Hi! I'm sure that the WMF fundraising people are all aware of this, but this isn't exactly a well-known issue, so please excuse this short introduction.
For a few months now, there has been quite a strong push from the Bitcoin community to accept that currency as a donation method; the issue has been gaining more and more significance ever since the start of this years' fundraising campaign.
As far as I am aware, the only response so far from the Foundation is that they do not accept any currencies that are not backed by "by the full faith and credit of an issuing government." [1]
I'm sure those reading this list can Google the topic themselves, so I won't link to the many angry discussion that are taking place on the interwebs right now; instead, I'll ask this: does the Foundation intend to accept Bitcoin as a donation method any time soon? Does the Foundation realize that the payment processing company Bitpay has kindly set up a merchant account that is transferring money to the WMF every day? [2]
Can you let us know the reasons behind the decision of not accepting Bitcoin other than those mentioned on the FAQ page I linked? I'm not in any way related to the Bitcoin movement, but I'm sure that many people would appreciate hearing more about this.
I should also perhaps mention for those interested in donating in Bitcoin that Wikimedia New York City, the chapter for NYC, does accept Bitcoins: https://nyc.wikimedia.org/wiki/Donate.
Maybe there are other chapters or affiliates that allow this method of donating?
Tomasz
== References == * [1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en#Why_does_the_Wikimedia_Foundatio... * [2] http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html
I'm a little skeptical about the charitable nature of Bitpay's offer to "hold" funds for the WMF. It doesn't help that they refer to "Wikipedia's bank accounts", but in the absence of other evidence I suspect that Bitpay is taking advantage of the volatility of Bitcoin exchange rates to profit from the delay between receiving Bitcoin transactions and forwarding dollar donations. That assumes that they are, in fact, forwarding donations at all.
"That assumes that [Bitpay] are, in fact, forwarding donations at all." We have received some funds from them.
~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Matthew Walker mwalker@wikimedia.orgwrote:
"That assumes that [Bitpay] are, in fact, forwarding donations at all." We have received some funds from them.
~Matt Walker Wikimedia Foundation Fundraising Technology Team
Thanks Matt. I'm still concerned that they are offering the service at least partly to profit from the currency spread. That may be true of any potential third party Bitcoin payment processor, at least at this point in the currency's effort to go mainstream.
Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Can you let us know the reasons behind the decision of not accepting Bitcoin other than those mentioned on the FAQ page I linked?
Has there been any discussion about simply accepting Bitcoins but not exchanging them? Off-hand, I can't see any potential harm if the Wikimedia Foundation only accepts Bitcoin donations, though I imagine it could make tax reporting trickier. (That is, is it settled whether such a transfer would constitute income? Are Bitcoin donations considered tax deductible?)
This issue probably has enough outside attention to warrant a blog post on the Wikimedia blog (https://blog.wikimedia.org).
MZMcBride
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Has there been any discussion about simply accepting Bitcoins but not exchanging them?
<snip>
I don't have a strong opinion on whether WMF should or should not accept Bitcoin donations. However, even if we were to accept them, I don't believe we should be collecting them. As I believe is already the case with most foreign currency donations, Bitcoins (if accepted) should be exchanged for dollars shortly after being received.
Whatever else Bitcoins might be, they are certainly subject to rapid variations in market prices and considerable uncertainty regarding the future regulatory environment. As such, as an investment, they would have to be classed as highly speculative. Some people have made a lot of money off of Bitcoins, and some others may yet make a lot more, but there is also the potential to lose a lot of value if regulatory fiats or undiscovered flaws in the Bitcoin system cause their value to plummet. I don't think holding on to high-risk investment vehicles makes sense for a non-profit that aims to make responsible use of people's donations.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Robert Rohde rarohde@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 2:37 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Has there been any discussion about simply accepting Bitcoins but not exchanging them?
<snip>
I don't have a strong opinion on whether WMF should or should not accept Bitcoin donations. However, even if we were to accept them, I don't believe we should be collecting them. As I believe is already the case with most foreign currency donations, Bitcoins (if accepted) should be exchanged for dollars shortly after being received.
In my opinon this whole bitcoin debate is framed incorrectly. The question is not if it should be accepted or not, but which parameters make any currency or payment method acceptable.
If I had to name a few, I would say: * less than 10% variation against WOCU (or any other currency basket) last fiscal year * at least 10b USD transaction volume last fiscal year
I don't have any preference for or against bitcoin either, but I think any payment method should fulfill certain stability requirements. Once bitcoin or any other currency fullfills those requirements (the ones I have mentioned or others), it should be accepted.
Cheers, Micru
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:10 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
In my opinon this whole bitcoin debate is framed incorrectly. The question is not if it should be accepted or not, but which parameters make any currency or payment method acceptable.
If I had to name a few, I would say:
- less than 10% variation against WOCU (or any other currency basket) last
fiscal year
- at least 10b USD transaction volume last fiscal year
I don't have any preference for or against bitcoin either, but I think any payment method should fulfill certain stability requirements. Once bitcoin or any other currency fullfills those requirements (the ones I have mentioned or others), it should be accepted.
Cheers, Micru
It'd be simpler to state that the major factor in accepting a new payment type is enabling donors who otherwise might not be able to donate. Adding a currency with a small constituency might make sense, even if the currency is unstable, if it permits donations from supporters in their native currency. Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard currency.
On 12/12/13 02:54, Nathan wrote:
Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard currency.
Well, this article from a year ago argues that bitcoin is "safer" for donors than donating national currency:
"But just don’t try to donate safely in bitcoin — it’s not accepted." [...]
"Accepting anonymous bitcoin in addition to political currencies can be a way of declaring that freedom of speech still does matter."
I would think that if anonymity is the main concern, a transaction system with a public log of all transactions would not be the best choice.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity
The obvious time-tested choice for anonymous payment is, of course, cash. Many charities do accept cash donations. Cash could be donated to the local chapter by dropping it into a donation box, then it could be either spent on local programs or forwarded to WMF.
-- Tim Starling
Other forms of money we do not currently accept include gold coins, Yap money, Tesco Clubcard Points, cowrie shells and cattle.
We could accept any of them in theory.
Though if anyone wants to donate a herd of cattle to Wikimedia UK please could they contact the office in advance.
Chris On 12 Dec 2013 03:31, "Tim Starling" tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/12/13 02:54, Nathan wrote:
Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard currency.
Well, this article from a year ago argues that bitcoin is "safer" for donors than donating national currency:
< http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonmatonis/2012/06/29/wikipedia-accepts-enemies-...
"But just don’t try to donate safely in bitcoin — it’s not accepted." [...]
"Accepting anonymous bitcoin in addition to political currencies can be a way of declaring that freedom of speech still does matter."
I would think that if anonymity is the main concern, a transaction system with a public log of all transactions would not be the best choice.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity
The obvious time-tested choice for anonymous payment is, of course, cash. Many charities do accept cash donations. Cash could be donated to the local chapter by dropping it into a donation box, then it could be either spent on local programs or forwarded to WMF.
-- Tim Starling
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:31 AM, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 12/12/13 02:54, Nathan wrote:
Bitcoin isn't native currency for anyone, and anyone who wishes to make a Bitcoin donation could certainly do so using a more standard currency.
I would think that if anonymity is the main concern, a transaction system with a public log of all transactions would not be the best choice.
I guess we're pretty lost in several different agendas and purposes.
Bitcoin is clearly controversial in the sense that due to its anon and non-government-controlled nature it is used in ways traditional money was neither planned nor accepted, and its very existence is a fight against control, trail tracking and other various (legal and illegal) means of invading privacy of honest people and criminals both.
I observe quite different reasons people would like to have BC accepted.
I guess for the most part it's about support freedom, fight against governmental control and fight against invasion of privacy. People make point to use BC instead of govt money to donate thus pulling in organisations to support monetary freedom (of their opinion, at least). In this aspect, and I guess that's the main aspect, Wikipedia should support that freedom. In this aspect, however, it is clear that supporting this is dangerous since it's an open fight against governmental control, and governments are sensitive abvout losing their hard-collected rights. It is also a political move in that sense, and aven it's not for any given political force should not be taken lightly.
Other aspect is where anonimity is the main reason, where people or organisations risk by donating an US organisation or to Wikipedia, The Guardian of Free Information in general. Cash drop is obviously not the solution for a Chinese or Russian citizen, and honestly we're quite out of alternatives here. (Please do not get into debates about why anyone would strongly prefer to stay anonymous, that is not the point, thank you.)
Another aspect would be technical: "why not?" There are steps and resources required to process bitcoin, especially strong mphasis about informational security since BC is quite prone to electronic theft. However these are not impossible, not even hard steps, and WMF is absolutely capable to create the infrastructure to accept BC safely. I see no real problem here. (And even if it requires work from accountants and tax-professionals and lawyers we do have the resources to archieve that easily. We might even set example for smaller NGOs about how to do that legally; they may not have the resources to reach a working solution.)
Again a different aspect is volatility or unstable exchange rates, some people argue that BC is not a stable currency. Ackowledging the truth in that I believe it is irrelevant: if people keep their money in BC that's their worry, if they donate $100 worth of BC which will be exachanged to $50 next week it is still $50 donation for us. We do not plan to keep our assets in BC, and even if we would keep BC donations in BC (why not) there's nothing to lose; if it loses 90% of its worth due to whatever happening then that's it, might just happen to a "real" currency either. We cannot lose more than the donations in BC anyway.
A few people start something I usually would call trolling in different context ( :-) ) which debates on why bitcoin and why not johndoecoin or billygold or whatever. First because this topic is about BC, let the whatever scheme debate run elsewhere (and you may work to have BC accepted as a basis for your esoteric semicurrency LATER). Second because BC "market penetration" is not comparable, people are using it, it is hard to deny, and there are stable exchanges giving you real money for it, the demand is much higher than for susiecoins or whatever.
Out of the topics above the only risk I see is the political/anti-government/anti-control/free-speech aspects, and these are not easy problems indeed. But I do not believe people arguing the other aspects have much to debate on. Seems you're running in circles, pulling up the same non-reasoning over and over.
For the record I do not plan to donate in BC, neither do I mine it. I just tend to support more freedom in general.
g
On 11/12/13 06:58, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
I'm sure those reading this list can Google the topic themselves, so I won't link to the many angry discussion that are taking place on the interwebs right now;
I tried Googling, including news and blog searches, and couldn't work out what you are talking about. Maybe you should provide links.
-- Tim Starling
On 10 December 2013 23:13, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/12/13 06:58, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
I'm sure those reading this list can Google the topic themselves, so I won't link to the many angry discussion that are taking place on the interwebs right now;
I tried Googling, including news and blog searches, and couldn't work out what you are talking about. Maybe you should provide links.
tl;dr Bitcoin fans really, really want Wikimedia to accept Bitcoin donations; Wikimedia is not so interested, but haven't sent a big Monty Python-style trademark foot down on Bitpay as yet. Nobody else is very aware.
- d.
[completely personal opinion] To be totally, completely, honest I don't really want us to collect it... and at this point it's mostly for personal reasons.
First off this isn't really a huge new push to get us to accept bitcoin, they have been doing this ever 5-6 months in an organized fashion (frequently, but probably not always, started by some of the big bitcoin bloggers or payment providers) since at least 2010 when I was involved in the fundraiser generally trying to shame us and force us to accept it. The pushes generally include asking everyone to send fundraising emails and writing as many articles about it as possible. Every time it happens people say that they are getting angry and it's "a thing". This is actually a relatively minor burst of activity compared to the past couple years though the fact that it is happening is to be expected given the fundraiser push for the end of the year and the publicity that brings.
Part of me wants to say that it just isn't worth the effort. While I'm not in the FR team anymore so things may have changed the effort to integrate a new payment system is not tiny because it's actually very important for us to have automatic tracking into our donation system etc. We used to have multiple random payment e-wallet/payment methods spread out because people had created different accounts and they were insanely difficult to keep track of.
That said while I don't think the effort involved here is tiny/insubstantial the real reason I don't want to do it is because, at this point, it's seemed more and more like people wanted us to accept bitcoin more as a political statement then anything else. That is not our job, that is not our role, and I do not appreciate someone attempting to use us to make themselves look more mainstream and accepted. During the 2011 fundraiser the campaign focused on the fact that we accepted 'currencies of anti internet countries' but wouldn't accept bitcoins. We had integrated an enormous amount of different currencies (though each individual one was not much work it was really just the original integration that took forever). The articles and comments at the time seemed very clearly to me to try and imply that we should not be accepting these currencies (making it much harder for users in those countries to give) because they were 'anti internet' and we should accept bitcoin because it was 'pro internet'. I'm sorry, that's just not how we should be making decisions.
The articles since then have not seemed any different (and have, perhaps, seemed even more angry) every time I see stories asking us, or anyone for that matter, to accept bitcoin it's always couched in the idea that "oh X and Y accept it so why won't YOU!" and it is very clear that if we start accepting it every story will include some variation of "Wikipedia accepts it and therefore how can you say it isn't mainstream!". Very few (i'm sure they exist, but I haven't found them) of the articles talk about how much money the non profits or companies are making, they are all about trying to make a point and prove that we should accept bitcoin because... 'freedom'.. That isn't our job and, again, I don't like people who seem to be out to use our name for their gain.
Sorry for the bit of a ramble here :-/ at this point whenever I see another one of these pushes I want to accept bitcoin less and I respect the bitcoin community a bit less. It's a great idea (with some flaws, but a great idea none the less) but...this is not how to make it a respectable currency... it's how to make it look like a niche toy beloved by people trying to push an agenda :-/
James
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:20 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 December 2013 23:13, Tim Starling tstarling@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/12/13 06:58, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
I'm sure those reading this list can Google the topic themselves, so I won't link to the many angry discussion that are taking place on the interwebs right now;
I tried Googling, including news and blog searches, and couldn't work out what you are talking about. Maybe you should provide links.
tl;dr Bitcoin fans really, really want Wikimedia to accept Bitcoin donations; Wikimedia is not so interested, but haven't sent a big Monty Python-style trademark foot down on Bitpay as yet. Nobody else is very aware.
- d.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
I demand that the Wikimedia Foundation start accepting the following:
Litecoin Namecoin PPCoin Feathercoin Craftcoin Quarkcoin Freicoin Devcoin Terracoin BBQCoin Netcoin
Actually, scrap that, I've got an even better Ponzi scheme - sorry, cryptocurrency: TomCoin.
And, best of all, if you start taking TomCoins I'll be happy to give you a million of them. No, wait, how about a billion?
It's *completely* wrong to call these things Ponzi schemes.
*Technically*, they're pump-and-dumps.
- d. On 11 Dec 2013 10:59, "Tom Morris" tom@tommorris.org wrote:
I demand that the Wikimedia Foundation start accepting the following:
Litecoin Namecoin PPCoin Feathercoin Craftcoin Quarkcoin Freicoin Devcoin Terracoin BBQCoin Netcoin
Actually, scrap that, I've got an even better Ponzi scheme - sorry, cryptocurrency: TomCoin.
And, best of all, if you start taking TomCoins I'll be happy to give you a million of them. No, wait, how about a billion?
-- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
James Alexander wrote:
That said while I don't think the effort involved here is tiny/insubstantial the real reason I don't want to do it is because, at this point, it's seemed more and more like people wanted us to accept bitcoin more as a political statement then anything else. That is not our job, that is not our role, and I do not appreciate someone attempting to use us to make themselves look more mainstream and accepted.
It's funny, I just had a look at the wikimedia-l archive around January 2012... you know, that time when Wikipedia literally shut itself down as a political statement. The following month, the Wikimedia Foundation established a "Community Advocacy" department, not to be confused with lobbying, of which you're now a member.
I can appreciate the many legitimate reasons to not accept Bitcoin and I'm grateful for your candid thoughts on the matter, but the idea that you, of all people, would try to claim that it might (gasp!) insert politics into Wikipedia is simply disrespectful to history and reality.
MZMcBride
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It's funny, I just had a look at the wikimedia-l archive around January 2012... you know, that time when Wikipedia literally shut itself down as a political statement. The following month, the Wikimedia Foundation established a "Community Advocacy" department, not to be confused with lobbying, of which you're now a member.
I can appreciate the many legitimate reasons to not accept Bitcoin and I'm grateful for your candid thoughts on the matter, but the idea that you, of all people, would try to claim that it might (gasp!) insert politics into Wikipedia is simply disrespectful to history and reality.
I interpreted James Alexander's statement to mean that it's "not our job" and "not our role" to make the particular political statement that Bitcoin's proponents seek. This doesn't mean that it's *never* okay for us to engage in advocacy of a political nature, particularly in response to something potentially threatening a WMF project's very existence. (Whether SOPA and PIPA actually posed a significant threat is debatable, but the action in question stemmed from the belief that they did.)
David Levy
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 7:10 AM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
It's funny, I just had a look at the wikimedia-l archive around January 2012... you know, that time when Wikipedia literally shut itself down as
a
political statement. The following month, the Wikimedia Foundation established a "Community Advocacy" department, not to be confused with lobbying, of which you're now a member.
I can appreciate the many legitimate reasons to not accept Bitcoin and
I'm
grateful for your candid thoughts on the matter, but the idea that you,
of
all people, would try to claim that it might (gasp!) insert politics into Wikipedia is simply disrespectful to history and reality.
I interpreted James Alexander's statement to mean that it's "not our job" and "not our role" to make the particular political statement that Bitcoin's proponents seek. This doesn't mean that it's *never* okay for us to engage in advocacy of a political nature, particularly in response to something potentially threatening a WMF project's very existence. (Whether SOPA and PIPA actually posed a significant threat is debatable, but the action in question stemmed from the belief that they did.)
David Levy
David is right,
I think the SOPA/PIPA decision was the correct one in the end but I very highly respect those who did not/do not think it was. Even there I was highly uncomfortable making a strong political statement, especially using the project, and had to wrestle with myself a fair bit before I did it. There is no doubt that we, as an organization and a community, are not 'neutral' in everything but I think we should avoid being political unless we think it directly effects us and we have thought deeply about it. I have no issue with the foundation and community advocating for internet privacy/copyright laws etc for example but even those we need to be very picky about. I do not think this arrises to that level yet.
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Jake Orlowitz jorlowitz@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should 'make a statement' by accepting bitcoin, I think the currency is simply at the stage where it would be to our benefit to do so.
Jake (Ocaasi)
Without getting into some of your other arguments at the moment because of lack of time (through I don't agree with them all) I do think it's impossible to avoid 'making a statement' here. Whenever we do something we have to not only think about it from what 'we' are trying to make a statement about but also how it will be viewed. I think it is guaranteed that the commercial and non commercial community who has been pushing this for 4+ years will see it as a huge win and approval for their methods and that given their consistent strategies we will be used as a reason for many others to sign on as well with our 'support' being paraded around.
If we're going to do it, we need to know it's going to be seen and used as a statement whether we want it to or not.
James
I have no real opinion about the merits of bitcoin. But, I'm nevertheless amused and puzzled by this discussion, as I will illustrate with a little creative editing:
On 12/10/13 2:58 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
...does the Foundation intend to accept Bitcoin as a donation method any time soon? Does the Foundation realize that the payment processing company Bitpay has kindly set up a merchant account that is transferring money to the WMF every day?
So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and go to lunch? If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their work?
-A
Andrew Bogott wrote:
So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and go to lunch? If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their work?
There are, I believe, several problem with that solution: (1) Bitpay seems to have created that merchant account without ever discussing this with the Foundation, (2) the account is not owned by the Foundation, and the Foundation does not have any influence over it at the moment, (3) given choice, the Foundation might have decided to use the services of their competitor (for whatever reasons).
That's just off the top of my head, but I'm sure other people (not to mention Foundation lawyers!) can think of other things.
Tomasz
Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Andrew Bogott wrote:
So, we have a problem, and then we have an already-implemented solution... what is left for anyone to do but dust off their hands and go to lunch? If Bitpay has already solved the exact problem that we're discussion, why would the foundation spend a nickel duplicating their work?
There are, I believe, several problem with that solution: (1) Bitpay seems to have created that merchant account without ever discussing this with the Foundation, (2) the account is not owned by the Foundation, and the Foundation does not have any influence over it at the moment, (3) given choice, the Foundation might have decided to use the services of their competitor (for whatever reasons).
Re: http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html
I'm not sure I'm following all of this correctly. I thought the idea was that BitPay would exchange Bitcoins for USDs and then donate the USDs to the Wikimedia Foundation. Why would that require the Wikimedia Foundation being in control of whatever account is used to transfer the funds? Isn't the merchant account simply a means of transferring USDs? I'm lost. :-(
I think Andrew makes a compelling argument, though it's difficult to be sure when the implementation details are not entirely clear.
MZMcBride
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 8:24 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Re: http://blog.bitpay.com/2012/11/donate-to-wikipedia-with-bitcoin.html
I'm not sure I'm following all of this correctly. I thought the idea was that BitPay would exchange Bitcoins for USDs and then donate the USDs to the Wikimedia Foundation. Why would that require the Wikimedia Foundation being in control of whatever account is used to transfer the funds? Isn't the merchant account simply a means of transferring USDs? I'm lost. :-(
I think Andrew makes a compelling argument, though it's difficult to be sure when the implementation details are not entirely clear.
MZMcBride
I think the problem is that Bitpay doesn't appear to be a charity. They are accepting bitcoins and paying dollars; without a lot of transparency that hasn't been described yet in this thread, there's no way to know they aren't using the Wikimedia marks to support speculating in the value of bitcoins. We allow and encourage commercial reuse of most Wikimedia content, but the same isn't true of Wikimedia trademarks. I'm not against Bitpay making a profit, I just don't think they should be able to advertise for Wikipedia donations to pad their bottom line.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org