NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book

[Charles Matthews]

Joseph Reagle wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Charles Matthews wrote:
>  
>> [[TinyURL]], I would say. Do we take this into account in any advice
>> "how to cite Wikipedia"?
>>    
>
> I would not make my references dependent upon a commercial service. (It's fine for Twitter in the short term, but what happens when they go under and now all those URLs point to porn?) However, institutions should give thought to their URI architecture, including stability, terseness, etc. The ACM provides a relatively short URL for everything it publishes, and there are other DOI services.
>
>  
So any particular reason the WMF couldn't provide its own [[URL
shortening]] in-house? How hard is it to do a bares-bones service?

Charles



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

There's an importance to this which needs to be communicated better, and
quickly.  Most of the world's image archives are not openly accessible.  As
some of them open their doors, Flickr is competing with Commons to become
the primary point of deposit.  We risk a situation where WMF loses out on
valuable institutional relationships and our volunteers glean the crumbs
from a commercial site.

One of the arguments in favor of Wikimedia Commons is that we have a team of
volunteers who restore historic material.  There's a chance for the donating
archive to get highlights from its collection designated as featured
pictures, which run on the main page.

The fact that our restorations get reproduced in Time Magazine, in Wired,
and elsewhere ought to be strengthening that argument.  Credibility requires
credit.  We are competing against a well funded commercial enterprise for
large institutional donations; we need every advantage we can muster.

-Durova

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM, David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:

> 2009/6/25 Siobhan Hansa <helenseal@...>:
> > Steve Bennett wrote:
>
> >> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> >> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> >> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> >> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
> >> producing useful free images?
> >> (These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take
> >> the bait with caution.)
>
> > A less ego bound reason* for wanting to see some acknowledgment -
> > especially through a link to Wikipedia or the like - is that it is
> > advocacy for the intellectual commons. This could encourage others to
> > get involved or to consider making their content free.
> > Also if the importance of free content isn't widely understood it will
> > be harder for policy makers to come to good decisions about laws or
> > other public support that might impact it.
>
>
> Yes. It will help the commons considerably for free content licenses
> to visibly be out there and acknowledged. And it's not onerous for a
> newspaper to print "Photo by xxxx, CC by-sa 3.0". Or even "Photo by
> xxx, restored by xxx," even if the restoration wouldn't generate a
> fresh copyright.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Andrew Gray wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=6042007
>
> can be rendered as
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
>
> Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
> the DOI playbook, and set up something like:
>
> http://[site]/wp:en/6042007

So the oldid's are globally unique (among a language subdomain)? If that's the case, the answer to Charles' question of how hard it is could be not hard at all. (Perhaps even doable with some simple Apache rewrites, but WP is a complex architecture.)

As an aside the MARC archivists we're very helpful to me so that I could easily cite conversations on this list by creating a email msgid referrer. So for example, one of Charles' earlier messages is:

http://marc.info/?i=4A433110.2000606@...

dereferences to:

http://marc.info/?l=wikien-l&m=124591771510938

Granted, the msgid version is slightly longer, but it's stable (a lot of archives regenerate and break links) and corresponds to the thing in my mbox. Similar tricks can be done for identifiers. (At the W3C, we used shorter URIs to define algorithms, schema, and namespaces with the rewrite approach.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

I want to remind everything that the issue as to why the URL's weren't
included *supposedly* wasn't that the standard URL is too long, but
rather just that one side wanted the "timestamp" as they say, and the
other didn't.  Personally it sounds to me like they are completely
fudging the situation.  That's just my opinion and you can't sue me
over it :)

I really doubt that any reader (whatsoever) is going to laboriously
type in the oldid in the first place to see that article "as it was"
when it was quoted.  We can hardly even get anyone to cite to the
historical articles in the first place or they do something weird like
say "accessed on..." which doesn't do anything automagically anyway.

Any factoid worth quoting off-project is probably ref'fed anyway, and
the full cite should include the underlying source as well making a
cite to the historical version redundant it would seem to me.

That brings up another thing in my mind.  The ability to search the
history of one article *solely*, or one single talk page history.  Can
we do that?

Will





_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Gray-3]

2009/6/25 Joseph Reagle <reagle@...>:

>> Can we make that even more succinct? Well, we could take a leaf from
>> the DOI playbook, and set up something like:
>>
>> http://[site]/wp:en/6042007
>
> So the oldid's are globally unique (among a language subdomain)? If that's
> the case, the answer to Charles' question of how hard it is could be not
> hard at all. (Perhaps even doable with some simple Apache rewrites, but
> WP is a complex architecture.)

My understanding is that the revision id is globally unique for a
given wiki, yes. Handily, it also works for images - uploading an
image generates a new revision id for the description page, so we can
link to a specific version of the image without having to go for the
bare URL.

(When I noted [site] there, incidentally, I was thinking of something
which we manage inhouse, but operating through a new and shorter
domain name for simplicity.)

--
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

"This file says its in the public domain."

Yes Joe but.
Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their source.
They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying source.
This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewed the image directly there."
Which Durova has shown they did not.
In scholarship that is considered a no-no.? You must cite the source *YOU* actually used, not the source your source used.

Will Johnson







-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Reagle
To: wikien-l@...
Sent: Wed, Jun 24, 2009 4:06 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book










On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Durova wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sfearthquake3b.jpg

This file says its in the public domain.

[[
Permission
 (Reusing this image)
Public domain
]]

[[
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of
the United States Federal Government under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1,
Section 105 of the US Code. See Copyright.
...
]]

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Angela-5]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Andrew Gray<andrew.gray@...> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&oldid=6042007
>
> can be rendered as
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=6042007
>
> Can we make that even more succinct?

http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
goes.

Angela

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhonson@... wrote:
> Yes Joe but.
> Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their source.
> They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying source.
> This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewed the image directly there."
> Which Durova has shown they did not.
> In scholarship that is considered a no-no.? You must cite the source *YOU* actually used, not the source your source used.

True enough, and my point about Public Domain is really about copyright, and Durova's point was about plagiarism and credit. So I missed the mark. However, had I more carefully responded I would have expressed that I think I would've made the same mistake Wired made. I would've seen "oh, this is in the public domain" and "oh, here is the source" and "and there's the author" and gone happily on my way. My trusty copy of Chicago Manual of Style (15th) similarly only concerns itself with permissions for copyrighted illustrations and images. Plus, there's no "cite this page" links there to provide guidance. The "Reusing this image" link similarly says nothing.

So I expect this is in part a matter of education, and so we be very clear about we would want such things to be credited. Is this a mutual credit, does the second credit go to Durova or Wikipedia? (There's so much info on that page, it's quite easy to get confused.)

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Joseph Reagle]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
> this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
> shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
> goes.

I did not know that, that's great.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[phoebe ayers-3]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Reagle<reagle@...> wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
>> this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
>> shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
>> goes.
>
> I did not know that, that's great.

Perhaps this could be included as an output format under "cite this
page"? Provide the full permanent URL, then the short version for
citation purposes.

As an aside, what bugs me the most about this is that according to the
note reproduced in this story:
http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2009/06/23/chris-anderson-free/
Anderson said that "All those are my screwups after we decided not to
run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation
format for web sources…"

We give people a lovely pre-made citation on each and every page!
Every major style manual includes explicit directions on how to cite
websites! Every academic paper ever published about Wikipedia has
grappled with this problem and come up with some sort of solution!
Sheesh.

-- Phoebe

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Brian J Mingus]

It's hard to imagine someone thinking "I bet no one will notice if I just
paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article." At the same time, some
users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
just what exactly is meant by "free encyclopedia." And not to his credit
directly, but certainly somewhat in his favor, it is simply not possible to
cite an article such that you refer to it exactly the way it looked on a
particular day. This is because there is no software that can use the
revision number to pull in the correct revision of templates etc.

There really isn't any excuse though. A URL suitable for use in a book can
be as short as Wikipedia.org/Article (you're redirected to the article after
5 seconds). That's really, minimal attribution - who wouldn't be able to
agree on that??:)

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:53 PM, phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Joseph Reagle<reagle@...> wrote:
> > On Thursday 25 June 2009, Angela wrote:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/?oldid=6042007 also works. For book purposes,
> >> this is already shorter than most URLs, so shouldn't need to be
> >> shortened anymore which would remove information about where the link
> >> goes.
> >
> > I did not know that, that's great.
>
> Perhaps this could be included as an output format under "cite this
> page"? Provide the full permanent URL, then the short version for
> citation purposes.
>
> As an aside, what bugs me the most about this is that according to the
> note reproduced in this story:
> http://www.vqronline.org/blog/2009/06/23/chris-anderson-free/
> Anderson said that "All those are my screwups after we decided not to
> run notes as planned, due to my inability to find a good citation
> format for web sources…"
>
> We give people a lovely pre-made citation on each and every page!
> Every major style manual includes explicit directions on how to cite
> websites! Every academic paper ever published about Wikipedia has
> grappled with this problem and come up with some sort of solution!
> Sheesh.
>
> -- Phoebe
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[WJhonson]

 One would *hope* (although I'm not sure I expect it) that a writer at Wired would know how to properly cite a primary reference through a secondary citation.? I don't think this is an issue with our page, it is standard practice when citing.? Some people are sloppy I agree, but when found out they should be also called out.? I expect that they probably just thought they could "get away with it".? Lucky they have people like me to give them a slap-down ;)

Will




 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@...>
To: wikien-l@...
Cc: wjhonson@...
Sent: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 2:38 pm
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] NY Times: Wired Editor Apologizes for Copying from Wikipedia in New Book










On Thursday 25 June 2009, wjhonson@... wrote:
> Yes Joe but.
> Durova's point, with which I agree, is that they improperly cited their
source.
> They lifted the picture *from* Wikipedia, and then cited the underlying
source.
> This normally implies "I actually went to the source and viewed the image
directly there."
> Which Durova has shown they did not.
> In scholarship that is considered a no-no.? You must cite the source *YOU*
actually used, not the source your source used.

True enough, and my point about Public Domain is really about copyright, and
Durova's point was about plagiarism and credit. So I missed the mark. However,
had I more carefully responded I would have expressed that I think I would've
made the same mistake Wired made. I would've seen "oh, this is in the public
domain" and "oh, here is the source" and "and there's the author" and gone
happily on my way. My trusty copy of Chicago Manual of Style (15th) similarly
only concerns itself with permissions for copyrighted illustrations and images.
Plus, there's no "cite this page" links there to provide guidance. The "Reusing
this image" link similarly says nothing.

So I expect this is in part a matter of education, and so we be very clear about
we would want such things to be credited. Is this a mutual credit, does the
second credit go to Durova or Wikipedia? (There's so much info on that page,
it's quite easy to get confused.)



 

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Steve Bennett wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> wrote:
>  
>> Any suggestions what to do about this?
>>
>>    
>
> After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
>
> No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
> alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for
> credit. Soon, we will stop asking for it.
>
> In order for it to happen, we would have to:
> a) Make the requirement really really prominent
> b) Respect it ourselves
> c) Vehemently complain in a very public manner when a few individuals
> fail to do so.
>
> when d) we have far bigger fish to fry.
>
> I think ultimately most organisations divide media into two
> categories: properietary or free. We can certainly label all our
> material as proprietary and tell people not to reuse it. Or we can
> tell people they can reuse it. But our message of "please reuse it,
> but ...." is not going to get through.
>
> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
> producing useful free images?
>
> (These questions are rhetorical and deliberately inflammatory. Take
> the bait with caution.)
>  

I won't take the bait. I will throw in a larger and tastier
bait into the water instead. ;-)


Clearly we cannot take in GFDL only content any more,
but to what extent if any, should we prevent people from
adding in content previously published under CC-BY-SA?


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Steve Bennett wrote:


> And why do you care anyway? Vanity? Curiosity? Is it that important?
> Is a little piece of text on some idiot's webpage the difference
> between you contributing your time next time and not? Is the
> gratification of your name in cyberspace your primary motivation for
> producing useful free images?
>  
Heh, thinking about it, I *will* swallow the bait. :-)

Let me tell you a real story from my own life...

But before I do that, let me sort of eviscerate a bit
of the rhetoric there above. "Primary motivation"
is a bit of a red herring in terms of phrasing. There
is absolutely no need for something to be a primary
motivation, for it to be a net plus when put into the
scales as to it's utility.

...but now to my tale:

I committed the cardinal sin of writing a little bit
about the school I was attending at the time, albeit
as staff, not as a student. And in my defence the
school was one with a special mission (The Natural
Sciences, to be clear).

One of the teachers in the school brought up the
wikipedia article and who were in its history fully
unprompted by me, while we and some other people
were at the coffee table. I sort of mentioned the last
editor she mentioned, was me.

I did not make my initial edit to the article because
I thought somebody in the school would be impressed,
but when she clearly showed she was sort of impressed
to find out the editor was me, I have to admit, I do feel
a sort of heightened responsibility for that article and
am definitely motivated to look after it.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Brian<Brian.Mingus@...> wrote:
> It's hard to imagine someone thinking "I bet no one will notice if I just
> paste in this paragraph from a Wikipedia article." At the same time, some
> users, perhaps even some apparently sophisticated users, may misunderstand
> just what exactly is meant by "free encyclopedia." And not to his credit
> directly, but certainly somewhat in his favor, it is simply not possible to
> cite an article such that you refer to it exactly the way it looked on a
> particular day. This is because there is no software that can use the
> revision number to pull in the correct revision of templates etc.

<snip>

This is indeed a problem. I've sometimes gone to an old version of a
page and thought "this looks wrong", and then realised that the
templates I'm seeing are the current ones, not the old ones (the same
applies when an image has been overwritten or deleted and recreated).
Sometimes a screenshot or true archive version is needed as well. As
for software to detect "dynamic" parts of the page and to go and grab
(even from deleted revisions) the older version of that dynamic
element, surely *someone* can do that? On the other hand, the bit
about the older dynamic parts of the page having been deleted is a
real problem as well.

Imagine an old citation leading to a page version that somehow shows a
shock image. Some of our more creative vandals would have little
problem doing that, especially if the deleted page or template no
longer existed, or something clever was done with template coding.

Ultimately, if a page relies heavily on templates or images, a
screenshot or *real* permanent link is needed.

Carcharoth

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/25 phoebe ayers <phoebe.wiki@...>:

> We give people a lovely pre-made citation on each and every page!
> Every major style manual includes explicit directions on how to cite
> websites! Every academic paper ever published about Wikipedia has
> grappled with this problem and come up with some sort of solution!
> Sheesh.


I asked him directly on his blog what was so difficult about citing us
and what we could do to make it easier. I look forward to a response.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Andrew Turvey]

---- "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp@...> wrote:

> After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
>
> No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
> alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for
> credit. Soon, we will stop asking for it.
>
> In order for it to happen, we would have to:
> a) Make the requirement really really prominent
> b) Respect it ourselves
> c) Vehemently complain in a very public manner when a few individuals
> fail to do so.
>
> when d) we have far bigger fish to fry.

Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?

Andrew
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

A more proactive approach would be very welcome where it comes to featured
pictures.  WMF photographers have occasionally discovered their work reused
without credit in commercial advertising.

-Durova

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...
> wrote:

> ---- "Steve Bennett" <stevagewp@...> wrote:
>
> > After my recent perusals of reuses of my images, here's my take:
> >
> > No one is ever going to pay attention to, let alone understand, let
> > alone respect, let alone follow the CC-BY or GFDL requirement for
> > credit. Soon, we will stop asking for it.
> >
> > In order for it to happen, we would have to:
> > a) Make the requirement really really prominent
> > b) Respect it ourselves
> > c) Vehemently complain in a very public manner when a few individuals
> > fail to do so.
> >
> > when d) we have far bigger fish to fry.
>
> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should
> complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
>
> Andrew
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

--
http://durova.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[David Gerard-2]

2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:

> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?


I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK
PHOTOS just give credit and licence.


- d.

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[geni]

2009/6/29 David Gerard <dgerard@...>:
> 2009/6/28 Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@...>:
>
>> Open question: do you think the Foundation and/or local chapters should complain more when their local media fail to respect Wikimedia copyrights?
>
>
> I think actively asking nicely would be a good idea. Particularly when
> several people ask them. Eventually they will get the idea: FREE STOCK
> PHOTOS just give credit and licence.

Only if you consider CC-BY-SA to be weak copyleft.

--
geni

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l