Thanks, Christian and Liam -- this looks very nicely handled. Liam - wow, now that ABC link is really a blast from the past :) S
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 11:54 AM Liam Wyatt <lwy...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > Dear Željko, > > I wish to make a reply to some of the comments you raise - primarily to > emphasise to the rest of the subscribers on this list that there is already > an extensive community discussion about this Frankfurter Allgemeine > Zeitung (FAZ) opinion column on the German Wikipedia 'Kurier' forum, > starting from here: > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Antwort_von_Wiki_Loves_Broadcast_zu_FAZ-Artikel_vom_18.01.2022 > I encourage anyone who wishes to discuss the issues raised on the > original, and the reply, articles - to do so at that forum. > > Relatedly, there is also this point-by-point rebuttal thread on Twitter, > which has been shared by WM-DE too: > https://twitter.com/leonidobusch/status/1483409545473015810?s=21 [with > each tweet being machine-translatable inside twitter's own interface]. > > But mostly, I wish to emphasise this letter, which written by the > volunteer community leaders behind the "Wiki Loves Broadcast" (WLB) > project. The FAZ opinion column is referring at a community-originating > volunteer campaign to obtain free-licensing for audiovisual material > produced for public service broadcasters. And so, I feel their response > which should be the thing which is emphasised: > > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022 > [English language machine-translated version: > https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=wapp > ]. > The WLB homepage is here: > https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast.[1] > > To the other issues raised: > The concept of a free-license means that anyone can use use the material > for any purpose, including commercially: and as we know, many already do. > The FAZ opinion column conflates this fundamental principle of > free-licenses with an entirely separate project being run at the WMF. The > "Enterprise" API project is not licensing content - everyone can *already* use > it. Rather, it is a *service* with higher-speed/volume data throughput > than could (or should) be provided for free for commercial organisations, > who wish to use it. As we say: "Same water, thicker pipe." And ironically, > for the argument being made in FAZ, this API does not include any > multimedia content on Wikimedia projects. I say "should", because if it > were a service provided at no-cost to largest commercial users, that would > mean subsidising their business model with donors' money. > Also, since Željko asked if there was any comments provided by the WMF, I > would like to point out that myself and the WMF Comms team were > coordinating with WM-DE last week about this reply article in FAZ. And > furthermore that the *Enterprise *project FAQ on Meta - which is also > fully translated into German, and has many responses regarding the > financial and legal aspects > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Enterprise/FAQ > > > Sincerely, > - Liam / Wittylama > *Wikimedia Enterprise *Project Manager, WMF > > [1] somewhat relatedly, I ran a similar campaign with the ABC in my home > country Australia a decade ago, and every now and then I still see the > video files from it appearing in unexpected places across the internet: > https://diff.wikimedia.org/2012/03/25/abc-joins-wikimedia-in-sharing-historic-footage/ > > > On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 at 12:53, Željko Blaće <zbl...@mi2.hr> wrote: > >> Thank you for engaging with this topic in public and doing the >> translation and sharing here (adding open-glam list). >> >> Aside from being a nice Sunday read I think this is a super useful case >> study for people working in the cultural sector and advocacy for open. Was >> this published elsewhere in English? >> >> I would love for us to have a better platform to comment and discuss >> individual aspects of both articles (Discourse as WM Spaces would be good - >> no?), but anyway few inline comments below. >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 7:24 PM Christian Humborg < >> christian.humb...@wikimedia.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> we had articles in Germany published connecting the activities of >>> Wikimedia Enterprise with our licensing advocacy. Please find below the >>> article of a filmmaker, published last week in the Frankfurter Allgemeine >>> Zeitung, one of the large German newspapers. >>> >> >> I see the article did not get a huge amount of comments and in that way >> it failed to attract much attention or there were echoes elsewhere? >> >> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141-p2.html#lesermeinungen >> >> >> >>> Below you find our response, published this week in the Frankfurter >>> Allgemeine Zeitung. I hope this is useful for further debates. >>> >> >> One needs to register (or even pay?) to get to this article? I wonder >> what was the quality and quantity of responses here? >> >> https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen-fuer-das-gemeinwohl-17753492.html >> >> >>> Kind regards >>> Christian >>> >>> ******************************************* >>> >>> *Wikimedia perverts the common good* >>> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/wikimedia-plant-die-kommerzialisierung-ihrer-inhalte-17736141.html> >>> >>> >>> *Wikimedia plans to commercialize its content. At the same time, the >>> organization is lobbying hard to get its hands on high-quality free content >>> from public broadcasters. This is ruining the filmmakers*. >>> >>> >>> The Wikipedia information platform has so far been financed by >>> donations from Silicon Valley tech giants, among others. These include >>> primarily the market-dominating Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, >>> Apple et cetera, all of which earn money through traffic with content from >>> Wikipedia. In specialist circles, these donations are regarded as a >>> reciprocal business: Donors and Wikipedia profit from each other. >>> >> >> This is crude simplification... >> It would have been great for this to be responded to with some counter >> arguments or maybe it is still possible by WMF directly? >> >> >>> Wikimedia is the operating organization behind Wikipedia, but it has >>> long been looking for a stable business model to finance itself. In the >>> spring of 2021, Wikimedia finally announced that it would build a corporate >>> interface that would simplify the automated use of Wikipedia content and >>> for which commercial companies would pay. In other words: money is to be >>> made with the content on Wikipedia. For example, with services such as the >>> voice assistants Siri >>> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/siri> or Alexa, which >>> access content via Wikipedia. The donation business based on reciprocity, >>> as described above, would thus be transformed into a proper business >>> relationship. The name for it: Wikimedia Enterprise API. >>> >> >> I feel this is something WMF should also respond to with clarification, >> at least to the author and his society if not in FAZ, than on >> wikimedia.org. >> >> For this business to be profitable in the long term, Wikimedia must >>> ensure the comprehensive supply of information on Wikipedia, but also >>> enhance it for the social networks >>> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/technik-motor/thema/soziale-netzwerke> >>> with high-quality images and films. Expanded offerings increase demand. And >>> in order to secure the capital-rich clientele in the long term - according >>> to the law of Internet capitalism - Wikipedia could also become the >>> dominant platform in the education sector for images and films that can be >>> accessed as free as possible. >>> >> >> This also posed some interesting questions for Wikimedians to discuss >> with so many failures in making Wikipedia media rich. Wikipedia copy-cat >> websites are in abundance (can it get worse?) and on the other hand there >> is next to zero effort (and resources allocated) to have position and >> relations formulated towards non-corporate social networks (not even when >> it is easy!). >> >> >>> Contempt for the state and collectivism >>> >>> Wikimedia Deutschland's intensive lobbying campaign for so-called "free >>> licenses", which has been ongoing for several years, should also be >>> understood in this context. Public films, especially documentaries, are to >>> be offered free of charge on Wikipedia via CC licensing (Creative Commons >>> licenses). Many know this campaign under the formula "Public money = Public >>> good". A vulgarization of the idea of the common good that devalues the >>> legal status of goods whose production takes place through state >>> redistribution or in publicly supported economic segments such as the film >>> and television industry. The claim is an expression of a typical >>> contemporary amalgamation of libertarian contempt for the state and >>> collectivist ideals, which in this case hides quite shamelessly behind >>> rhetoric about the common good and flickering fantasies of the "free >>> Internet”. >>> >> >> CreativeCommons needs to address (with Wikimedians) some of these >> concerns much better and with more agility in next years as the set of >> licensing options is still narrow and totally content and context >> 'ignorant'. In that respect some of these concerns are at least partially >> valid. >> >>> In recent years, Wikimedia's lobbying activities around the reform of >>> European copyright law have resulted in striking rejection from German >>> production and copyright associations. With the public broadcasters, on the >>> other hand, they have been somewhat successful: At the intensive >>> instigation of Wikimedia, there have been pilot tests with CC-licensed >>> clips from productions of the "Terra X" documentary series (ZDF) in the >>> last two years. And indeed, CC clauses are increasingly found in the fine >>> print of individual Terra X production contracts. This is the result of >>> so-called "round tables" at which, it should be noted, no representation of >>> the German producer community was present. Wikimedia, at any rate, is >>> celebrating its statistics today; the Terra-X clips are generating >>> respectable user numbers on the Wikipedia page. >>> >> It would be great to have links for all this... I was not aware of Terra >> X - sounds great as reference for other locals to advocate with public >> broadcasters. >> >> >>> The German film and television industry and all those creatively >>> involved are now rubbing their eyes in the face of how this rose-tinted >>> deception is catching on, not only among broadcaster executives but also in >>> media policy circles. They have all failed to ask the obvious question: Why >>> does Wikimedia need CC-licensed public service content at all? Wikimedia >>> could also simply enter into a blanket licensing agreement with the >>> relevant collecting societies such as VG Bild-Kunst. Just like schools, >>> universities, and libraries do. And just as Wikimedia itself wants to >>> conclude user agreements with Google >>> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/thema/google>, Apple, Amazon or >>> Facebook for facilitated access to content held on Wikipedia. It would be >>> easy to solve all the legal issues. And thanks to the collecting societies >>> that represent the interests of filmmakers, authors and ancillary copyright >>> holders would also have their fair or livelihood-protecting share of the >>> money flows. >>> >> >> This is hugely misinformed, but points to a need for better work on the >> side of Wikimedia to communicate this more clearly and prominently inside >> of existing interfaces and promotional work. >> >> >>> Propaganda for "free licenses" >>> >>> Wikimedia has rejected VG Bild-Kunst's offer to license protected works. >>> As long as its campaign in Germany has not completely failed, the >>> organization is apparently continuing to speculate on CC-licensed, >>> high-quality public-domain freeware, for which it does not have to conclude >>> licensing agreements with the collecting societies precisely because it is >>> already CC-licensed. A good deal for Wikimedia and the Internet giants. A >>> disastrous one for the production landscape. >>> >> >> I fail to understand this without more context and links... >> >> >>> Notwithstanding. Self-publication of content via Creative Commons on >>> subject-specific platforms or in social media makes perfect sense for >>> certain content such as academic publications or even NGO or hobby films. >>> Professional film works, on the other hand, always represent bundles of >>> legally guaranteed legal rights for script, direction, production, camera, >>> music et cetera. Films created under professional market conditions are >>> simply not suitable for simplified publication via Creative Commons >>> licensing. >>> >> >> This is not totally wrong. CC and others should address these issues with >> more complex mixed licensed works. >> >> >>> Wikimedia ignores these facts in its ongoing propaganda about "free >>> licenses" and waves away the criticism with colorful flags that say "common >>> good". In their own interest. At the expense of us filmmakers, at the >>> expense of authors and copyright holders. >>> >>> The German film and television landscape is facing enormous challenges >>> due to the growing importance of platforms and the resulting dynamics in >>> the audiovisual market. Perhaps as never before. At this time, it is >>> crucial that those with political responsibility as well as the public >>> broadcasters use these challenges in intensive dialog with filmmakers as an >>> opportunity to sustainably strengthen the production landscape in all its >>> diversity. Even better, to allow its creative power to unfold better than >>> before. >>> >>> What filmmakers need for this are stable legal foundations and fair >>> market standards. The stickers with the vulgar formula "public money = >>> public good" call these foundations into question. They should now finally >>> be scraped off the windshields of media policy in Germany. >>> >> >> These few points are overly simplified and fairly naive in statements >> about market, production landscape diversity, creativity and what not, but >> is it maybe worth addressing the use of 'vulgar' in any follow-ups. >> >> >> >>> David Bernet is a documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK >>> (Professional Association of Documentary Filmmakers in Germany). >>> *************************************************** >>> >>> Free licenses for the common good >>> <https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/wikimedia-ard-und-zdf-freie-lizenzen-fuer-das-gemeinwohl-17753492.html> >>> >>> by Dr. Christian Humborg, Executive Director of Wikimedia Deutschland >>> >>> Public money - public good! With this formula, Wikimedia Deutschland is >>> campaigning for knowledge content that is financed with tax money or the >>> broadcasting fee to be available to everyone. Some see their business model >>> threatened by this demand. "This is ruining filmmakers," reads an opinion >>> piece published this week by documentary filmmaker and co-chair of AG DOK, >>> David Bernet. >>> >>> This is a view that ignores the possibility of new financing models, >>> especially for filmmakers and media professionals - and above all the >>> absolute necessity of finally adapting the public broadcasting system in >>> Germany to the realities of the 21st century. Politicians and the >>> broadcasting commissions of the federal states themselves have long >>> recognized that something has to be done. Broadcasting content only via the >>> traditional channels of radio and television no longer does justice to the >>> mission of the public broadcasters. If you want to create good, reliable >>> content for everyone, you have to offer it in the way it is used today: >>> Accessible at any time, shareable, adaptable. >>> >> >> These are good points. Would be good to have a selection of examples >> useful for advocacy as case studies or references to point to. >> >>> It is alarming that, in this situation, creative people are being ground >>> down in the dispute between content exploiters such as film companies and >>> publishers, platforms, public broadcasters and politicians. But it is >>> incomprehensible that David Bernet points the finger at Wikipedia and >>> Wikimedia, of all places. >>> >> >> For me this is the key point in many ways to get creative people (not >> just their individual representatives) informed and supported in their >> work. Right now 'creatives' are now too often too dependent on corporate >> social media for visibility and promotion, so if there are no alternatives >> or even different directions for the future it is hard for them to be >> critical of big publishers and platforms. >> >>> The knowledge content financed by taxes and broadcasting fees is >>> manifold, but access and use are anything but self-evident: Why are >>> publicly financed research data behind paywalls of private specialist >>> publishers? Why is the Axel Springer publishing house forced to acquire >>> rights for the broadcast of the historically significant Elefantenrunde on >>> election night? Why don't public broadcasters make these rights available >>> from the outset, especially when it comes to purely in-house productions? >>> Wikimedia is not concerned with entertainment or weekly sporting events. >>> But publicly funded knowledge content should be free. It should be >>> permanently findable, usable and available regardless of location. >>> >> >> Good point that in-house productions should be easier to clear and >> license under CreativeCommons in a semi-automatic way. >> >> >>> Freely licensed - and adequately funded >>> >>> Creatives - apart from a few superstars - still earn far too little >>> money from their valuable work. Interest groups and employer organizations, >>> above all public broadcasters, urgently need to work on fair remuneration. >>> At the same time, it is also a matter of greater public appreciation of >>> their work. I hardly know any creatives who are only concerned about the >>> money and not also about attention. Provided that they are fairly >>> remunerated, free licenses can address both points. >>> >> If creators receive five euros for their content and another one euro >>> each for two subsequent uses, what would be so bad about it if they >>> received seven euros instead and the work was free for that? Also in terms >>> of predictable financial planning, I would prefer the latter. In fact, >>> creatives are regularly confronted with so-called total buyout clauses as >>> the only contract model, but without free licensing and without reuse >>> options. >>> >> >> Free licenses can help address both points. There are other aspects and >> opportunities for remuneration for direct creation of work, but also beyond >> this (we should not only be centered on content, just because Wikipedia was >> historically centering only content and not communities, nor acknowledging >> context differences). For example Ireland just developed a kind of >> 'universal' basic income for the artists. >> https://basicincome.org/news/2021/11/universal-basic-income-pilot-for-artists-in-ireland/ >> >>> Regardless of the financing, the free licensing of content often fails >>> due to the lack of suitable contract templates. Experience shows that those >>> who have to deal with the necessary formalities for every project again - >>> and sometimes against resistance - quickly give up. Public broadcasters >>> therefore urgently need to develop contract templates that enable editorial >>> teams and commissioned creatives to produce content under free licenses in >>> an uncomplicated and legally secure manner. >>> >> >> True, yet public broadcasters will not do much if they are not pressured >> by 'creatives' who need to be informed in order to be proactive. This >> really needs Wikimedians to work bottom up also. >> >>> One thing is clear: Whether creators are adequately compensated for >>> their services by public broadcasters should not depend on licensing. Free >>> licenses bring great advantages for broadcasters and society, such as >>> simpler and longer-lasting usability, simpler rights clearance, and >>> potentially greater visibility. These advantages should also be remunerated >>> accordingly. In any case, creators and editors must be enabled to use free >>> licenses without fear of loss of income. >>> >> >> Not just without fear of loss of income, but with substantial motivation >> from added visibility and increased sustainability of their work (where >> Wikimedia should help more). >> >> >>> One reason for the difficult negotiating position of creative >>> professionals is the lack of a strong lobby. For the many creatives, >>> negotiations on an equal footing would only be possible if individuals did >>> not pull out. Just how difficult it is to act collectively in the face of >>> monopolists was demonstrated again in the newspaper market last week, for >>> example, when it became known that Madsack had signed a contract with >>> Google for Showcase. The intention to bundle the negotiating power on the >>> side of the content users in Corint Media did not work out at that point. >>> The role of collecting societies is extremely important and it is to be >>> welcomed that they are no longer allowed to represent only their members in >>> some sectors. >>> >> >> I am not sure I understood it all fully, but guessing in Germany >> 'collecting societies' do not have monopolies (unlike in many other >> countries). >> >> >>> It's also about reach >>> >>> Wikimedia has always urged rights compliance and at the same time called >>> for the modernization of copyright where it no longer functions reasonably >>> in a digital age. On the other hand, it was the large advertising platforms >>> such as YouTube whose rise and growth would hardly have been conceivable >>> without disregard for legal standards. Precisely because Wikimedia respects >>> copyright, it relies on free licenses that make it possible for everyone to >>> use and edit content permanently and in a legally secure manner. >>> >>> Furthermore, Wikimedia welcomes all considerations for a non-commercial, >>> European media platform as a basis for the exchange of publicly funded >>> content. Instead, public broadcasters in EU member states mostly limit >>> themselves to short-term collaborations, limited also by national >>> exploitation licenses, while at the same time uploading content to globally >>> available commercial platforms such as Youtube. >>> >> >> I am sorry to say but if 'Wikimedia welcomes all considerations...' this >> will never or not likely happen anytime soon. Wikimedia and EU based >> affiliates can not be a bystander (especially considering the visibility >> and experience of 20 years), but need to commit to work on this issue with >> others and bridge those short term (EU funded projects of collaborations). >> >>> The example of Terra X from ZDF shows that there are distribution >>> alternatives, such as the Wikimedia platform Commons. The Terra X clips >>> posted there alone currently achieve more than two million views per month. >>> To put it in perspective, that's two million views more than if they were >>> to appear only in the media libraries of the public broadcasters for a year. >>> >>> Making Terra X clips available benefits the quality of Wikipedia, no >>> question. But it primarily benefits the viewers - and it's good for Terra >>> X's sustainable reach. Reaching many people is the mission of public >>> broadcasters. Not to mention, Wikipedia articles committed to a neutral >>> point of view are certainly a more suitable environment for public service >>> information content than YouTube and other commercial platforms. >>> >>> The collaboration between ZDF and Wikipedia on the Terra-X broadcast >>> comes from a volunteer group. This group, "Wiki Loves Broadcast," points >>> out in its response to >>> <https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_Loves_Broadcast/Statement_zum_FAZ-Beitrag_vom_18.01.2022> >>> David Bernet's post that it is solely up to the volunteer community to >>> incorporate content like ZDF's clips into Wikipedia. Neither Wikimedia >>> Deutschland nor the Wikimedia Foundation can influence this. >>> >> >> WMF and WM DE should not influence the project direction directly but >> give support to these initiatives if it did not before. >> Thank you for sharing this info. >> >> >>> Knowledge that belongs to everyone >>> >>> Wikimedia is financially independent. Wikimedia is financed by donations >>> and membership fees from the millions of people who use Wikipedia and other >>> wiki projects. In concrete terms, Wikimedia Deutschland is backed by just >>> under 100,000 association members. In total, more than 500,000 people >>> supported Wikimedia Deutschland financially last year. In 2021, there was >>> actually money from platforms. While the figure in 2020 was 0%, in 2021 it >>> accounted for about 0.2% of revenue. I do not see any threat to >>> independence in this order of magnitude. >>> >> >> Hm... >> >>> Internationally, too, millions of small donations ensure precisely this >>> independence. For the coming year - as in previous years - we expect >>> payments from companies and donations of more than $1,000 to account for >>> less than 20% of the Wikimedia Foundation's total income. >>> >> >> It would be great to actually not claim just financial independence >> (valid only for WMF), but also interdependencies of participatory work of >> supportersvolunteers, contractors and staff with partners in the greater >> ecosystem of Wikimedia. >> >>> Two things are certain: Wikimedia cannot sell content at all, because >>> Wikimedia does not own any content, unlike any creative person. No profit >>> flows from Wikimedia to individuals, but all income is used solely for the >>> non-profit projects. Personally, I'm glad that among the world's major >>> internet platforms there is at least one that is not concerned with profit. >>> >> >> True. Good point to insert 21 years of continuity in this direction for >> both CreativeCommons and Wikipedia ;-) >> >> >> As for the comments of Andreas... >> >> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 9:39 PM Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'd rather like to see you lobby to have programs permanently available >>> on ARD's/ZDF's (German broadcasters') own media repository sites, where >>> they can easily be linked to. The concentration of public media access in >>> the hands of just a small number of US-based Big Tech companies that hoover >>> up everything – which is the practical result of the strategy you advocate >>> – is politically and economically unhealthy. >>> >> >> This is a really excellent point and worth investigating in and beyond WM >> DE only with partners at least in the EU where such regulations and >> commitments could be supported by the EU. >> >> >> >>> As for nobody at Wikimedia profiting off the free content created by >>> volunteers, that is relative. WMF salary costs currently average over >>> $200,000 per employee. In most parts of the world, that would be considered >>> wealthy. A minor issue in the grand scheme of things, certainly, but still >>> relevant to us here at least. >>> >> >> Rather then just discussing payroll of Wikimedia (in separate thread) I >> think it is useful to discuss what is the spectrum of options and what are >> the bottlenecks for the compensations to both diversify and distribute with >> equity in mind as well as for WMF to be acting with bigger commitment as >> supporter of all Wikimedia entities, participants and partnerships, than >> just easy and obvious ones. >> >> Best >> Z. Blace >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines >> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l >> Public archives at >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/YFTZGOQF7MZI36XDJLKMLVNKTNGK7RMF/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines > at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > Public archives at > https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WWIIL3J7GGT7RFDWDWIGNXODN353TMWD/ > To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org -- Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529 4266
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LKUZWVMT5T3POIANBCJ4QXF5PWVXPL6B/ To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
