Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Rob Speer]

I would like to not limit the discussion to interwiki links; it also
applies to Wikipedia infoboxes and Wiktionary tables, for example.

On Thu, 17 May 2018 at 20:55 Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> Rob Speer wrote:
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
> "Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
> through at least one (preferably all) of @href, , or "Link:". If
> live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
> blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
> http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
>
> So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
> entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
>
> What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
> Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
> own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
> original source of the extraction.
>
> (A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
> whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
>
> My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
> non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
> different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
> different attribution) is legally sound.
>
> If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
> exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
> followed on Wikidata.
>
> For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
> project chat and in Phabricator:
>
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wikimedia_projects
>
>
> I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
>
> Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
> need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
> for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
> interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
> quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
> Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
>
> Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
> you like to ask instead?
>
>
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer  wrote:
>
> > > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is
> the
> > enemy of science and knowledge
> >
> > Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
> >
> > I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> > which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to
> multiple
> > Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> > by CC-By-SA.
> >
> > Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against
> CC-By-SA.
> > I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the
> attitude
> > toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding
> us
> > back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> > us follow it", etc.
> >
> > The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> > versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> > resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> > Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use
> DBPedia
> > and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> > Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
> >
> > On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright
> is
> > > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> &

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Rob Speer]

> As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
enemy of science and knowledge

Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.

I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
by CC-By-SA.

Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
us follow it", etc.

The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?

On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
>
> In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use Wikipedia,
> it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> well as "we" do it.
>
> When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be uploaded
> (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the copyright
> holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> annoying.
>
> As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view there
> is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because it
> is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> as a tool for disambiguation.
>
> About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that is
> corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of the
> data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the notion
> that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> the copyright held on databases.
>
> I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However our
> attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> around existing copyright and how can we protect our own.  As argued,
> Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to be
> used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> [1]
>
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-data.html
>
> On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer  wrote:
>
> > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> that
> > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> idea
> > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
> > violation is coming from inside the house!
> >
> > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello everybody,
> > >
>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata

[Rob Speer]

Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects that
change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no idea
that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative Commons
violation is coming from inside the house!

On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote:

> Hello everybody,
>
> There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
>  that you might be interested
> to look at and participate in.
>
> As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through the
> discussion on the Wikidata chat
> <
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
>
> I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
>
> Cheers
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Amazon Echo' use of Wikipedia; CC license compliance?

[Rob Speer]

Right, this worries me too.

I know that Wikimedia doesn't enforce the copyright on the content
themselves, because they don't hold the relevant copyrights, the authors
do. But there seems to be no guidance for what _anyone_ can do to address
and correct large-scale violations. The guides on Wikipedia meta-pages are
about "here's what to do if someone copies content without following the
license", but not "here's what to do if someone copies _all_ the content
without following the license". Asking for takedowns of particular pages
that I was directly involved in, one at a time, would be silly and less
than effective.

Here I'm thinking of things more brazen than the Google Knowledge Graph --
projects that combine multiple CC-By-SA resources together, claim ownership
over the content, and sell it.

I'm not asking Wikimedia to do all the work. But I'd at least like to hear
what has worked and what hasn't worked in enforcing copyright on Wikimedia
projects. If the answer is "nothing works", that doesn't bode well for
Creative Commons data.

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 at 19:53 Anthony Cole  wrote:

> Is someone from WMF monitoring wikimedia-l and notifying relevant employees
> when an issue arises under their remit? This issue - big companies using
> our writing without attribution and like-licensing - has been hanging with
> no word from the WMF for six months.
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:22 PM, Anthony Cole  wrote:
>
> > I see this from Brian Heater at Tech Crunch on 25 March:
> >
> > "In a conversation earlier this week, Wikimedia’s Chief Revenue Office,
> > Lisa Gruwell told TechCrunch that this sort of usage doesn’t constitute
> any
> > sort of formal relationship. Most companies more or less hook into an API
> > to utilize that breadth of knowledge. It’s handy for sure, and *it’s all
> > well within Wikimedia’s fair use rules*, but as with Maher’s letter, the
> > CRO expressed some concerns about seemingly one-sided relationships ...
> *Smart
> > assistants are certainly playing by the applicable rules when it comes to
> > leveraging that information base.*"[1]
> >
> > That article I link to has both Katherine (WMF ED) and Lisa (Chief
> Revenue
> > Officer) asking the companies who use our work for free to "give back." I
> > want them to give back too, but I don't absolve them of their obligation
> to
> > meaningfully attribute my work and share it with the same rights
> attached.
> > If it is the opinion of the WMF that these smart assistants are not
> > breaching my rights, I'd like to see the legal advice that opinion is
> based
> > on.
> >
> > 1.https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/24/are-corporations-that-
> > use-wikipedia-giving-back/
> >
> > Anthony Cole
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 5:47 PM, WereSpielChequers <
> > werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Yes of course the WMF can contact those who are detected reusing our
> >> content without fully complying with licenses and encourage them to
> >> comply.
> >>
> >> If a case were to go to court it would need to have one or more
> >> contributors who were willing to cooperate with WMF legal in the case.
> But
> >> I doubt there would be a shortage of contributors who were keen to do
> so.
> >>
> >> As for why the WMF should do so, here are three reasons:
> >>
> >> Each of our wikis is a crowd sourced project. Crowd sourcing requires a
> >> crowd, if a crowd settles down and stabilises it becomes a community.
> The
> >> community is broadly stable, but we need a steady flow of new
> wikimedians,
> >> and our only really effective way of recruiting new Wikimedians is for
> >> them
> >> to see the edit button on our sites. An increasing shift to our content
> >> being used without attribution is an existential threat to the project
> and
> >> hence to the WMF.
> >>
> >> Our communities are made up of volunteers with diverse motivations. For
> >> some of us the BY-SA part of the licensing is important, personally I
> feel
> >> good when i see one of my photos used by someone else but attributed to
> >> me.
> >> If the de facto policy of the WMF was to treat volunteer contributions
> as
> >> effectively CC0 this would be demotivating for some members of our
> >> community. I'm also active on another site where every member regularly
> >> gets stats on their readership, something I very much doubt would happen
> >> if
> >> it wasn't an effective mechanism to encourage continued participation.
> >>
> >> Every organisation needs money, the WMF gets most of its money by asking
> >> for it on wikipedia and other sites. Again, encouraging attribution back
> >> to
> >> Wikipedia etc tackles the existential threat of other sites treating
> >> wikipedia et al as CC0.
> >>
> >>
> >> WSC
> >>
> >> On 5 April 2018 at 08:04, 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On 04/04/2018 08:36 PM, Anthony Cole wrote:
> >> > > I'm curious also. I release my articles under "attribution, share
> >> alike"
> >> > > and rely on WM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] BabelNet is remixing Wikimedia content without following CC-By-SA terms

[Rob Speer]

Everipedia sounds even worse, because they sound like the kind of
move-fast-and-break-laws blockchain startup that thinks the legal system is
something that happens to other people. But  Roberto Navigli is a respected
academic and presumably has some interest in following the law, if he can
be convinced that his self-serving interpretation of the law will not hold
up.

Again, there has to be a process that's been followed before, right?
BabelNet and Everipedia can't be the first instances of people dumping all
the data from Wikimedia projects into their own projects without following
the license.

Another interesting twist: the CC-By-NC-SA download they offered to "people
wanting to use BabelNet for research purposes" has been taken offline "for
the Easter holiday", which approximately coincides with when Navigli
responded to my e-mail, but unless Easter is a very long holiday in Italy I
suspect that it's gone for the indefinite future. So they aren't sharing
_anything_ anymore.

I believe that what BabelNet needs to do is:

- Change the license of BabelNet from CC-By-NC-SA 3.0 to CC-By-SA 4.0
- Add attribution and license information to their images (or remove the
image galleries)
- Relicense or remove the dependencies of BabelNet that have non-commercial
licenses (they use a toolkit called JLTUtils that is developed at the same
university, under a CC-By-NC-SA license, which is strange because it
appears to be software and not content)
- Reinstate the downloadable version of the data, with no academic-only
restrictions

I don't want to end up issuing some sort of copyright takedown against
BabelNet. It's a project that should keep existing, but under the correct
license.


On Wed, 11 Apr 2018 at 09:49 Michael Peel  wrote:

> They also appear to be using photos from Wikimedia Commons without paying
> attention to the license. I can find photos of mine that are CC-BY-SA-4.0
> licensed that are being used without any metadata at all, let alone
> attribution and the correct CC license info…
>
> The same is also true for Everipedia, BTW.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
> > On 10 Apr 2018, at 14:43, Rob Speer  wrote:
> >
> > BabelNet (http://babelnet.org) is a multilingual knowledge resource that
> > defines words and phrases in many languages. I've noticed that it copies
> > large amounts of content from Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia,
> > Wiktionary, and Wikiquote, while violating Wikimedia's CC-By-SA license
> by
> > placing the content under an incompatible CC-By-NC-SA license.
> >
> > As one example, I can search BabelNet for "Timsort", a Wikipedia article
> > whose first sentence is one I wrote:
> >
> http://live.babelnet.org/synset?word=Timsort&lang=EN&details=1&orig=Timsort
> >
> > The sentence I wrote appears at the top of the page (with credit to
> > Wikipedia). The rest of the page is also content remixed from Wikipedia,
> > including a gallery of images that are presented without credit. A
> scrolly
> > box in the footer of the page says the content is under the CC-By-NC-SA
> 3.0
> > license. Other pages, such as
> http://babelnet.org/synset?word=bn:00852566n,
> > combine data from multiple different resources.
> >
> > The BabelNet creators are aware of the CC-By-SA licenses of the resources
> > they use (see http://babelnet.org/licenses/). In addition to the
> > non-commercial license they offer, their company, Babelscape (
> > http://babelscape.com/), sells commercial licenses to BabelNet.
> >
> > I reached out to Roberto Navigli, who runs BabelNet and Babelscape, over
> > e-mail on March 23. I asked if the non-commercial license clause was
> simply
> > a mistake. In his reply, Navigli stated that BabelNet is not a derived
> > work, but is a CC-By-NC-SA-licensed collection made of several different
> > works. I responded that BabelNet doesn't meet the Creative Commons
> > definition of a "Collective Work", which would be necessary for it to not
> > be a derived work. Navigli responded:
> >
> > "actually it is a collection of derivative work of several resources with
> > heretogeneous licenses, each of which clearly separated with separate
> > licenses and bundles. By transitivity derivative work is work with a
> > certain license, so it is work. Therefore, it is a collection of works
> with
> > different licenses and it can keep a separate license."
> >
> > I believe this is nonsense on multiple levels. BabelNet is a derived
> work,
> > and if someone could disregard their obligation to share-alike their
> > derived work simply because they derived it from multiple resources,
> there
> >

[Wikimedia-l] BabelNet is remixing Wikimedia content without following CC-By-SA terms

[Rob Speer]

BabelNet (http://babelnet.org) is a multilingual knowledge resource that
defines words and phrases in many languages. I've noticed that it copies
large amounts of content from Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia,
Wiktionary, and Wikiquote, while violating Wikimedia's CC-By-SA license by
placing the content under an incompatible CC-By-NC-SA license.

As one example, I can search BabelNet for "Timsort", a Wikipedia article
whose first sentence is one I wrote:
http://live.babelnet.org/synset?word=Timsort&lang=EN&details=1&orig=Timsort

The sentence I wrote appears at the top of the page (with credit to
Wikipedia). The rest of the page is also content remixed from Wikipedia,
including a gallery of images that are presented without credit. A scrolly
box in the footer of the page says the content is under the CC-By-NC-SA 3.0
license. Other pages, such as http://babelnet.org/synset?word=bn:00852566n,
combine data from multiple different resources.

The BabelNet creators are aware of the CC-By-SA licenses of the resources
they use (see http://babelnet.org/licenses/). In addition to the
non-commercial license they offer, their company, Babelscape (
http://babelscape.com/), sells commercial licenses to BabelNet.

I reached out to Roberto Navigli, who runs BabelNet and Babelscape, over
e-mail on March 23. I asked if the non-commercial license clause was simply
a mistake. In his reply, Navigli stated that BabelNet is not a derived
work, but is a CC-By-NC-SA-licensed collection made of several different
works. I responded that BabelNet doesn't meet the Creative Commons
definition of a "Collective Work", which would be necessary for it to not
be a derived work. Navigli responded:

"actually it is a collection of derivative work of several resources with
heretogeneous licenses, each of which clearly separated with separate
licenses and bundles. By transitivity derivative work is work with a
certain license, so it is work. Therefore, it is a collection of works with
different licenses and it can keep a separate license."

I believe this is nonsense on multiple levels. BabelNet is a derived work,
and if someone could disregard their obligation to share-alike their
derived work simply because they derived it from multiple resources, there
would be no point to putting ShareAlike clauses on data resources at all.

As a Wikipedia contributor (and a lapsed admin), I am sad to see BabelNet
appropriating the hard work of Wikimedians and others, placing a more
restrictive license on it, and selling it. This is also relevant for me
because I run ConceptNet (http://www.conceptnet.io/), a similar knowledge
resource, and I have made sure to follow Creative Commons license
requirements and to release all its data as CC-By-SA.

In a way I see BabelNet as a competitor, but ConceptNet is an open data
project and this space shouldn't have "competitors". If the Creative
Commons license were being used appropriately, then all of us working with
this kind of data would be collaborators in the world of Linked Open Data.
My preferred outcome would be to get BabelNet to change the copyright
notices and Creative Commons links on their site to remove the
"non-commercial" requirement, and to be able to download and use their data
under the CC-By-SA license that it should be under.

I'm sure Wikimedia has dealt with similar situations to this. What would be
the most effective next step to ensure that BabelNet follows the CC-By-SA
license?

-- Rob Speer
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia DC Book Grant Program Announcement

[Rob]

Systemic bias issues on Wikipedia are often exacerbated by the lack of
digital resources in certain subject areas.  (Another reason for this
librarian to get annoyed when people say everything is online.)  The
book grant program is a great way to help address this.


On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> Great, I'm glad to hear!
>
> (not sure why we're cross-posting to the gender gap list.)
>
>A.
>
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Kirill Lokshin <
> kirill.loks...@wikimediadc.org> wrote:
>
> > We did a preliminary assessment of the first pilot's outcomes in
> December,
> > with very promising results (50+ new articles created, 10+ articles
> > promoted to GA, and solid plans for continuing work).  Our plan is to
> > conduct a more detailed evaluation in August/September and include those
> > results in our annual report.
> >
> > Kirill
> >
> > --
> > Kirill Lokshin
> > President
> > Wikimedia District of Columbia
> > kirill.loks...@wikimediadc.org
> > https://wikimediadc.org
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:39 PM, Asaf Bartov 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Excellent. :)
> > >
> > > Does that mean there have been (positive?) conclusions from the first
> > > pilot?  Is that assessment documented somewhere?
> > >
> > >A.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Keilana 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello all! (Apologies for cross-posting!)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I’m pleased to announce the second round of Wikimedia DC Book
> Grants, a
> > > > pilot program in which we help provide editors with resources they
> need
> > > to
> > > > improve Wikimedia projects. If you live in the United States and
> > actively
> > > > edit Wikimedia projects, you are eligible; you do not have to be a
> > member
> > > > of WMDC or edit English projects.
> > > >
> > > > Applications are open for one week, from today through Monday, April
> 4.
> > > We
> > > > expect to let people know by April 10 whether or not their grant
> > request
> > > > has been funded.
> > > >
> > > > More information is available on the Wikimedia DC website [1].
> > > >
> > > > Apply for a grant here: https://podio.com/webforms/14722557/986696
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://wikimediadc.org/wiki/Book_grants
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Emily Temple-Wood
> > > > Vice President, Wikimedia District of Columbia
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Asaf Bartov
> > > Wikimedia Foundation 
> > >
> > > Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the
> > > sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> > > https://donate.wikimedia.org
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Distinction between service and content (Re: Monetizing Wikimedia APIs)

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi everyone,

Splitting the thread off to avoid hijacking it

On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Mitar  wrote:

> I think this conversation is diverging from the question of the
> *service* we should offer to others to licensing of the content.
> Licensing does not say anything about the service one should offer for
> the content. Any service, any API, is more or less something one does
> extra on top of the licensing requirements. We could just offer dumps
> of data and this is it. But if we offer more, some specialized
> services, uptime and availability and so on, that does not have much
> with the licensing of the content. That discussion should thus be on
> some other layer. Investigating licensing will not give us much
> insight into the question if we should go into the business of
> offering data services or not.


I think this is a useful way of thinking about the problem.  One thing we
discussed quite a bit at the Wikimedia Developer Summit earlier this month
is the distinction between the content format (see "content format" <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119022>) and the APIs that we use to
access the content (see "content access":  <
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T119029>).

The two are incredibly easy to conflate, in part because one could argue
that the content format is merely a translatable expression of the
underlying data model.  That said, it seems to me that we have to stop
abstracting things *somewhere*, to avoid getting deeply lost in too many
layers of abstraction.  If nothing else, we need a "free format" per the
Free Content definition (<http://freedomdefined.org/>).

Mitar, is your layer distinction between "service" and "content" the same
one that I'm trying to draw between "content format" and "content access"?
I have further thoughts on this, but I just want to make sure we're talking
about the same distinction.

Rob
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

"It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the
values which define it and which are very important for us. For me to
look on these particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and
to be able to do nothing is very humiliating."

It was a photo of a cup of coffee.  It was a mistake that was quickly
acknowledged and corrected.  Let's keep things in perspective, please.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:
> That is not a small thing. That is an enormous thing. We show people some
> unfree image while propagating free stuff. Hypocrisy? We are speaking about
> thousands of people seeing it.
>
> It is good that the stuff was removed, but from my point of view that
> another image with link to an external site rather than to Commons is still
> a very bad thing. It reminds me those games where ads are ways better than
> the game itself.
>
> Commons must contain the images used to help funding projects one of which
> is Commons.
>
> Another disturbing point indeed is WMF hiding on all these wikis like
> donatewiki, votewiki
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2015-06#License_policy_abuse_on_votewiki>and
> similar where it freely violates its own licensing policy and where they are
> safe from the community.
>
> It looks like WMF has some pleasure from spitting on some of the values
> which define it and which are very important for us. For me to look on these
> particular mentioned wikis, to see a bad abuse there and to be able to do
> nothing is very humiliating.
>
> I just cannot imagine such things to be mistakes. If it after all is a
> mistake then it's systematical one and something with the organization is
> wrong. Wrong things are those which need fixes.
>
> --Base
>
>
> On 03.12.2015 23:49, Rob wrote:
>>
>> I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
>> and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
>> was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
>>>> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with
>>>> outside
>>>> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns
>>>> (and
>>>> can then share) or freely licensed images.
>>>
>>> Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
>>> not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
>>> Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
>>> working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
>>> used in fundraising?
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
>>> photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
>>> on by WMF staff members.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
>>> - SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
>>> Image?)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
>>> BHouse (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
>>> RStearns (Trilogy)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon
>>> (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
>>> Jseddon (WMF)
>>> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
>>> Jseddon 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

I doubt the selection of a single image occupied that much staff time
and discussion.  No process is perfect. This is a small thing, that
was quickly fixed.  I doubt a lot of money was wasted here.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:11 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> "On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
>> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
>> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
>> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
>> can then share) or freely licensed images.
>
> Someone needed to approve purchasing the stock photograph.  They are
> not free...?  Was it WMF or Trilogy?
> Even if it was Trilogy, WMF sanity check processes are also not
> working.  Surely someone at WMF is responsible for QA of the images
> used in fundraising?
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles shows this stock
> photograph was uploaded to donate.wikimedia.org many times, and worked
> on by WMF staff members.
>
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:10-coffee-txt-thepricekeepswikithriving.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:03-coffee-txt-goingallyear.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Newgreen.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-alt.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greencoffeecup-4.jpg - SPatton (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead-redcup.jpg
> - SPatton (WMF) (marked as CC-BY-SA; is that legal with the Getty
> Image?)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-3dollars.jpg -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.jpg -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-no-text.jpg -
> BHouse (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-overhead-small.png -
> RStearns (Trilogy)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-faites_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v2.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-fr-offrez_v1.png - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v2.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-oggi_offri_v1.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v2.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-it-dona_caffe_v1.png -
> Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v2.png
> - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-en-donate_coffee_v1.png
> - Jseddon (WMF)
> https://donate.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coffee-price-overhead.jpg -
> BHouse (Trilogy)
>
> Jseddon uploaded several alternative coffee cup photographs to
> donate.wikimedia.org (no metadata, but they look like his own work...,
> and not too shabby) . How did a stock photograph become selected over
> other options, and ownership/copyright was never raised during those
> selection discussions?
>
> That is a lot of donor money wasted by someone somehow deciding to use
> a Getty image as part of a multimillion dollor fundraising drive for
> an organisation supporting "It is like a library or a public park. It
> is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think,
> to learn, to share our knowledge with others."
>
> I do hope your contract with the external design company allows you to
> reclaim the wasted donor money caused by their violation of the
> contract regarding image selection.
>
> "We’ve worked hard over the years to keep it lean and tight. We
> fulfill our mission, and leave waste to others."
>
>> We pulled that banner yesterday
>
> Thank you.
>
>> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
>
> Why not use the Coffee SVG I found (very easily I must say)?
>
>> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
>> This artwork will be added to Commons.
>
> IMO they should be uploaded to Commons first, with full metadata, and
> create a workflow added around begging the Commons community to
> prioritise checking these images quickly so they can be used in the
> fundraiser.  That was how it was done before donate.wikimedia.org ,
> when wikimediafoundation.org was used for these uploads, and that wiki
> had a significant volunteer community assisting in maintenance.
>
> Uploads to donate.wikimedia.org should either be limited to people
> competent in copyright and responsible for that aspect, or at the very
> least the upload forms should require that metadata is filled in, and
> someone at WMF checks new additions regularly.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> U

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

Excellent (and prompt) resolution, thank you!  We can all put down our
pitchforks now.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Lisa Gruwell  wrote:
> We agree with you that WMF fundraising should not use stock photography.
> This was a mistake by a designer.  We specify in our contracts with outside
> designers that the images used should be custom artwork that WMF owns (and
> can then share) or freely licensed images.  We pulled that banner yesterday
> and asked our designers for a new custom image that we can freely license.
> We are running another banner with a custom light bulb image at 100% now.
> This artwork will be added to Commons.   We also have a few new banners
> featuring some beautiful Commons images that are under development:   Stars
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_strinf&force=1&country=US>
> , Penguin
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/?banner=B1516_0916_en6C_dsk_p1_lg_pngsml&force=1&country=US>
>  Thank
> you for pointing this out to us.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Lisa
>
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Rob  wrote:
>
>> I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little
>> important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open
>> content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected
>> from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock
>> photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative
>> people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to
>> photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good
>> example for the community and movement.
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>  wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
>> > would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
>> > centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
>> > date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a
>> disfigurement
>> > on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
>> > makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia
>> Zero"
>> > and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually
>> be
>> > found.
>> >
>> > Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
>> > not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
>> > food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
>> > Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
>> > for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
>> > Thanks,
>> >   GerardM
>> >
>> > On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able
>> to
>> >> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
>> >> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
>> >> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
>> >> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
>> >> >
>> >> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>> >> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
>> >> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>> >>
>> >> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David
>> Cuenca)
>> >> regarding Wikisource.
>> >> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
>> >> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
>> >> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
>> >> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
>> >> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
>> >> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
>> >> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We
>> talked
>> >> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
>> >> convened the very first internation

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (no subject)

[Rob]

I don't think this rises to the level of outrage, but it's a little
important.  The goal of the WMF should be to promote free and open
content, and this adds to the perception that the WMF is disconnected
from those goals and the community.  I don't care if they use a stock
photo if they need to, but when they have smart, capable, and creative
people like Victor Grigas on staff, they can certainly manage to
photograph a cup of coffee and release it as a CC photo to set a good
example for the community and movement.

On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is that time of year where money is asked from the people. Arguably we
> would do more when the Wikimedia foundation was not so FF-ing Wikipedia
> centred.The arguments for not giving Wikisource have passed their sell by
> date and usability for exposing its wonderful work is imho a disfigurement
> on the resume of the WMF (among others). This is a cheap one to fix. It
> makes sense to fix it as I understand sources are part of "Wikimedia Zero"
> and it would make a world of a difference when the sources can actually be
> found.
>
> Unicef among others has fundraising campaigns for education because it is
> not its most important priority. As long as kids die because of lack of
> food, safe water, preventable disease and temperature it is obvious why.
> Such an excuse the WMF does not have. It could ask for additional funding
> for Wikisource, for Wikidata for ... and it would have a solid argument.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 3 December 2015 at 10:25, Andrea Zanni  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Pine W  wrote:
>>
>> > Under the redesigned grants scheme, WMF Project grants might be able to
>> > help with this kind of software development work for Commons and/or
>> > Wikisource. I happen to know a developer here in Cascadia who might be
>> > interested, either as an individual or in association with a Wikimedia
>> > affiliate, in doing this kind of work on a grant or contract basis.
>> >
>> > Pinging Kacie for comment about possible grant funding. (:
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hi Pine, thanks for the comment.
>> I understand what you mean, and I do believe there is space to work on
>> Wikisource via grants, BUT.
>>
>> But I already did a Individual Engagement Grant in 2013 (with David Cuenca)
>> regarding Wikisource.
>> It was great, but IEGs don't give you staff time. So me and David used
>> Google Summer of Code, and we mentored 4 projects: if I'm not mistaken,
>> only one was really finished, meaning it produced concrete results on
>> Wikisource. Others stopped before (for example, two dedicated mediawiki
>> extensions were not put in production). Within the IEG, we made a big
>> survey among Wikisource communities, to develop a wishlist and a roadmap
>> for WS communities. We set up a Wikisource Community User Group. We talked
>> and talked. Bugs were and are reported, from years. Two weeks ago, we
>> convened the very first internationl Wikisource conference, in Vienna,
>> hosted by Wikimedia Austria (3 members from WMF were there, and we had a
>> great and productive time, reports will follow).
>>
>> I've personally been involved in all of these efforts, so I've also seen
>> that real impact of Wikisource infrastructure (core WS extension, design,
>> interface, performance, development) has been minimal. I don't really want
>> to have this conversation here and now, but I have had a fair amount of
>> experience in this to say that until the WMF (or some affiliate big enough
>> and high enough in the software pipeline) commit to WS, change won't
>> magically happen by itself. We have practically one real volunteer
>> developer, and he's full of work to do (also, I already asked him if he
>> would like to receive a grant to work on certain issues, and he can't, and
>> he's the only one who could do that, thanks to his unique experience).
>>
>> Grant works for little things, I'm afraid. Major change requires something
>> else.
>>
>> Aubrey
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Quality issues

[Rob]

That male librarian here.

I think we need to encourage people to add more and conflicting data
to Wikidata, and to cite their sources when they do so.  Currently
it's not particularly easy to cite your sources on Wikidata.  So the
end result is that it encourages people to view whatever single
uncited bit of data appears there as the one true fact.

On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Ed Erhart  wrote:
> On the very specific point of knowledge and how it's not always possible to
> boil it down to a single quantifiable value, I couldn't agree more. Thank
> you, Andreas, for the detailed anecdote displaying that problem, and I'll
> be happy to provide more if needed.
>
> Does Wikidata have a way of marking data entries as estimates, or at least
> dates as circa (not just unknown)?
>
> --Ed
> On Nov 28, 2015 1:24 PM, "Andreas Kolbe"  wrote:
>
>> Gerard,
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:
>>
>> When you compare the quality of Wikipedias with what en.wp used to be you
>> > are comparing apples and oranges. The Myanmar Wikipedia is better
>> informed
>> > on Myanmar than en.wp etc.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Is it? The entire Burmese Wikipedia contains a mere 31,646 content pages at
>> the time of writing, covering (or trying to cover) all countries of the
>> world, and all aspects of human knowledge.[1]
>>
>> The English Wikipedia's WikiProject Myanmar, meanwhile, has 6,713 pages
>> within its purview.[2] I dare say that's more articles on Myanmar than the
>> Burmese Wikipedia contains. As an indication, the English Wikipedia's
>> article on Myanmar is more than twice as long as the one in the Burmese
>> Wikipedia.
>>
>> Moreover, according to Freedom House[3], the internet in Myanmar is not
>> free:
>>
>> "The government detained and charged internet users for online activities
>> [...] Government officials pressured social media users not to distribute
>> or share content that offends the military, or disturbs the functions of
>> government."
>>
>>
>>
>> > When you qualify a Wikipedia as fascist, it does not follow that the data
>> > is suspect. Certainly when data in a source that you so easily dismiss is
>> > typically the same, there is not much meaning in what you say from a
>> > Wikidata point of view.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Data are always generated within a social context, and data generated by
>> political extremists or people living under oppressive regimes are suspect
>> whenever they have political implications. (Looking at the descriptions of
>> Burmese politics, my feeling is the Burmese Wikipedia is not under
>> significant government control, but largely written by ex-pats. However,
>> the situation is quite different in some other Wikipedias serving countries
>> labouring under similar regimes.)
>>
>>
>>
>> > PS What does your librarian think when she knows
>>
>>
>>
>> It was a he, but I'll leave him to join in himself if he chooses to.
>>
>>
>> I happen to work on Dukes of Friuli. Compare the data from Wikidata and the
>> > information by Reasonator based on the same item for one of them.
>> >
>> > https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=2471519
>> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2471519
>> >
>>
>>
>> Let's look at this example. Reasonator says of Grasulf II of Friulim, "He
>> died in 653". There is no source. Wikidata says he died in 653, and the
>> indicated source is the Italian Wikipedia.
>>
>> However, when you look at the (very brief) Italian Wikipedia article[4],
>> you will find that the year 653 is given with a question mark. The English
>> Wikipedia, in contrast, states, in its similarly brief article[5],
>>
>> "Nothing more is known about Grasulf and the date of his death is
>> uncertain."
>>
>> Do you now see the problem about nuance? Reasonator and Wikidata
>> confidently proclaim as uncontested fact something that in fact is rather
>> uncertain.
>>
>> The sole source cited by both the English and the Italian Wikipedia is the
>> Historia Langobardorum, available in Wikisource.[6] My Latin is a bit
>> rusty, but while the Historia mentions that Ago succeeded Grasulf upon the
>> latter's death, it says nothing specific about when that was. The
>> Historia's time indications are in general very vague, usually limited to
>> the phrase "Circa haec tempora", meaning "about this time". So it is in
>> this case.
>>
>> For reference, the Google Knowledge Graph states equally confidently that
>> Grasulf II of Friuli died in 651AD. This may be based on the English
>> Wikipedia's unsourced claim (in the template at the bottom of the English
>> Wikipedia article) that his reign ended c. 651, or on some other source
>> like Freebase.
>>
>> The other Wikipedias that have articles on Grasulf II provide the following
>> death dates
>>
>> Catalan: 651
>> Galician: 653
>> Lithuanian: 653
>> Polish: 651
>> Romanian: Unknown
>> Russian: 653
>> Ukrainian: 651
>>
>> As for published sources, I can offer Ersch's Allgemeine Encyclopädie
>> (1849), which states on page 209 that Grasulf II died in 651.[7]
>>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Engineering] IRC office hour this Thursday: reconnecting with the shared hosting community

[Rob Lanphier]

Hi Gilles,

Thanks for leading this!  My reading of your agenda leads me to believe
that this is intended as a "problem solving" meeting, as described in
User:RobLa-WMF/Meetings#Taxonomy.  To quote that article:

*Problem-solving* - Discuss a problem that we don’t know how to solve.
> "Conversation for possibility" as described by 1999 article
> <http://www.fastcompany.com/36861/you-have-start-meeting>
>
>- Successful outcome: an idea or a reasonably complete list of ideas
>for how to solve the problem
>
>
>- Successful outcome: consensus on the priority about the importance
>of solving this problem (or consensus that it isn’t a problem after all)
>
>
>- Non-goal: a decision for how to solve the problem
>
>
Does that seem like an accurate characterization for what you have planned
on Thursday?  I recommend structuring the conversation (and figure out
action items) to achieve your imagined goal.

Rob

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Gilles Dubuc  wrote:

> As part of T113210 [1], which is a broader discussion on track for the
> developer summit, I am hosting an IRC office hour [2] this Thursday at
> 19:00 UTC.
>
> Since shared hosting is a broad topic, this session will focus
> specifically on brainstorming ways to reconnect with the shared hosting
> community. Shared hosting mediawiki users are currently underrepresented in
> the greater mediawiki community. We rarely run into them in phabricator, on
> gerrit or on the mailing lists. Which means that people often have to think
> on their behalf about their use cases and issues, instead of getting direct
> input.
>
> There must be practical ways to bring those thousands of mediawiki users
> back into the fold, so to speak. Hopefully we can come up with interesting
> ideas to achieve that.
>
> And if you happen to be a shared hosting user, by all means, please join
> this IRC office hour :)
>
> [1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T113210
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours#Upcoming_office_hours
>
> ___
> Engineering mailing list
> engineer...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/engineering
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikiconference USA 2015

[Rob]

Andrew Lih recorded our panel "Journalism and the Online Information
Community", but I'm not sure when/if that video will make it to the web.

I can't speak for the organizers, but it is my understanding that Gregory
Kohs was banned under the Safe Space policy, not because he was a critic.
Critics and even Wikipediocracy members were welcome to WikiConference.
Andreas Kolbe, for example, participated in our panel discussion and nobody
even hinted to either of us that he was not welcome.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 4:41 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Anthony Cole wrote:
> >I've been following the conference online and I congratulate the
> >organisers - some fascinating presentations and the videos are excellent.
> >A link to the videos:
> >
> >http://wikiconferenceusa.org/wiki/2015/Schedule
>
> A big thank you to all of the people involved in organizing and running
> this year's conference! I really enjoyed being able to have the National
> Archives as the venue and the conference itself was well-run and engaging.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

[Rob]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015



News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/News_and_notes

Op-ed: How my father's railroad image collection now benefits the
world: the value of digitization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Op-ed

Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland
of uncles, and some people with attitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Featured_content

Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Special_report

Traffic report: Oddly familiar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Traffic_report

Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability;
academic attitudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Recent_research

Blog: The Wikipedia Library Team reflects on its new Visiting Scholars program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Blog


Single page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single


PDF version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25



http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015

[Rob]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 12 – 25 March 2015



News and notes: Wikimedia Foundation adopts open-access research policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/News_and_notes

Op-ed: How my father's railroad image collection now benefits the
world: the value of digitization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Op-ed

Featured content: A carnival of animals, a river of dung, a wasteland
of uncles, and some people with attitude
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Featured_content

Special report: Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Special_report

Traffic report: Oddly familiar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Traffic_report

Recent research: Most important people; respiratory reliability;
academic attitudes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Recent_research

Blog: The Wikipedia Library Team reflects on its new Visiting Scholars program
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25/Blog


Single page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single


PDF version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-25



http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Open Well-Tempered Clavier

[Rob]

Fantastic!  Any idea if they will be recording book II of the Clavier as
well?

On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 5:04 AM, Shlomi Fish  wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 15:39:52 +0200
> "Amir E. Aharoni"  wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Plenty of things like this happen in the Wikimedia world every day, but
> as
> > a music lover I'm especially happy about this one: The Open Well-Tempered
> > Clavier project was completed yesterday with the public domain release of
> > all the music files, and it's already on Commons:
> > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Open_Well-Tempered_Clavier
> >
> > In case you didn't know, The Well-Tempered Clavier by Johann Sebastian
> Bach
> > is one of the most popular and influential works of European classical
> > music. The Open Well-Tempered Clavier is a project to record a complete
> > performance of this work and release the music files, as well as
> proofread
> > digital sheet music, to the public domain. It was crowd-funded through
> > Kickstarter.
> >
> > The Well-Tempered Clavier is kinda like the "Dark Side of the Moon" of
> > classical music - if you listen to classical music, you likely own a
> > recording of it already, but since we are free culture geeks here, I'm
> sure
> > that you'll appreciate having this copy, too.
> >
>
> Nice! Thanks!
>
> Regards,
>
> Shlomi Fish
>
> --
> -
> Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
> Humanity - Parody of Modern Life - http://shlom.in/humanity
>
> Anything less than the best is a felony.
> — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Ice_Baby
>
> Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] [Wikimedia Announcements] The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 10 – 11 March 2015

[Rob]

The Signpost – Volume 11, Issue 10 – 11 March 2015



Special report: An advance look at the WMF's fundraising survey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Special_report

In focus: WMF to NSA: "stop spying on Wikipedia users"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/In_focus

News and notes: WikiWomen's History Month—meetups, blog posts, and
"Inspire" grant-making campaign
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/News_and_notes

In the media: Gamergate; a Wiki hoax; Kanye West
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/In_the_media

Traffic report: Wikipedia: handing knowledge to the world, one prank at a
time
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Traffic_report

Featured content: Here they come, the couple plighted –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Featured_content

Op-ed: Why the Core Contest matters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11/Op-ed

Single page view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single

PDF version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-03-11

http://identi.ca/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
___
Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed 
to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more 
information about Wikimedia-l:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
___
WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list
wikimediaannounc...@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] RfC: Should we support MP4 Video on our sites?

[Rob Lanphier]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:32 AM, David Gerard  wrote:
>
> It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
> this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
> Multimedia team.
>
> That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to happen*.
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/2013-14_Goals#Activities
> https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=File:Multimedia_Quarterly_Review_12-03-2013.pdf&page=61


The goals page says "Establish an audio/video codec strategy about
licensing codecs like MPEG4"  This RFC is part of establishing that
strategy.  If the answer from this RFC is "no MP4", then whatever
strategy we have will work within that constraint.

The slide deck was published from a meeting where I can assure you
Fabrice said something to the effect of "of course, this all depends
on the result of the RFC"  :-)

I can definitively state that this question of supporting MP4 has not
been determined.  We will not support MP4 without community consensus.

Rob

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour: Wikipedia Education Program

[Rob Schnautz]

Just a reminder that this will be happening in a few minutes.

Rob

From: Rob Schnautz 
Subject: Office hour: Wikipedia Education Program

The Wikimedia Foundation staff for the Wikipedia Education Program (Frank 
Schulenburg, Annie Lin, LiAnna Davis, Jami Mathewson, and I) will be hosting a 
scheduled public office hour in the #wikimedia-office IRC channel.

Date: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Time: 16:00 – 17:00 UTC (noon-1 p.m. EDT, 9-10 a.m. PDT) (click here for local 
time)
Topic: Wikipedia Education Program

This will be a general question and answer session. We have several exciting 
new developments coming up: a transition from staff-led programs to 
volunteer-led programs in North America, and a new piece of software for 
Wikipedia that will help us manage the program better. We also are happy to 
answer general questions you may have about the program.

If you have questions or concerns about the programs, or are simply curious, 
this is a great opportunity to gain better insight into these programs. If you 
are unable to attend, a link to the chat log will be posted at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for public viewing following 
the session.

Details on how to join the session are included below. We look forward to 
chatting with you!

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation
---
If you haven't used IRC before, it may be easiest to use a web client; this 
means you don't have to install any software on your computer. Just click here 
to join in, and then choose a username when prompted: 
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-office You may be prompted to 
click through a security warning. It's fine.
For more information about IRC software you can install on your computer, go to 
the Wikipedia entry on IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC. If using 
dedicated software, connect to the channel #wikimedia-officeconnect on the 
freenode network.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Office hour: Wikipedia Education Program

[Rob Schnautz]

Just a reminder about the office hours coming up on Thursday this week. The 
topic for this session has been expanded to include all Foundation-run 
Wikipedia Education Program initiatives, which take place in the U.S., Canada, 
Brazil, Egypt, and India.

Like all IRC office hours, the format will be an open question-and-answer 
session, so come with questions, and we’ll come with answers! Questions do not 
have to be limited to the upcoming changes (e.g. transition away from staff-led 
programs in North America, rollout of new software on Wikipedia to help support 
the program)—we’d be happy to answer general questions you have about the 
program as well.

Please refer to the information at the bottom of this email for instructions on 
how to join.

Thank you,

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation


From: Rob Schnautz 
Sent: Tuesday, 12 June 2012 2:42 PM
To: Wikipedia Ambassadors ; English Wikipedia ; Wikimedia 
Cc: Frank Schulenburg ; Annie L. Lin ; LiAnna Davis ; Jami Mathewson 
Subject: Office hour: Wikipedia Education Programs in Canada and U.S.

In anticipation of some major changes that are coming up in the U.S. and Canada 
Education Programs, the Wikimedia Foundation staff for the Wikipedia Education 
Program (Frank Schulenburg, Annie Lin, LiAnna Davis, Jami Mathewson, and I) 
will be hosting a scheduled public office hour in the #wikimedia-office IRC 
channel.

Date: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Time: 16:00 – 17:00 UTC (noon-1 p.m. EDT, 9-10 a.m. PDT) (click here for local 
time)

If you have questions or concerns about the programs, or are simply curious, 
this is a great opportunity to gain better insight into these programs. If you 
are unable to attend, a link to the chat log will be posted at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for public viewing following 
the session.

Details on how to join the session are included below. We look forward to 
chatting with you!

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation

---
If you haven't used IRC before, it may be easiest to use a web client; this 
means you don't have to install any software on your computer. Just click here 
to join in, and then choose a username when prompted: 
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-office You may be prompted to 
click through a security warning. It's fine.
For more information about IRC software you can install on your computer, go to 
the Wikipedia entry on IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC. If using 
dedicated software, connect to the channel #wikimedia-officeconnect on the 
freenode network.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

[Wikimedia-l] Office hour: Wikipedia Education Programs in Canada and U.S.

[Rob Schnautz]

In anticipation of some major changes that are coming up in the U.S. and Canada 
Education Programs, the Wikimedia Foundation staff for the Wikipedia Education 
Program (Frank Schulenburg, Annie Lin, LiAnna Davis, Jami Mathewson, and I) 
will be hosting a scheduled public office hour in the #wikimedia-office IRC 
channel.

Date: Thursday, 21 June 2012
Time: 16:00 – 17:00 UTC (noon-1 p.m. EDT, 9-10 a.m. PDT) (click here for local 
time)

If you have questions or concerns about the programs, or are simply curious, 
this is a great opportunity to gain better insight into these programs. If you 
are unable to attend, a link to the chat log will be posted at 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours for public viewing following 
the session.

Details on how to join the session are included below. We look forward to 
chatting with you!

Rob Schnautz
Online Communications Contractor
Global Development
Wikimedia Foundation

---
If you haven't used IRC before, it may be easiest to use a web client; this 
means you don't have to install any software on your computer. Just click here 
to join in, and then choose a username when prompted: 
http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikimedia-office You may be prompted to 
click through a security warning. It's fine.
For more information about IRC software you can install on your computer, go to 
the Wikipedia entry on IRC or the Meta page on Wikimedia IRC. If using 
dedicated software, connect to the channel #wikimedia-officeconnect on the 
freenode network.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Public Google Calendar for IRC office hours

[Rob Schnautz]

Can this calendar be added to the "Other Resources" room list in the WMF 
Google calendar? After all, it ought to be treated just like any other 
conference room for meeting scheduling purposes.


Thanks,
Rob

-Original Message- 
From: Don Burke

Sent: Sunday, 06 May 2012 1:15 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Public Google Calendar for IRC office hours

Steven,

Steven,

I've added your public Google calendar.  Thank you for making it public
since you are clearly maintaining it anyway.  If the open source version
can be fixed then all the better but I appreciate having this option.

Don


On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Steven Walling 
wrote:



On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:

> In addition to the proprietary/free issue, duplicating content is awful
> from
> a maintenance perspective. As far as I know, there's no automatic sync 
> in

> place, so the wiki and Google are inevitably going to fall out of sync.
> There are other reasons to keep the information centralized, but until
the
> wiki can support XML and iCal output, the benefit of using Google
outweighs
> the cost.
>

Just to address this: the people duplicating the content are folks like
myself, Oliver, Philippe and Lydia who have to schedule office hours and
make sure they get into someone's calendar anyway. Using a shared calendar
(rather than putting them in the attendee's individual calendar alone) is
actually much more efficient on our end.

Thanks,

Steven
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l