> > > Is it a community event? Is it a knowledge sharing event? Is it an outreaching event?
> Is it a way to reward people? > The answer to these four are yes - Yes its a community event, one that brings people together and empowers them - Yes it where we share the lessons of our successes and failures - Yes reaches out to local region, especially GLAM for them to see what can be achieved, it also attracts a media profile and put the ED, Borad and others within reach of potential sponsors - Yes the scholarship process has an element of reward for participation in that it requires people to be sufficiently active to be considered > > > On 10 July 2016 at 14:05, Christophe Henner <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > So, as with everything, Wikimania is going through a process where we (as > à group) will define if it pushes our mission forward or not. > > First, WMF staff working so we can have the discussion with all the cards > in our hands. Which is not the case now. > > Second, what is Wikimania purposes? Right now I fear there is none clearly > define. > > Is it a community event? > Is it a knowledge sharing event? > Is it an outreaching event? > Is it a way to reward people? > ... > > One has to be define, a main one. > > Then we will be able to talk about how it happens. > > I have opinions but I rather keep them to myself until I have everything > in hand. But I love Wikimania, and I want to know if it's the best format, > and if it's not to fix it :) > Le 10 juil. 2016 4:37 AM, "Gnangarra" <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> Agree with the comments thats hard to measure the value of a Wikimania, >> and what an attendee will do with the experience. so here is my experience >> >> My first Wikimania was 2012 in Washington DC, I was a little >> introspective and embroiled in an ARBCOM case I shared a room with Richard >> Farmbrough with whom I had a deep discussion about the case he gave me some >> amazing advice about that process it literally reenergises my efforts... >> While doing so he recommended a session about QRpedia, a really interesting >> project. Two months later I'm back home and still editing when an >> opportunity presents itself to propose a QRpedia project in Fremantle, that >> produced the first Wikitown in Australia. The Freopedia project as it >> became known opened the door to another WikiTown project in Toodyay called >> Toodyaypedia, Next minute I'm nominated for a State Heritage award for the >> work I've been doing through Wikipedia and the out reach projects that have >> improved coverage of Western Australian History more doors start to open. >> I'm on a roll really energised and its rubbing off on the local community >> they willingly helping with every silly idea I try, so much so that I get >> nominated to be a committee member(Vice President no less) of the local >> chapter. London 2014 Wikimedia Australia pays for me to attend London where >> I give back to the community my experiences and share my experiences about >> WikiTowns/QRpedia(along with a few Tim Tams and Caramellow Koalas) in the >> community village. Also while in London I got to attended a pre-wikimania >> training session by WMUK that they offer to people doing outreach that was >> a wonderful experience and helped me improve the way I do outreach >> here,[*side >> thought:that should be taken on the road to every chapter who does or wants >> to do outreach*]. >> >> I return even more enrgise and what to bring the Wikimania experience >> here where more even more people can benefit directly rather than just >> through my efforts. 2015 I'm presented with another opportunity to expand >> the projects happening here this time writing in an Indigenous Australian >> language and improving content about a subject area thats has been >> inadeqautely covered for the first 10years of wikipedia. Along come an >> offer from WMF to attend Mexico I'm torn between my commitment to the >> Noongar Language work which included a workshop that coincided with >> Wikimania and the opportunity to attend my 3rd event, of course my >> commitment to the local project took precidence. The cost of that was not >> finding out about the changes to the Wikimania processes and spending a lot >> of time putting together a bid for Wikimania in Perth. The benefit of the >> Noongarpedia project is that we now have the first Indigenous Australian >> language in the incubator, with a number of other communities watching and >> learning from our experiences, I just spent a week in Darwin which included >> talking with people there and walking them through that project. Somewhere >> in all of this I also became President of WMAu and with it WMAu has had >> its most successful period, I like to think some that is because of the >> energy I have brought to the table from my experience at Wikimania. >> >> One Australian once theorised about how WMF measures success and >> highlighted that the value is not in the physical numbers but in the >> intangible connections that are made, he even put forward a PEG proposal to >> demostrate that its the personal relationships that matter and how you >> build them that have the true impact. Being isolated in Western Australia >> made for the perfect ground to develop such a project ironically it was >> declined because of the fact that the project lacked the generation of >> numbers which would make success measurable. >> >> We place too much emphasis on physical numbers to measure out comes yet >> we all know that education is more than just numbers and community >> development is about connections, energy and empowering others Wikimania >> does, that we just need to find the right boxes to tick. >> >> [conflict with Riskers response, apologies if I over lap] >> >> >> On 10 July 2016 at 09:50, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrew and Leila, >>> >>> There are quite a few ways of looking at the numbers (which is one >>> reason that I'm hoping for a thorough analysis.) Please note that I think >>> that conferences should happen; I am asking if this is the status quo is >>> the optimal way of spending these funds. There are other ways of using >>> funds for conferences that could be explored. >>> >>> For example, if a Wikimania costs $600,000 and there are 1,000 >>> attendees, that works out to a cost of $600 per attendee for 1000 people. >>> Is that a wiser investment than spreading out the same funds among >>> (hypothetically) 3,000 attendees at multiple national/regional conferences >>> for an average expense of $200 per attendee? At this point I don't think >>> any of us can answer that question. >>> >>> The Wikimania-going population, especially the people who go to many >>> WIkimanias, are a vanishingly small percentage of the overall WIkimedia >>> population. They tend to be active, but there are plenty of active >>> Wikimedians such as myself who have never been to Wikimania, although I'd >>> like to go next year. Does it make sense to spend so much money on such a >>> small percentage of our community? There are reasons to think that the >>> answer could be yes; for example, if Wikimania motivates highly active >>> contributors and leaders to keep up the good work. However, it's not clear >>> that similarly good effects couldn't be achieved on a broader scale by >>> spreading the funds among more numerous smaller conferences. >>> >>> There is a good argument to be made that having lots of highly active >>> contributors and project leaders from all over the world in the same place, >>> and having WMF staff mix with them, is a good idea for purposes of >>> improving communications and relationships. Generation of good PR press, >>> and cross-pollination of ideas, are also important and I think that we >>> should support those. However, similarly good outcomes might be achieved >>> through multiple smaller conferences. >>> >>> I'm in favor of continuing to spend funds on conferences; what I think >>> that none of us know is whether our current model of a single large >>> conference is "better" than multiple national/regional conferences. >>> >>> Along the lines of Leila's suggestion, the idea of temporarily scaling >>> up WMF's support for national/regional (or thematic) conferences while >>> keeping Wikimania in place makes sense to me. That requires some >>> willingness to spend the funds for both types of events for a few years. >>> It's a bit of an expensive proposition though, and I'm wary of asking the >>> WMF staff to spend more time traveling to more conferences. I guess I'm >>> cautiously in favor of looking at this option if it's financially practical >>> to scale up the support for focused conferences while maintaining support >>> for Wikimania. Keep in mind that WMF Fundraising is worried about >>> plateauing revenues, so we're working in a world of resource constraints >>> and trying to do the best we can with what we've got. >>> >>> I'm looking forward to hearing what Katherine and Christophe think. And >>> with that, I'm afraid that I must depart this thread to attend to other >>> matters. (: Thanks for the good conversation, everyone. >>> >>> Pine >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 6:37 PM, Leila Zia <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Pine, >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Pine W <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'd also be interested in projections of total attendance and costs >>>>> (including travel costs and staff time) for Wikimania vs. having more or >>>>> expanded national and regional conferences. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But then there is the benefit (which is not fully captured by >>>> attendance that) we need to take into account, too, and that's where the >>>> main problem starts. It's relatively easy to measure the costs of >>>> conferences, it's very hard to measure their benefit for a variety of >>>> reasons, one of which, in our context, is that it's hard to assign >>>> price-tag to many of the projects the community and beyond drive, even if >>>> you can clearly link them to Wikimania (which is a problem on its own). And >>>> that's already the easier part of the benefit analysis. It can get way more >>>> complicated if we want to assign a price-tag to how much it's worth for >>>> each of us to learn more about others. >>>> >>>> And now add to all the above, that you are suggesting that we do >>>> cost-benefit analysis for multiple conference models and compare them. >>>> Think about designing control experiments, considering the interactions >>>> between conferences (people who attend both vs. those who attend only one >>>> kind), etc. >>>> >>>> I would not go down the path of cost-benefit analysis for a conference >>>> such as Wikimania. We will loose too much time and money and still the >>>> analysis will have so many questionable components. >>>> >>>> What industry and academic conferences usually do when they're in >>>> doubt is that they become bold and start a new conference but keep the >>>> original one in place. If the new conference attracts more audience, to the >>>> extent that at some point organizing the original conference doesn't make >>>> sense (too few attendees, lower quality abstract submissions, major people >>>> in the field moving to the new conference), then they gradually stop the >>>> original conference. It seems that following that approach would be more >>>> beneficial than questioning the usefulness of Wikimania without more >>>> extensively trying the other conference/meet-up types first and in parallel >>>> to Wikimania. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If WMF and the community are going to spend that much money every year >>>>> on an annual conference, with the majority of that money coming from >>>>> donors >>>>> who give small-dollar amounts, I think that we need to think carefully and >>>>> thoroughly about how we plan the conference (or conferences) to align with >>>>> the goals of our donors and what we tell our donors. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Two points to take into account here: >>>> >>>> * Wikimania is a major and mature conference and it's fair to compare >>>> it to major academic conferences that I'm more familiar with. The cost of >>>> such conferences is usually quite higher than Wikimania, if you consider >>>> roughly the same attendance numbers. I would start worrying about the cost >>>> of Wikimania only if the cost goes much higher than the industry standard. >>>> >>>> * I wouldn't recommend reconsidering how we plan for our major >>>> conferences based on what we tell our donors. We should define our needs >>>> and find a way to fund them. >>>> >>>> Leila >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Leila Zia >>>> Research Scientist >>>> Wikimedia Foundation >>>> >>>> >>>>> Pine >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:50 PM, Deryck Chan <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I find it a bit over the top too to have such a letter, so strongly >>>>>> worded, and signed by so many board chairs. >>>>>> >>>>>> It reveals a divide between those who participated in the IdeaLab >>>>>> survey[1] and those who were at the Future of Wikimania session in Esino. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would perhaps be interesting to see if correlations can be >>>>>> revealed as to what demographic of Wikimedian prefer 1 year per Wikimania >>>>>> and what demographic prefer 2 year per Wikimania - like geographical >>>>>> distribution, involvement in local Wikimedia groups (staff / board / >>>>>> other >>>>>> volunteer / not a participant), and past attendance at regional Wikimedia >>>>>> conferences and Wikimania. >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] >>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Towards_a_New_Wikimania/Outcomes >>>>>> >>>>>> Thank you. I find it confusing that the letter starts with "The >>>>>> chairpersons of the Wikimedia chapters state that Wikimania needs to be >>>>>> arranged every year," which implies that all of the chapter chairs are >>>>>> united in agreement, but it appears several chapters didn't sign the >>>>>> letter. Looking further at the content of the letter, I would have some >>>>>> questions about some of the statements that were made there. In the >>>>>> future, >>>>>> I would encourage chapter chairs to have discussions about matters such >>>>>> as >>>>>> this on the Affiliates mailing list so that we can have more inclusive >>>>>> discussions among more affiliates before sending letters like that. The >>>>>> Wikimania situation is already convoluted, and I believe that letters >>>>>> such >>>>>> as this should get fuller discussion among affiliates before they are >>>>>> sent >>>>>> to WMF. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> >>>>>> Pine >>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016 20:04, "Christophe Henner" <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> My bad I forgot it already is on meta >>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_chapters/Statements/Chapter_chairs_statement:_Wikimania_needs_to_be_arranged_every_year >>>>>>> Le 9 juil. 2016 4:50 AM, "Pine W" <[email protected]> a écrit : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Christophe. I, for one, have had difficulty figuring out what >>>>>>> is going on with Wikimania in regards to varying decisions in different >>>>>>> parts of WMF and the community, so I look forward to the clarifications. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personally I am currently neutral on the decision of whether to have >>>>>>> annual Wikimanias, or alternate Wikimanias with years in which there is >>>>>>> emphasis on national or regional conferences. My hunch is that some >>>>>>> research about costs and benefits is needed so that we have reliable >>>>>>> data >>>>>>> about a variety of scenarios before making a decision. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks again for working on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To the board chairs: I would be interested in seeing that letter. In >>>>>>> the spirit of transparency, would you please publish it on Meta? As you >>>>>>> know I am an advocate for much more transparency from WMF, and I would >>>>>>> like >>>>>>> for the affiliates to also to be transparent about governance matters >>>>>>> such >>>>>>> as this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pine >>>>>>> On Jul 8, 2016 19:18, "Christophe Henner" <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The same question was raised to the board a few days ago by chairs >>>>>>>> of Wikimedia organizations asking Foundation's board to make sure >>>>>>>> there's a >>>>>>>> comprehensive decision on this very topic. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The chairs letter wasn't public, I let them share it on meta or >>>>>>>> here if they want to :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First step, in my opinion, is to set expectations and define the >>>>>>>> scope (in the role of the event but also in the ressources (both human >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> financial) we commit to the event. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Katherine is working with the staff to provide groundings. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is the answer I provided them with. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi chairs! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all, thank you with the email, the feedback is clearly >>>>>>>> useful and raises interesting point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Now, the Wikimania discussion definitly is on the table. Living by >>>>>>>> what we said during Wikimania, we, as WMF, will make sure we end up >>>>>>>> with a >>>>>>>> clear answer to your questions but also to the different points you >>>>>>>> raise. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wikimania is an important time in our movement, but as you said it >>>>>>>> also comes with costs and challenges that we have to adress. Katherine >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> going to meet in the coming days with the staff in charge of that >>>>>>>> topic to >>>>>>>> start that discussion within WMF and provide groundings for a >>>>>>>> comprehensive >>>>>>>> decision. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We will try to be as diligent as possible on that topic, but I >>>>>>>> would ask you to keep in mind that as we're in a transition phase and >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> might take a little more time than you could expect. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Again thank you for your email, I love the fact that he raises >>>>>>>> issues but also includes the challenges we have to take care of :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We'll get back to you as soon as possible to continue that >>>>>>>> discussion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Have all a really great day / night :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Christophe >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While I concur with Coren’s conclusion, I’ll try to neutrally >>>>>>>> report on the events at Wikimania which led to this result. :) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Full disclosure: I’m a fan of Wikimania being yearly, and was asked >>>>>>>> to serve on the Wikimania Committee after Esino Lario. I was also the >>>>>>>> main >>>>>>>> moderator of the Wikimania 2016 session on the “Future of Wikimania.” >>>>>>>> These >>>>>>>> views are my own, and not anything official from the committee. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Background: Many folks (I’d say a majority) who I talked to in >>>>>>>> Esino Lario early in the conference thought that the decision to do >>>>>>>> Wikimania every other year was a done deal, as a result of the IdeaLab >>>>>>>> consultation. I told them that might not necessarily be so. The vote >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> close, not particularly widely known, and we could still be heard. >>>>>>>> Chris >>>>>>>> Schilling from the WMF, who oversaw the Idealab consultation, sought >>>>>>>> me out >>>>>>>> specifically at the start of the conference and to my delight, said >>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>> the consultation was “just another data point,” and that it was by no >>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>> the final word on things. Obviously, this was good news to people who >>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>> interested in keeping a yearly Wikimania. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was scheduled to moderate the “Future of Wikimania” discussion >>>>>>>> session [1] at the very end of the conference, and encouraged people >>>>>>>> to let >>>>>>>> their views be heard. It was under these conditions that we entered >>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>> the final discussion room and I asked Chris Schilling to give an >>>>>>>> opening >>>>>>>> statement to the room. Most people were happy to hear him say that it >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> “just another data point.” During the discussion, there was >>>>>>>> overwhelming >>>>>>>> support to keep Wikimania going every year, which is not a surprise >>>>>>>> considering this was *at* Wikimania. I encourage folks to peruse the >>>>>>>> Etherpad notes, which are quite extensive and expertly done by several >>>>>>>> folks there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Some views I’d highlight: >>>>>>>> - Having yearly Wikimania is important to keep the momentum of the >>>>>>>> movement going, according to many >>>>>>>> - A case for cancelling yearly Wikimania was to encourage/fund >>>>>>>> regional meetups. However, there is no guarantee that those regional >>>>>>>> meetups would actually take place, or that WMF would necessarily take >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> money saved from Wikimania to fund them. Some folks from Asia >>>>>>>> specifically >>>>>>>> said that there is weaker linguistic, cultural and geographic synergy >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> an “Asian” conference like there is in Europe and Africa, which is why >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> has been hard to do one. >>>>>>>> - One person noted that one trip to Wikimania served the same role >>>>>>>> as several international trips to get the same benefit from meeting >>>>>>>> other >>>>>>>> Wikimedians/developers, so there are indeed cost efficiencies in >>>>>>>> having a >>>>>>>> central conference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> https://wikimania2016.wikimedia.org/wiki/Discussions/The_future_of_Wikimania >>>>>>>> [2] https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/Wikimania2016-discussion7b >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Andrew Lih >>>>>>>> Associate professor of journalism, American University >>>>>>>> Email: [email protected] >>>>>>>> WEB: http://www.andrewlih.com >>>>>>>> BOOK: The Wikipedia Revolution: http://www.wikipediarevolution.com >>>>>>>> PROJECT: Wiki Makes Video >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Marc-Andre <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2016-07-08 10:01 AM, Chris Keating wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Interestingly, I couldn't see any sign of the Committee's >>>>>>>>>> decision being informed by the WMF's consultation on the future of >>>>>>>>>> Wikimania, or anyone from the WMF's community engagement department >>>>>>>>>> being >>>>>>>>>> present. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Wikimania is, and always was, a community led and organized event. >>>>>>>>> The WMF, as its traditional biggest sponsor[1], has a great deal of >>>>>>>>> influence in the matter - but ultimately no decision power beyond >>>>>>>>> "fund and >>>>>>>>> resource or not". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The committee's decision has indeed taken into account the >>>>>>>>> consultation you refer to - as well as the roundtable discussion on >>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>> "Future of Wikimania" that took place earlier[2]. Our evaluation, >>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>> reflected in that resolution, is that the consultation was clearly >>>>>>>>> flawed >>>>>>>>> and that its conclusion does not reflect consensus - neither of the >>>>>>>>> community members who organize nor of those who attend Wikimania. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- Coren / Marc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [1] Although "underwrite" might be a better term - the WMF has >>>>>>>>> pretty much shouldered the vast majority of the costs and given the >>>>>>>>> most >>>>>>>>> logistical support year in and year out. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> [2] Where the consensus was to overwhelmingly reject that >>>>>>>>> consultation's conclusion in favor or continuing with Wikimania as a >>>>>>>>> yearly >>>>>>>>> even given its irreplaceable role in our movement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimania-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> GN. >> President Wikimedia Australia >> WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra >> Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimania-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimania-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l > > -- GN. President Wikimedia Australia WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
_______________________________________________ Wikimania-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimania-l
