Re: [Foundation-l] Spectrum of views (was Re: Sexual Imagery on Commons: where the discussion is happening)
Elias Gabriel Amaral da Silva wrote: 2010/5/13 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com: Samuel Klein wrote: I agree strongly with this. You are right to point out the connection to improving BLP policies -- we should be much more careful to confirming model rights for people in any potentially exploitative or embarrassing photos. Such ideas have been around for a long time. What are the arguments against implementing stronger requirements for images of people? Not an argument as such, but I would imagine that with regard to amateur photography of all sorts, in the long term the main effect would be to educate them in the correct practices of model rights. After all I would expect that amateur photographers would not really have great difficulty in obtaining model rights, once they know that is a requirement. Why just amateur photos? Professional should respect model rights as much as amateur photos. I think my unwritten assumption was that amateurs might not in all cases know what is required, but professionals do -- as a default; the professionals who don't, not deserving the name. None of these is an argument against, as such, just pointing out some of the ramifications that might follow. My guess is that after a lot of existing images were removed, the ratio of new images uploaded would infact be skewed *in* *favor* of amateur images, rather than *against*. I could be wrong of course. Interesting. Why do you think so? I think deep down it comes down to the profit motive. Enthusiasts rarely are governed by it, so they give freely. I would imagine that if some amateur photographer in the process of donating their images learned more about model releases and all that jazz, they would infact be grateful, and more motivated than ever to pay forward for the learning experience. Certainly it has been my personal experience writing on wikipedia, that as I learn more, the more I feel an obligation to pay forward, for what I have recieved. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
Some technical questions about the logo: 1) What software was used in making the 3D model? 2) Are the data files for that model available somewhere? (Or will they be made available?) 3) The SVG files provided appear to be based on painted wire frames rather than true 3D renderings. This makes the files more easily scalable (and more compatible with SVG in general), but it also makes the sensation of depth less realistic. Is this a deliberate choice, and if so, why? -Robert Rohde ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
[Foundation-l] Fwd: [Commons-l] [POTY2009] Votin Round 1 now open
-- Forwarded message -- From: miya narniancat.m...@gmail.com Date: 2010/5/14 Subject: [Commons-l] [POTY2009] Votin Round 1 now open To: common...@lists.wikimedia.org Dear Wikimedians, Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that it has now opened the 2009 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition. Any user registered at a Wikimedia wiki since 2009 or before with more than 200 edits before 16 January 2010 (UTC) is welcome to vote. Nearly 900 images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are fighting to impress the highest number of voters. From professional animal and plants shots, over breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying world's best architecture, maps, emblems and diagrams created with the most modern technology and impressing human portrays, Commons features pictures for all flavours. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. In the final round, when about 20 images are left, you must decide for one image to become the Picture of the Year. Check your eligibility now http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=wiki=event=9http://toolserver.org/%7Epathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=wiki=event=9 and if you're allowed to vote, you may use one of your accounts for the voting. In Round 1 we have sorted the images into topic categories for your convenience. Feel free to vote for as many images as you like, there's no limit in vote numbers in Round 1. The Round 1 category winners and the top 10 overall will then make it to the final. We're now interested in your opinion which images qualify for being the Picture of the Year 2009. Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2009 ___ Commons-l mailing list common...@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Nathan wrote: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. Although sexual images are one of several most important cases, the moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists everywhere. As such, Commons has a specific policy on this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle, with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should. And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for unlimited publicity. I may have said it before -- and I do apologize if I sound like a record stuck into repeating the same groove again and again -- but the issue in cases like that *decidedly* isn't the explicitness of the image, but the _privacy_ _violation_. It may be that here again the ugly head of my Nordic liberal values may be rising above the parapet, but I do not consider a female of the species enjoying the sun without incurring tan-lines to their upper torso as remotely explicit in any sensible sense of the word -- any more than I would consider explicit an image of a woman breastfeeding her one year old baby. Though I do recognize the sentiment that people who have very few opportunities to see womens breasts in the flesh, might feel otherwise. I forget who it was in relation to a campus ban on shows of affection, that said Kissing in public in front of lonely people is like eating a hamburger in front of people on the point of starvation. -- or words to that effect. So to recap, I wouldn't support a selective standard only applied to explicit images, no matter how defined. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
Robert Rohde wrote: Myself and several other people find the new Wikipedia logo to be rather disappointing. Specifically it seems too small (lots of empty white space), and the edges of the puzzle pieces lack definition when shown at the web scale. For a discussion of this, including possible tweaks to make it bolder, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#New_logo I have to say I agree. Another bad thing I don't see mentioned is gray on gray syndrome - dark gray letters on light gray background make for a very bland logo, and I believe this would be especially bad in print. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. Andreas --- On Fri, 14/5/10, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please! To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Friday, 14 May, 2010, 10:36 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: Nathan wrote: On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: The obligation to protect people against an invasion of their privacy is not limited to, or even mostly applicable to sexual images. Although sexual images are one of several most important cases, the moral imperative to respect the privacy of private individuals exists everywhere. As such, Commons has a specific policy on this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#Photographs_taken_in_a_private_place Not much of a policy, in my opinion. A general statement of principle, with no mechanism of enforcement, doesn't have much impact on the state of things. We don't require evidence of release, but we should. And in the case of explicit content, we should require that release even if the photograph is taken in a public place. Topless sunbathing on a beach in Nice is not the same as a worldwide license for unlimited publicity. I may have said it before -- and I do apologize if I sound like a record stuck into repeating the same groove again and again -- but the issue in cases like that *decidedly* isn't the explicitness of the image, but the _privacy_ _violation_. It may be that here again the ugly head of my Nordic liberal values may be rising above the parapet, but I do not consider a female of the species enjoying the sun without incurring tan-lines to their upper torso as remotely explicit in any sensible sense of the word -- any more than I would consider explicit an image of a woman breastfeeding her one year old baby. Though I do recognize the sentiment that people who have very few opportunities to see womens breasts in the flesh, might feel otherwise. I forget who it was in relation to a campus ban on shows of affection, that said Kissing in public in front of lonely people is like eating a hamburger in front of people on the point of starvation. -- or words to that effect. So to recap, I wouldn't support a selective standard only applied to explicit images, no matter how defined. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. Andreas Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of view of copyright. In any case what means injurious? It can change in relation of the cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot be considered injurious). Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of view of copyright. In any case what means injurious? It can change in relation of the cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot be considered injurious). Ilario It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do, but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the photograph. That's pretty unfortunate. Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate. Nathan ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Ilario Valdelli valde...@gmail.com wrote: Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of view of copyright. In any case what means injurious? It can change in relation of the cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot be considered injurious). Ilario It can't be? I think you (and Jussi-Ville) have a pretty narrow concept of what might be injurious. If you release an image of yourself to your friends, does that mean you'd be happy to see it on the evening news? If you're tanning on the beach, is that permission to have your image republished in a major feature film? Your argument addresses what you believe the photographer should be allowed to do, but ignores the potential for negative impact on the subject of the photograph. That's pretty unfortunate. Please understand that one matter is the privacy, another is the injury for publication of nudism. We are speaking about nudism, probably the question of privacy must be solved in another discussion. I mean that solving the problem of nudism you don't solve the problem of privacy *in general* but I am not saying that the privacy is not important. Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the privacy or abuse of content subjects? There is tension between cultural values, obviously, and some self-serving interpretation of that tension (everyone seems to think they are being pressured to abide by the values of the misguided), but there must be some middle ground that allows for some minimal effective protection for people who are not party to the armchair philosophical debate. Nathan Most of all because the nudism is relative to the culture. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more injurious. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. I agree. But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures. Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give permission. I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a public place), but it seems like the right thing to do. Especially given that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial purposes. One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic. If you snap a shot of a Mayor accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed. Additionally, I suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous that no one is likely to object. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 6:59 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 9:56 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. It can be. Then again, an image of her making tea might be far more injurious. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. I agree. But then, I can think of dozens of other situations which don't involve nudity or sexuality but which should follow the same procedures. Basically, if there's any reasonable chance the person would object to the image, and the identity of the person in the image is not in itself newsworthy/encyclopedic, we probably should require the person to give permission. I don't know what the law is in that situation (I thought film productions had to get some sort of permission for filming people, even in a public place), but it seems like the right thing to do. Especially given that Commons images are permitted (even encouraged) for use for commercial purposes. One necessary exception would be for situations in which the identity of the person is itself newsworthy/encyclopedic. If you snap a shot of a Mayor accepting a bribe, the Mayor's permission is not needed. Additionally, I suppose an exception could be made in cases where the image is so innocuous that no one is likely to object. Perfect. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
Ilario Valdelli wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote: Someone uploading a nude picture of their ex-girlfriend can be far more injurious to the woman concerned than the same person uploading an image of her making tea. Requiring an OTRS release from the model for any nude and sexually explicit content seems appropriate to me. Andreas Except the case that you make a photo of yourself. In this case the OTRS ticket is not important like is not important in the point of view of copyright. In any case what means injurious? It can change in relation of the cultural point of view but also in relation of the environment where the photo has been made (i.e. a picture taken in a nudist beach cannot be considered injurious). Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various privacy laws. “It is one thing to be viewed in the nude by a person at some point in time, but quite another to be recorded in the nude so that a recording exists that can be saved or distributed and viewed at a later time,” Judge Paul G. Lundsten wrote for the court. http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm?recID=72195 ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
wjhon...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 5/14/2010 7:50:00 AM Pacific Daylight Time, nawr...@gmail.com writes: Surely there is a way to meet educational goals without risking the privacy or abuse of content subjects? How is a person uploading a picture of themselves to Commons expecting any privacy at all? How do you ascertain the veracity of their statement? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
David Goodman wrote: But all of this is irrelevant to the original censorship issue, because we are not protecting our audience, who can personally or by proxy protect themselves have the responsibility for doing so; we are protecting our subjects, who cannot. First you have to define who your audience is. It is beginning to sound that the audience is a very small number of ideologues. ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
On 14.05.2010 20:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various privacy laws. In a big *yellow* wall if a small point is red for me and orange for you, this doesn't change the color of the wall. Ilario ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Legal requirements for sexual content -- help, please!
Ilario Valdelli wrote: On 14.05.2010 20:38, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote: Many nudist will tell you that what happens on the beach stays on the beach. There is no expectation that a photo taken by a friend, or stranger for that matter, will end up on a public website. Indeed there have been recent case including in the US, where people who have posted intimate photos of another has been arrested and convicted under various privacy laws. In a big *yellow* wall if a small point is red for me and orange for you, this doesn't change the color of the wall. This wall you talk of, is it in some gaol? ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a page on Meta for discussing the new logo? Among other things, we need somewhere to discuss progress on localizing the new logo into different languages. Perhaps the old Logo page could be updated with the latest status and links to discussions on other wikis as they develop: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Logo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 Thanks. I've updated [[m:Logo]] and [[m:Wikipedia/Logo]]. However, I don't think we should be localizing anymore until we figure out if the logo is going to be updated to include the suggested changes (which I think it will be). nod Sam -- meta:sj ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
Hi folks, The UX team folks have prepared a new rendering of the mark and it's available for review on the Prototype wiki: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page I've made a short update the conversation thread on commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Logo_revisions_need_input Which is also where you can leave new feedback. I discuss some of the nuances of the appearance of the identity on other browsers there, and I think others have also pointed those out. Please take a look at the prototype version and share your comments on that commons thread. We want to get a range of opinions to ensure it looks optimal on a lot of different browser settings, and also that we consider the observations about the transition from the previous. We'll be collecting feedback through next week and we'll introduce a modification hopefully very shortly after that. FYI the identity looks really, really good in non-digital settings (printed, used in graphic applications etc). There are no major issues with how it translates into real-world objects (banners, posters, pins etc). Thanks for your input, jay On May 14, 2010, at 12:59 PM, Samuel Klein wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Casey Brown li...@caseybrown.org wrote: On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 12:27 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote: Is there a page on Meta for discussing the new logo? Among other things, we need somewhere to discuss progress on localizing the new logo into different languages. Perhaps the old Logo page could be updated with the latest status and links to discussions on other wikis as they develop: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/Logo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia/2.0 Thanks. I've updated [[m:Logo]] and [[m:Wikipedia/Logo]]. However, I don't think we should be localizing anymore until we figure out if the logo is going to be updated to include the suggested changes (which I think it will be). nod Sam -- meta:sj ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Re: [Foundation-l] Along with Vector, a new look for changes to the Wikipedia identity
2010/5/14 Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org Hi folks, The UX team folks have prepared a new rendering of the mark and it's available for review on the Prototype wiki: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/en.wikipedia.org/Main_Page I've made a short update the conversation thread on commons here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikipedia/2.0#Logo_revisions_need_input Which is also where you can leave new feedback. I discuss some of the nuances of the appearance of the identity on other browsers there, and I think others have also pointed those out. Please take a look at the prototype version and share your comments on that commons thread. We want to get a range of opinions to ensure it looks optimal on a lot of different browser settings, and also that we consider the observations about the transition from the previous. We'll be collecting feedback through next week and we'll introduce a modification hopefully very shortly after that. FYI the identity looks really, really good in non-digital settings (printed, used in graphic applications etc). There are no major issues with how it translates into real-world objects (banners, posters, pins etc). Thanks for your input, jay -- Jay Walsh Head of Communications WikimediaFoundation.org blog.wikimedia.org +1 (415) 839 6885 x 609, @jansonw ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l That's looking much better! Fantastic. The only small thing I would change is the darkness of the visible inside of the globe, as commented by Nohat here: http://nohat.net/2010/the-awful-new-wikipedia-logo . -- Jon Harald Søby http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Harald_S%C3%B8by ___ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
