Is our mission to make the sum > of all human knowledge freely available, or is it to create a monopoly > on knowledge. While I agree with necessity of being able to make a fork easily, there is important message which Gustavo wanted to say, but didn't express well. Under the present circumstance, any attempt to create English Wikipedia fork could be successful just if WMF makes very-ultra-serious shit and it is not likely that it would happen. We also know how the case Encyclopedia Libre vs. Spanish Wikipedia finished. That's, again, thanks to the fact that Spanish is multinational language and if someone wants to get significant official support, it would require significant time. However, the opposite example is Hudong encyclopedia. It is obviously that Hudong is much more relevant to Chinese people just because of the fact that we still have more Taiwanese Wikipedians than Mainland China ones. A couple of months ago three admins of Aceh Wikipedia decided that it is not acceptable that they participate in the project which holds Muhammad depictions. By the project, they mean Wikimedia in general, including Wikimedia Commons. It was just a matter of time when they would create their own wiki. And they created that moth or two after leaving Wikimedia. And what do you think which project has more chances for success: the one without editors or the other with three editors? So, while the reason for leaving couldn't be counted among reasonable ones, the product is the same as if they had a valid reason. And there are plenty of valid reasons, among them almost universal problem of highly bureaucratic structures on Wikimedia projects. I can imagine even very successful fork of Wikipedia in any Balkan language. We are also more or less on the edge of successful fork of any language whose community has any kind of problem with the rest of the movement. And at some point we could have serious problem. Projects could even start without license compatibility with Wikimedia content. Yes, as I don't think that anyone would bother -- which would be the right decision because of a number of reasons -- with GFDL and CC-BY-SA violations of the encyclopedia in a language with not so much speakers. That leads us to the serious dead end: We want forkability because of our principles. We could potentially lose parts of our movement. According to our principles, the only way to protect the movement is to be attractive to editors more than potential forks could be. And that's our structural problem: we are losing that battle since ~2007 and changes which we are making are too slow and too small. And that opens the space for even worse scenario. The last hope for societies in such decline is to impose martial law and try to fix things by not so pleasant methods. The only problem is that we are not society. Nobody would be killed because of Wikimedia fall and no economy would be destructed. More importantly, when people see harsh methods imposed (and one of them would be forbidding [easy] forkability), they would start to leave the project, which would just catalyze the fall. Fortunate moment is that we are driving on organizational expansion and that we bought some time. There are a couple of other methods for buying time. But, if we don't use that time to fix things, at some point we would deplete available options. We would eventually have the same problems in India which we have in US; we would have the same problems on a project which would be opened in 2012 as we have today with many other projects. Note that Wikipedia wasn't a hype because it is free and open online encyclopedia. It was a hype because such thing didn't exist before. It exists now all over the Internet. And without qualitative breakthroughs, we have to do things regularly. And models exist: IBM lives, Microsoft lives, Apple lives; Sinclair is dead, SGI is dead, Sun is dead; Netscape lives as Mozilla, Amsword lives as Libre Office, Ingres lives as PostgreSQL. Hi-tech organizations -- and we are hi-tech organization -- which survived were able to catch the technological development of their competitors. And our competitors are not millions of MediaWiki installations; our competitor is Hudong (note the features [1]), but also Google and Facebook. I am not saying that they are against us, but that we have to catch their technological development if we want to survive. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudong#Features

10 13

[Foundation-l] Sending announcements to this list
by Michael Peel 12 Sep '11

12 Sep '11

Hi all, Just to check: I've been assuming of late that everyone that's interested in reading announcements (including things like chapter reports, committee reports and signpost issues) is subscribed to the wikimediaannounce-l mailing list - is that a valid assumption, or should reports continue to be sent to this list? Thanks, Mike Peel (who sends out WMUK reports, amongst occasional others)

6 6

[Foundation-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Brasil + WMF
by CasteloBranco 07 Sep '11

07 Sep '11

For your information The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was collaboratively written. After the Brazilian participants shared their experience on what happened in Haifa, the whole community had one week to discuss and edit the content, which is now available on Meta.[1] Castelo [[:m:User:Castelobranco]] Wikimedia Brasil [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposed_letter_of_agreement_between_Wikimed… Proposed letter of agreement between Wikimedia Foundation and Brazilian volunteers On August 5, 2011, during Wikimania 2011 <http://br.wikimedia.org/wiki/Brasil_no_Wikimania/2011>, on Haifa, Israel, a meeting between Wikimedia Brasil and Wikimedia Foundation was held. The meeting, which was also attended by representatives of Wikimedia Portugal and Wikimedia Argentina, provided a discussion about the ongoing Wikimedia Projects in Brazil and the interaction between the future WMF office in the country and the local chapter. The understanding of Brazilian members along the meeting was that: 1. Brazil is a strategic priority for Wikimedia Foundation. 2. Wikimedia Foundation will set up an office in Brazil in order to stimulate the development of projects to increase the penetration of Wikipedia in Brazil. This process was already launched with the search for locations, hiring lawyers and the search for a professional to manage it. 3. Wikimedia Foundation understands that the Brazilian community and, thus, the chapter under formation still doesn't have the capacity to be completely self-managed. 4. Wikimedia Foundation aims to develop the existing programs in Brazil, like "Campus Ambassadors", though it still doesn't have a specific development program for Brazil. 5. Wikimedia Foundation wants to conduct researches about the lusophone community. 6. Wikimedia Foundation already has liaisons with Brazilian organizations, like /"Positivo"/. 7. The members of the Brazilian community want to colaborate with Wikimedia Foundation. 8. The members of the legal chapter under formation are afraid of losing the legitimacy of the local community among society after the establishment of the WMF office. Wikimedia Brasil has apprehension of not having control over what was raised locally, and of the loss of sources of revenue due to internal competition. Based on this understanding, participant members of the Brazilian community decided to: 1. Support the creation of Wikimedia Foundation office in Brazil which, as explained at the meeting, will have the goal of fostering the realization of partnerships and events with the community and the external audiences, provisionally and until the local chapter have enough structure to develop such activities directly. 2. Suggest that the office maintains goals to work for the development of the local community and not only fundraising or the realization of business agreements. 3. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation that its activites in Brazil are achieved with maximum transparency and envolvement of Wikimedia Brasil, allowing the local volunteers to participate at the various stages of ongoing projects and also in those that will be launched at the country. 4. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation that its goals and existing plans to Brazil are shared with Wikimedia Brasil. 5. Recommend to Wikimedia Foundation to orientate its projects, partnerships and possible proposals of interested sponsors to the local chapter, giving some opportunity to Wikimedia Brasil. 6. Propose the creation of a tatical planning for Brazil, based on Wikimedia's strategic planning, with the participation of WMF office and Wikimedia Brasil for the construction of a development program to Brazil. 7. Propose to Wikimedia Foundation to make room available in its WMF office directorship, provided by statue, for a chosen Wikimedia Brasil representative, consequently, chosen by the local community. Or, that the Wikimedia Foundation enjoy the legal chapter structure of Wikimedia Brasil to seek its goals; We want to offer the position of one director on our legal chapter, provided by statue, to Wikimedia Foundation. 8. Assist the establishment of the office with the volunteer participation of Wikimedia Brasil in activities of organization and achievement of knowledge inherent to local peculiarities, such as: contracting services, choice of location and understanding of the legislation. 9. Assist in the construction of a portfolio of activities and in the resources search to achieve the same. 10. Suggest to Wikimedia Foundation to stimulate the existing activites of Wikimedia Brasil and possibly the model of /"Mutirões"/. Wikimedia Brasil

19 42

Re: [Foundation-l] [libraries] Open Access EU consultation
by Andrea Zanni 05 Sep '11

05 Sep '11

[sorry for cross-posting] I wanted to remind you all that the deadline of the European consultation on Open Access and Open Data is September 9th. Here's the link: http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultat… and here's the survey on Meta: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU Daniel is working on that, but feedback could be useful. Here my few cents about some proposals we could make in the comment sections ofthe survey: 1. We need strategies/policies for OA. We need institutions/university to *require* OAfrom doctoral students and researchers. 2. We need digital preservation to be done by libraries and archives, not publishers. They have right now the functions and services (access, dissemination, preservation) that should be accomplished by libraries. Preservation is an issue. 3. We need clear, easily understandable licenses. CC-BY for articles and CC-0 for research data should do their job. No more ad hoc, human-not-understandable licenses, but clear Creative Commons. (CC-BY= we can use that on Wikipedia, we can upload it on Commons, we can publish it on Wikisource, we have material for Wikibooks/Wikiversity, etc.) I hope this can be useful. Aubrey 2011/7/28 Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com>: > Thank you Daniel, great work. > Lodewijk was suggesting that we reply as an organization, > because they don't really count single citizens proposals. > If we manage to write something, we could then forward it many times, > one per chapter, in several languages :-) > > But first things first, we need to work on the draft. > > Aubrey > > 2011/7/28 Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com>: >> Problem solved; full text now on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU . >> Daniel >> >> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Daniel Mietchen >> <daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com> wrote: >>> Hi Aubrey, >>> >>> thanks for the invitation. I had indeed planned to set up a document >>> to facilitate collaborative drafting of a response. So far, I have >>> seen the Open Knowledge Foundation, the Euroscience Working Group on >>> Open Access as well as Eurodoc signaling an interest in drafting a >>> response, and doing it all together - perhaps with an individual >>> comment per organization - could be worth a try. >>> >>> The questionnaire comes in three variants - for citizens, >>> organisations and public bodies - and the session to fill it in is >>> time-limited, so we will have to set up an editable copy somewhere. >>> The Commission provided a PDF ( >>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/questionn… >>> ) whose text cannot be copied, and I inquired with them on July 16 to >>> provide another version of the file. My submission was "forwarded to >>> the technical unit" two days later but no reaction since - I just >>> dropped them a line again. >>> >>> To get things started, I just set up >>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RCom/OA/EU . Please chime in there. >>> >>> Thanks and cheers, >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andrea84(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi all. >>>> Lodewijk today forwarded me this interesting EU consultation about >>>> open access, open data and digital preservation for scientific >>>> information. >>>> >>>> Press release: >>>> http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/11/890 >>>> >>>> Consultation: >>>> http://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/scientific_information/consultat… >>>> >>>> It could be very, very interesting if we (as Wikimedia Movement, or >>>> Wikimedia chapters) >>>> could write a statement to contribute. >>>> Maybe our brand-new Open Access WMF fellow could be interested in >>>> coordinating :-D >>>> >>>> Anyway, it seems a good opportunity to put in (digital) paper what we >>>> think about these issues. >>>> >>>> Any thoughts? >>>> We have until September 9th. >>>> >>>> Aubrey >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Libraries mailing list >>>> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Libraries mailing list >> Libraries(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries >> >

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] Chapters
by Mike Godwin 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

Theo writes: > Second, it might be some form of elitist outlook if you think accountability > standards for US Non-profits are more transparent and fiscally responsible > than say somewhere in EU like Germany, France or the Switzerland. I assure > you, they are existent, not-minimal and more restrictive than the US. I'm not contradicting (or necessarily agreeing) with other things you say in this message, but I want to point out that transnational transference of charitable funds is complicated no matter which direction the money is flowing in. The real argument (in my personal view, and not as a current or former representative of WMF) is not that the rules for U.S. nonprofits are "more transparent and fiscally responsible" than elsewhere. It's that the WMF is a U.S. nonprofit and must (at minimum) operate under the U.S. rules. When you're looking at multiple nonprofits (chapters) in many nations, which operate under a range of differing regulatory rules about international transfers of charitable funds, it is a non-trivial challenge to come up with a single joint fundraising model that meets every nation's requirements. So, when we discuss this issue, it's important that we recognize that it's not a question of whose rules are "better," whose motives are better, who is more trustworthy, etc. I believe it's appropriate for everybody to continue Assuming Good Faith and to recognize that the accountability/legality issue is a complicated one that requires a lot of work to solve (and the solution may not be identical for every cooperating chapter). Wikimedia Deutschland has invested a lot of effort, for example, in developing a solution that works for the German chapter, but the solution for another EU chapter (or for chapters in the Global South or elsewhere) may look significantly different. This is all further complicated by WMF's obligation to obey U.S. rules. I'm reminded of the quotation commonly (if not entirely accurately) attributed to Einstein: “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” (See http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein .) --Mike

18 47

[Foundation-l] Transfer a domain to the foundation
by Huib Laurens 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

Hello, I currently have the domain www.wikilovesmonuments.com in my possession. I'm am willing to transfer this domain to the foundation, but I don't really know who to contact, and IRC didn't help me. Can somebody point me to the right person or can the right person contact me on: huib(a)wickedway.nl -- Kind regards, Huib Laurens WickedWay.nl Webhosting the wicked way.

2 1

Re: [Foundation-l] [Wiki Loves Monuments] Wikilovemonuments.com
by Maarten Dammers 01 Sep '11

01 Sep '11

Or a redirect, just get rid of the advertisement ASAP. Maarten Op 31-8-2011 18:14, Lodewijk schreef: > I suggest to pick the KISSest solution: CNAME now and email Siebrand > about the transfer. > > Lodewijk > > 2011/8/31 noorse w <noorse.wikipedia(a)gmail.com > <mailto:noorse.wikipedia@gmail.com>> > > Maarten, > Huib has been accused of many things that I frankly have a big > problem in understanding. If he makes this CNAME - is there then a > chance that he'll then give his accusers additional ammunition > against him? If so, I'd alas advise him against doing this. Is it > possible for him to pass ownership to i.e. WMF instead? > > noorse > > > On 31 August 2011 17:22, Maarten Dammers <maarten(a)mdammers.nl > <mailto:maarten@mdammers.nl>> wrote: > > Hi Huib, > > Op 31-8-2011 17:07, Huib Laurens schreef: > > Cnames are messy and stupid. > > > > I would prefer to recieve a IP nummer and make it a A > recorod or AAA > Please make it a CNAME to wikilovesmonuments.eu > <http://wikilovesmonuments.eu> for now. We're going to > move servers and that way it doesn't have to be changed twice. > > Maarten > > > > > > > > 2011/8/31, Nuno Tavares<nuno.tavares(a)wikimedia.pt > <mailto:nuno.tavares@wikimedia.pt>>: > >> Huib, why don't you just create a CNAME, instead of > creating an IFRAME > >> with publicity? > >> > >> -- > >> Nuno Tavares > >> Wikimedia Portugal > >> http://www.wikimedia.pt > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> Participe também: http://www.wikimedia.pt > >> > >> > >> > >> Huib Laurens escreveu: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I just editted the www.wikilovesmonuments.com > <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.com> > >>> <http://www.wikilovesmonuments.com> site. > >>> > >>> My client didn't pay for it and I guess it was just > another trick to > >>> make my company lose money, this is the last time new > clients can choose > >>> the option to pay after the domain is registered. > >>> > >>> I would like to know who in the foundation I can contact > to give the > >>> domain to. > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Kind regards, > >>> > >>> Huib Laurens > >>> WickedWay.nl > >>> > >>> Webhosting the wicked way. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > >>> WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> > >>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > >>> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > >> WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > >> http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

1 0

[Foundation-l] Wikizine 126
by Milos Rancic 30 Aug '11

30 Aug '11

Wikizine 126 is in the process of forming. Please, report your news at the Meta page [1] or Google form [2]. [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikizine/EN2011-126 [2] http://ur1.ca/4zn0m

1 0

The Signpost – Volume 7, Issue 35 – 29 August 2011
by Wikipedia Signpost 30 Aug '11

30 Aug '11

1 0

[Foundation-l] Re : foundation-l Digest, Vol 89, Issue 76
by Thierry Coudray 29 Aug '11

29 Aug '11

On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> > wrote: > > If the question is one of "minimum standards of accountability" the > WMF's first obligation would be to publish the standards which it > requires, presumably consistent with IFRS. Chapters incorporated within > particular jurisdictions will be subject to the financial reporting laws > of their respective jurisdictions. These are more important than the > FUD and distrust at the heart of recent proposals. There is no doubt > that a small band of individuals unaccustomed to large infusions of cash > will have challenges to face, but in these cases the WMF would do better > to help these chapters find competent help in their own countries than > to play the role of a distrustful parent. > We could also have the case where a chapter does better than the foundation for some parts of its accomptabilty. Even if they are "a small band of individuals unaccustomed" they have no choice than to respect the local laws in some countries much more demanding for the charities that the U.S. laws.And they are motivated volonteers to do so. Let's give two examples with the WMFr accomptability. If as WMFr treasurer I'd like to release for French members and donators the same kind of certified report than the KPMG stamped WMF financial report, it would just be impossible under the French laws. Because under this laws, this report is not enough precise, not enough understandable (for example, try to know, if you have no US accountings knowlegde or even if you have, how much the foundation spends for servers, programmers wages and all of the IT stuff in the KPMG report...). As treasorer of a French general interest association which collecting donations from public, I have to provide a financial report far more accurate than the WMF one but also supplemented by a document understandable by people with no accounting abilities (call "Compte Emploi Ressources", could be roughly translated by "Use and Ressources account"). This document must shows in a simply but very precise way how much have been collected, how much have been used and for what. And this document, as the financial report, must be certified by our public auditor ( "Commissaire aux comptes" aka accounting commissioner). Our public auditor presents his reports to our general assembly, answers audiences questions (his responses to this questions have the same official commitment than its writtens comments of our accounts and governance and must be recorded) and then our general assembly vote to approve, or not, this two documents. This public auditor not only certifies our accountings, he also checks and certified for stakeholders (donators, members, states autorities, etc.) that we respect the laws, the differents contracts and agreements WMFr has signed and our goals as defined in our statutes. For 2010, he particulary focused to check if we had got tax lawyer advice before our funds transfer to the foundation and that both WMFr and the WMF follow this advice, if all our donators have received their tax exemption receipt, if we have paid all the social insurance, retirement funds for our employee, ask me to explain how WMFr checks all the credit card donations go to our bank account or how I had calculate the number of volonteers hours written in our documents, and few others things I do not have in mind now. He has a mandatory access to all documents the WMFr board releases to all its stakeholders (members included so, he has an access to our internal wiki) If we keep too much money collected by a appeal for donations on our bank account, he will made a written comments that will ask us not to fundraise until we have spent the money for the use we ask donations. And not respect this kind of written comments could lead us to lose our charities status and the tax deductability. And no way for the WMFr board to fire its Commissaire aux comptes because he is too demanding or too picky. The appointment of this public auditor is validated by a vote of all the members during a general assembly and he is appointed for 6 years, not revocable during this time, to avoid any pressure from the board. As you can see, lots of legal constraints. And I believe some of this legal constraints, are quite the same in several European chapters as the rules for charities using donations from the public have been hardened this last few years in the European Union. And as far as I know, this rules are harder than those applied to US charities 501 (c). That's means, if a small group of volonteers could reach a such level of certified information for donators, WMF, much more staffed than any chapter, could also reach it or even do better, even i'ma aware that the WMF accountings is more complex than a chapter one. In my opinion, in a wikimedian good practices assesment, WMF should implement a such certified "Use and Ressources account" easely understandable by everyone, with no accounting knowledge. Release this certified understandable report in the 5 or 6 most used languages in the world will also show that WMF is not only an american or anglo-saxon foundation. Not obvious to everyone. I could also take the example of employeees salary and benefits transparancy . Lodjewick (believe it's him, sorry if wrong) in an another thread mentioned that he has had to answer in his chapter on the issue about Foundation high executives wages. We had a similar and quite hash debate on WMFr mail lists in the past, partly based on spooky ideas about foundation salaries. But this i nformation is not easy to find for a simple donator. As Wikimedia France has now 4 employees and hopes to be able to recruit new ones in the future, the WMFr board are thinking how to give a high level of transparancy so that our donators could see the fairness of our wages policy. France is culturally not comfortable to make public such salaries. And WMFr has no legal obligation as a charity to do so. Our commissaire aux comptes just checks that salaries granted to employees by the WMFr board are not a misuse of the organization assets. And we haven't reached the limits, especially as we have not yet states or local governements subsidies, forcing us to declare our main wages . It's just that if we can, we want to improve our transparancy for our donators. The WMfr board is curently discussing this issue. We are looking what other French associations best practices are, for example some give the 3 high salaries and group statistics for the other ones, all easely accessible directly from their web site. Personally, I would support a full transparency and that a donor could know the salary of all positions within the association. I guess the other chapters also have ideas for better governance and transparency (and I'm interesting in), because of the background of some of their members, history of the chapter, practices in their own countrie or others reasons. They will implement some, and the fundraising is a good school for that. They could share with the movement and that will allow the chapters and the foundation to improve their accomptability practices. Sorry for this long mail but we are speaking of accomptability, Not a lighly subject. Speaking for my own -- Thierry Coudray Administrateur - Trésorier Wikimédia France <http://www.wikimedia.fr/> Mob. 06.82.85.84.40 http://blog.wikimedia.fr/

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Wikimedia-l August 2011