I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Currently, people have nowhere clear to go to. We get messages on the Village Pump or equivalent, by private email to participants (often unrelated to the articles), by emails to the Foundation board, by email to public mailing lists.
This, to me, is deeply unsatisfactory: * By providing no obvious way for people to complain about articles, we give the impression of some unreliable, irresponsible group. * While people look for a way to contact us, they become frustrated. As a result, their complaint may become unnecessarily accusatory and angry. * We also incite people to make legal threats to get some attention. * When people write to public lists, they attract undue attention to issues that should be better dealt with in the calm - some inflammatory email with legal threats will result in some angry answers, and all can escalate. * If people have a really legitimate problem, they have little recourse.
You will say, hey, they can simply edit the wiki. This simply does not work. Many people don't understand the editing process and simply can't do it. Furthermore, some well-meaning contributors may see their awkward efforts as "vandalism" and revert them. This gives people the impression that their edits are refused or that some "censorship" is implemented.
This is not imaginary. I'll spare you the details, but within one week the French association mailing-list received legal threats from two sources, both alleging bad treatment from Wikipedia. In both cases, the legal claims are dubious; but they can be an annoyance and would be better dealt with in a friendly agreement than if lawyers get involved.
Somebody remarked to me that we could, as many professional sites have, have a complaint page. The user would first have to answer some multiple-choice questions, meant for weeding out "non urgent" complaints (i.e. things such as "the birth date of XXX is incorrect"); or, these complaints could be sent to the talk page. Finally, if the reason seems to fit a legitimate "sensitive" category, they would have a form open for typing their message or would obtain some link to a complaint email address.
I think that as we become one of the foremost Internet sites, we will have more of the sort. We should have means so that simple problems don't escalate into full blown confrontations. Remember that even if we win, that's still a lot of frustration and lost time.
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
I don't think that's the issue here. Surely there are people who would be willing to handle these complaints. I myself would spend some time on it perhaps.
Mark
On 03/06/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
-- Sean Barrett | The capo gives part of his plan to one, sean@epoptic.com | part to another, the whole to none. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Mark Williamson stated for the record:
I don't think that's the issue here. Surely there are people who would be willing to handle these complaints. I myself would spend some time on it perhaps.
Well, that's good ol' Shirley and "perhaps" you. I for one am not going to assume the legal liability inherent in being the person who answers a legal complaint in way unsatisfactory to the complainant.
Sean Barrett a écrit:
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
That might not be *exactly* the right time to tell him that, after he spent several days on such an issue :-)
The best I can suggest is to write a good piece to put in [[about wikipedia]] (just as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAbout) with a good and lenghty explanation of the various circonstances which can be met,
* the article talk page (with reminder that any article can be edited and basic explanations on how to do so) * the pump for more general contact * wikifr-l for comment to french editors * wikimediafr-l for comment to the association only (explain the difference) * ca address (for private mails) * board address etc....
ant
Anthere wrote:
- the article talk page (with reminder that any article can be edited
and basic explanations on how to do so)
- the pump for more general contact
- wikifr-l for comment to french editors
- wikimediafr-l for comment to the association only (explain the
difference)
- ca address (for private mails)
- board address etc....
But they should really explain which lists are public and which go to a restricted circle of people. The real problems happen when people make inflammatory comments to public lists.
Some users really want confrontation - i.e. they want to make a point that they won't accept "censorship" etc. so if somebody requests some deletion, they will make it a point of honor not to let this happen. This degenerates into confrontations, threats and all.
Plus, again, if the problems are with privacy issues, writing to a public list is the opposite of what the user expects.
David Monniaux a écrit:
Anthere wrote:
- the article talk page (with reminder that any article can be edited
and basic explanations on how to do so)
- the pump for more general contact
- wikifr-l for comment to french editors
- wikimediafr-l for comment to the association only (explain the
difference)
- ca address (for private mails)
- board address etc....
But they should really explain which lists are public and which go to a restricted circle of people. The real problems happen when people make inflammatory comments to public lists.
Some users really want confrontation - i.e. they want to make a point that they won't accept "censorship" etc. so if somebody requests some deletion, they will make it a point of honor not to let this happen. This degenerates into confrontations, threats and all.
Plus, again, if the problems are with privacy issues, writing to a public list is the opposite of what the user expects.
Nod. We can explain that wikimediafr-l is public but not archived. wikifr-l is public, archived but moderated, and that the ca adress is private and not archived.
Ant
Anthere stated for the record:
Sean Barrett a écrit:
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
That might not be *exactly* the right time to tell him that, after he spent several days on such an issue :-)
Touché. My point, on the other hand, remains that having a /official/ complaint channel incurs the liability -- the legal obligation -- to handle those complaints in a reasonably prompt and effective manner. The vast majority of those complaints can be properly handled by replying "go away, kid, you bother me," but occasionally someone will be seriously offended, and the resulting lawsuit will name the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, twenty John Does, ... and everyone who responded to the complaint, even if though they were completely well-meaning. And since they were responding to a complaint submitted through an official channel, their response will be official -- they will be acting as an agent of the Foundation.
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
-- Sean Barrett | We all hate poverty, war, and injustice, sean@epoptic.com | unlike the rest of you squares. | --"The Folk Song Army" by Tom Lehrer
In that case, my "perhaps" is hereby changed to a "Sorry, I can't do it" because there are issues of liability concerning minors.
Also, in case you were thinking of asking, there is no such thing as emancipated minor status in the State of Arizona: all minors must have legal guardians here (though this is not the case in other states).
Mark
On 03/06/05, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
Anthere stated for the record:
Sean Barrett a écrit:
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
That might not be *exactly* the right time to tell him that, after he spent several days on such an issue :-)
Touché. My point, on the other hand, remains that having a /official/ complaint channel incurs the liability -- the legal obligation -- to handle those complaints in a reasonably prompt and effective manner. The vast majority of those complaints can be properly handled by replying "go away, kid, you bother me," but occasionally someone will be seriously offended, and the resulting lawsuit will name the Foundation, Jimbo Wales, twenty John Does, ... and everyone who responded to the complaint, even if though they were completely well-meaning. And since they were responding to a complaint submitted through an official channel, their response will be official -- they will be acting as an agent of the Foundation.
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
-- Sean Barrett | We all hate poverty, war, and injustice, sean@epoptic.com | unlike the rest of you squares. | --"The Folk Song Army" by Tom Lehrer _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Hi,
Le Friday 3 June 2005 19:44, Sean Barrett a écrit : [...]
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
That exactly what happens *now*. Complains come (from French speaking people) to wikifr-l and random users answer. Not good. I think that David's request is very well needed.
-- Sean Barrett | We all hate poverty, war, and injustice, sean@epoptic.com | unlike the rest of you squares.
| --"The Folk Song Army" by Tom Lehrer
Yann
Yann Forget stated for the record:
Hi,
Le Friday 3 June 2005 19:44, Sean Barrett a écrit : [...]
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
That exactly what happens *now*. Complains come (from French speaking people) to wikifr-l and random users answer. Not good. I think that David's request is very well needed.
It appears that you did not read what I wrote. How does having "random users answer" consititute an "officially approved channel"?
Being able to dismiss a stupid or offensive answer as having come from a random user of a public mailing list renders the Foundation immune to suits, not more vulnerable.
-- Sean Barrett | Aw, Mom, you act like I'm not even sean@epoptic.com | wearing a bungee cord! --Calvin
Sean Barrett a écrit:
Yann Forget stated for the record:
Hi,
Le Friday 3 June 2005 19:44, Sean Barrett a écrit : [...]
Newbies get bit around here far too often. Biting a newbie with a legitimate legal complaint through an officially approved channel is a recipe for disaster.
That exactly what happens *now*. Complains come (from French speaking people) to wikifr-l and random users answer. Not good. I think that David's request is very well needed.
It appears that you did not read what I wrote. How does having "random users answer" consititute an "officially approved channel"?
Being able to dismiss a stupid or offensive answer as having come from a random user of a public mailing list renders the Foundation immune to suits, not more vulnerable.
-- Sean Barrett | Aw, Mom, you act like I'm not even sean@epoptic.com | wearing a bungee cord! --Calvi n
Hi Sean
The main difference is make is this one
* if some one answers very quietly, with no usage of slightly offensive words or without dismissing the complainer request, that makes no difference at all, as usually the issue is fixed amiably.
* if some one (whoever) makes a rude, or agressive, or dismissive answer, the complainer is obviously very displeased; and usually his tone gets less pleasant; What was before just a question becomes a request. What was a request becomes a legal action. So, of course, in front of a tribunal, what the first random person answered will not be used against us, but if he had never made the first answer, we would possibly not be in tribunal... I go a bit far, but the problem is generally that when someone was greatly upsetted by a first inappropriate answer, it takes a *lot* more effort to reach a quiet agreement.
Ant
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
The best I can suggest is to write a good piece to put in [[about wikipedia]] (just as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AAbout) with a good and lenghty explanation of the various circonstances which can be met,
- the article talk page (with reminder that any article can be edited
and basic explanations on how to do so)
- the pump for more general contact
- wikifr-l for comment to french editors
- wikimediafr-l for comment to the association only (explain the difference)
- ca address (for private mails)
- board address etc....
Such a page already exists on the English Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us but since it it not linked prominently, few people who would find such a page useful know about it.
-- mav
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Such a page already exists on the English Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us but since it it not linked prominently, few people who would find such a page useful know about it.
Yes... There are many things that actually are on Wikipedia, but are difficult to find for the non-savvy.
I don't think that the biggest issue are calm people who are used to the Internet, how it works etc. Those people will use Google or whatever until they find good contact links, or at least they'll ponder their actions.
The problem is people who, for some reason, are angry about our content, don't find a clear way to talk to us, get really really angry and send legal threats to random addresses they find on our pages.
This, especially, is compounded by the lack of a clearly identifiable publisher/editor (which is a legal requirement in many countries for books and periodicals, and could well be construed to be for large Internet sites such as ours). If I take the front page of the French language Wikipedia: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accueil I don't know where to get this information from!
* There's a "A Wikimedia Project" (in English) icon hidden at the bottom left. 99% of people won't know what this means (well, how is that different from "A Mediawiki Project" and a link to some technical computing site?). Furthermore, it links to a site in English, which most people around the world don't read (at least, don't read fluently). Remember, most "angry readers" will not be the kind that speak multiple languages, know their way around the Internet, know how to use Whois, Google etc. in order to find people. * At the very bottom of the page, just under some big label about some license (in English; most people don't even know what a license is anyway) there's a link "about wikipedia" [translated]. Needless to say, one has to look for it to find it. It links to a page that links to a page "contact us" [translated], which is... blank! (I may fix that.)
So I think we should have a very clear text: "All text published by their respective authors under their responsibility on servers maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation. [[How to contact us]]."
The page "how to contact us" should first explain how to use talk pages for mundane matters, then give the coordinates of *restricted lists* of *responsible people* who can deal with really important matters.
There seems to be an objection to having a list for legal complaints. What is the alternative? Currently, people make legal complaints to public mailing lists, get not so informed, unofficial answers, etc. That makes the situation worse.
-- DM
David Monniaux a écrit: * At the very bottom of the page, just under some big label about some
license (in English; most people don't even know what a license is anyway) there's a link "about wikipedia" [translated]. Needless to say, one has to look for it to find it. It links to a page that links to a page "contact us" [translated], which is... blank! (I may fix that.)
You sweet :-) Of course, it is blank :-) I changed the top of this page yesterday night to include proeminently this [[Wikipedia:contact]] link; Then I realised the entire [[Wikipédia:About]] page was outdated. So, I started working on it instead of doing the "contact" page :-)
Ant
Right
We now have this : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia%3AContact
ant
Anthere a écrit:
David Monniaux a écrit:
- At the very bottom of the page, just under some big label about some
license (in English; most people don't even know what a license is anyway) there's a link "about wikipedia" [translated]. Needless to say, one has to look for it to find it. It links to a page that links to a page "contact us" [translated], which is... blank! (I may fix that.)
You sweet :-) Of course, it is blank :-) I changed the top of this page yesterday night to include proeminently this [[Wikipedia:contact]] link; Then I realised the entire [[Wikipédia:About]] page was outdated. So, I started working on it instead of doing the "contact" page :-)
An t
I am already doing it on irc for fr: and sometimes also for other people. I am also volunteering on juriwiki-l where we have something like 4 or 5 IP lawyers more or less available.
Anyway, nobody should "handle" things, but it would great to give a minimum level of advice when people have no idea of how to react and no legal assistance on their own.
Le 3 juin 05 à 17:51, Sean Barrett a écrit :
David Monniaux stated for the record:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Thank you for volunteering to handle all these complaints promptly and without pay.
-- Sean Barrett | The capo gives part of his plan to one, sean@epoptic.com | part to another, the whole to none. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
--- David Monniaux David.Monniaux@ens.fr wrote:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Well there is that pesky discussion link at the top of articles, but I agree that a 'contact us' link is needed in either the sidebar or at the bottom of every page. Such a link was in the old standard skin, but not in MonoBook. There is a current MediaWiki feature request for a generic footer message where links like [[Contact us]], [[Terms of use]], and [[Privacy policy]] could be put. I think that would be best way to do this.
Here is the link to the en.wikipedia contact us page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us
It would be very useful to have this page linked from every page again through a footer message.
-- mav
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Well there is that pesky discussion link at the top of articles,
This link * requires the user to know how to edit the wiki * provides no obvious method for feedback to the user (who would have to find his way back to the talk page) * does not provide for discretion. In the case of a breach of privacy, etc., users don't necessarily want to discuss their concerns in public.
As for the (smart-aleck, if I may say so) remark on having to read those complaints: currently, the Foundation receives the complaints *once users have found a way to contact it*. Users such as Sannse etc. have to read it. Sometimes, mails go to random users. Sometimes, they go to public mailing-lists and they attract controversy.
Personally, I think that having clear complaint links reduces our risk of getting sued or at least of getting served legal summons by angry and frustrated people.
Cross posted to WikiEn-l since I plan to tweak en.wiki's interface a tiny bit. --- David Monniaux David.Monniaux@ens.fr wrote:
Personally, I think that having clear complaint links reduces our risk of getting sued or at least of getting served legal summons by angry and frustrated people.
I would not call it a 'complaint link' since I (and I imagine many others) don't want to encourage complaints, per se. We can, however, largely fix the apparent-lack-of-feedback-mechanism issue *right now* by editing [[MediaWiki:Help]] to read 'Help / Contact us' instead of just 'Help'. I've already made some small changes the the English Wikipedia's [[help:Contents]] page to make this hack work (ideally 'Help' and 'Contact us' would each link to their own pages, but that is not possible).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Help (where I've already said I will do this in two days).
That should tide us over until/if we get the generic footer message MediaWiki page I was talking about in my last email (where multiple links and/or messages could be displayed - not unlike [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]], except most of the links would be there all the time).
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
You're right, it should not be a "complaint" link but rather a "help" link.
And it should send both to the relevant mailing-lists and irc channels.
Le 4 juin 05 à 01:24, Daniel Mayer a écrit :
Cross posted to WikiEn-l since I plan to tweak en.wiki's interface a tiny bit. --- David Monniaux David.Monniaux@ens.fr wrote:
Personally, I think that having clear complaint links reduces our risk of getting sued or at least of getting served legal summons by angry and frustrated people.
I would not call it a 'complaint link' since I (and I imagine many others) don't want to encourage complaints, per se. We can, however, largely fix the apparent-lack-of-feedback-mechanism issue *right now* by editing [[MediaWiki:Help]] to read 'Help / Contact us' instead of just 'Help'. I've already made some small changes the the English Wikipedia's [[help:Contents]] page to make this hack work (ideally 'Help' and 'Contact us' would each link to their own pages, but that is not possible).
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Help (where I've already said I will do this in two days).
That should tide us over until/if we get the generic footer message MediaWiki page I was talking about in my last email (where multiple links and/ or messages could be displayed - not unlike [[MediaWiki:Sitenotice]], except most of the links would be there all the time).
-- mav
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On 03/06/05, David Monniaux David.Monniaux@ens.fr wrote:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
I strongly agree. Currently there are two problems; firstly people not knowing where to report and problem and therefore not bothering, and secondly, people assuming that the board email address is the place to send all issues. A page which explains where each type of problem should be reported would be helpful, not only for people needing this information, but also for those people who are faced with constant queries in the wrong place.
I created link to http://www.wikicities.com/wiki/Report_a_problem on every Wikicity in an attempt to address this, since we were having the same problem there as we have at Wikimedia. Perhaps a similar page could be developed and translated for Wikimedia, and it might also be useful for such a link to become a default part of MediaWiki since the "contact us" link has now gone (from the default skin anyway).
Angela
I totally support your idea.
I am on irc and on juriwiki-l on a 24/24 basis to answer legal issues as best as I can and tell people when I can't, but people seem to come mainly by luck or because someone else told them.
It would not be difficult to precise in every page that authors are responsible for what they write and that they should get some advice if they don't feel comfortable with something, assuming that we don't endorse any editing role or whatever... just mention that we exist if they have nothing else.
I am certain that simply adding such a precision would greatly improve the legal security on wikipedia.
Le 3 juin 05 à 17:12, David Monniaux a écrit :
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
Currently, people have nowhere clear to go to. We get messages on the Village Pump or equivalent, by private email to participants (often unrelated to the articles), by emails to the Foundation board, by email to public mailing lists.
This, to me, is deeply unsatisfactory:
- By providing no obvious way for people to complain about
articles, we give the impression of some unreliable, irresponsible group.
- While people look for a way to contact us, they become
frustrated. As a result, their complaint may become unnecessarily accusatory and angry.
- We also incite people to make legal threats to get some attention.
- When people write to public lists, they attract undue attention to
issues that should be better dealt with in the calm - some inflammatory email with legal threats will result in some angry answers, and all can escalate.
- If people have a really legitimate problem, they have little
recourse.
You will say, hey, they can simply edit the wiki. This simply does not work. Many people don't understand the editing process and simply can't do it. Furthermore, some well-meaning contributors may see their awkward efforts as "vandalism" and revert them. This gives people the impression that their edits are refused or that some "censorship" is implemented.
This is not imaginary. I'll spare you the details, but within one week the French association mailing-list received legal threats from two sources, both alleging bad treatment from Wikipedia. In both cases, the legal claims are dubious; but they can be an annoyance and would be better dealt with in a friendly agreement than if lawyers get involved.
Somebody remarked to me that we could, as many professional sites have, have a complaint page. The user would first have to answer some multiple-choice questions, meant for weeding out "non urgent" complaints (i.e. things such as "the birth date of XXX is incorrect"); or, these complaints could be sent to the talk page. Finally, if the reason seems to fit a legitimate "sensitive" category, they would have a form open for typing their message or would obtain some link to a complaint email address.
I think that as we become one of the foremost Internet sites, we will have more of the sort. We should have means so that simple problems don't escalate into full blown confrontations. Remember that even if we win, that's still a lot of frustration and lost time.
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
David Monniaux schreef:
I think that all Wikipedia pages should contain somewhere (say, at the bottom) a link to a page where people could complain about the content of the articles. (I'm talking here of complaints about breach of privacy, copyright violation, libel etc.)
The Dutch Wikipedia has something like this for some years now. On the bottom of the main page there is an "Contact"-link.
And in the side menu of all pages a "Help and contact"-link. It goes to a short page whit some options like where to find the answers of most of the questions, use the talk page, etc. and an link to an emailform to send an question to Wikipedia.
The people doing the emails are all senior Wikipedians and are using an disclaimer that the write in there own name and can not speak in the name of Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation.
The feedback we get from the users is very useful. You get that way the responds from visitors for who editing on a talk page is to strange to do. If you do not have an traditional way of contact you lose good information. Or even questions from the press or so.
The only problem is the some new users think the this contact point is an place where the can appeal for internal Wikipedia-social stuff.
Walter
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org