Mailing List Archive

While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf
my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my
mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on
a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an
important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions. There is
a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still
gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [which could use a config
change; it's in bugzilla :D]) where people concerned with such things
can generate appropriately-censored content for children.

-Mike

On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:

> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
> being created *by adults for adults*.
>
> That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the
> educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational
> material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make
> something that won't freak out their parents.


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Re : This from brion;

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 3:29 AM, Brion Vibber <brion@wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> Sites like Flickr and Google image search keep this to a single toggle;
> the default view is a "safe" search which excludes items which have been
> marked as "adult" in nature, while making it easy to opt out of the
> restricted search and get at everything if you want it.....
>
> .....Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>
> -- brion
>
>
This is exceptionally heartening from my perspective - I believe a very
simple and straightforward system like this would help a great deal. It is
of course a great strength of wiki-processes to be able to allow large
groups of volunteers to maintain appropriate image descriptive tagging which
could power such a system - I've said before that I'm a little surprised
that it's not embraced as a good way forward - but either ways, it's a good
thing in my book.

I believe this would be a valuable (and necessary) software addition from
the foundation - is it really a fairly simple technical implementation,
brion? others?

cheers,

Peter,
PM.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Aryeh Gregor wrote:
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself. Wikipedia is absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting. Most of its editors find sexual
> images just fine, and a large percentage view their suppression as
> harmful, "sex-negative", based on obsolete religious practice,
> whatever, so they're allowed. Look at David Goodman's message earlier
> for a good example of this. Sexual images aren't allowed because
> Wikipedia isn't censored, they're allowed because the predominant view
> of sex among Wikipedians is that it's a recreation like any other.
>
> If you think Wikipedia's imagery is not censored, please explain why
> [[Goatse.cx]] does not have an image of its subject matter. Such an
> image would clearly fall under our fair use criteria, wouldn't it?
> It's definitely essential for understanding of the material. But how
> long do you think the image would last if someone added it? I'd be
> surprised if no one tried to add it before, in fact. I'd also be
> surprised if anyone could even upload the image without having it
> speedy deleted as vandalism and getting a warning that they'd be
> blocked if they did it again.
>
> [[Nick Berg]] is primarily known because of the beheading video
> released about him, but his article chooses for some reason to depict
> a still from the video where he's still alive, rather than depicting
> the act of beheading itself. I would argue that the beheading part of
> the video is very educational. Most people's ideas of what beheading
> is like come from the movies, and are terribly inaccurate. Do you
> think anyone would object if I added a picture of the knife passing
> through his neck up at the top? Somehow I think so.
>
> Can anyone name me even *one* article where a gruesomely gory
> photograph is prominently displayed, in fact? There have been edit
> wars even on more moderately disgusting articles, like [[Human
> feces]], with no clear "Wikipedia is not censored!" resolution. Why?
> Because people don't like looking at images that are disgusting. Real
> surprise, huh? But Wikipedia isn't censored, right?
>
> Sexual images are not kept because Wikipedia is not censored. They're
> kept because the Wikipedia community thinks that people *shouldn't*
> find them disgusting. This does not serve our readers well and is
> definitely not neutral. We absolutely should accommodate readers who
> would be viscerally disgusted by images on the site. There are people
> out there, probably a billion of them or more, whose reaction to an
> image of autofellatio would be comparable to their reaction to an
> image of a beheading or Goatse. Saying "screw you" to all these
> people rather than attempting to improve the utility of Wikipedia for
> them is obnoxious, antisocial, and contrary to our mission.
>
> Anyone who claims that it's too hard to draw a line of what should be
> censored and what shouldn't is demonstrably wrong, because Wikipedia
> has done it for more than eight years, and no one seems to have even
> *noticed* that the line *exists*. Trying to claim we can't censor
> sexual images because it's a slippery slope is not only bad logic, but
> grossly hypocritical.
>
> There is *no* loss in educational value if explicit sexual images are
> not displayed inline. None. Prominent links can be provided for
> readers who are interested. On the other hand, there is a significant
> loss if parents want to stop their children from reading Wikipedia
> because it contains offensive imagery. The way our mission points is
> therefore clear. Are we going to try to be the best educational
> resource we can be, or impose a sexually liberal ideology on all our
> readers whether they like it or not?

Sorry for quoting in full, but I have to. This is the best overview of
the situation I have ever read.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Fred Bauder wrote:
>> I can't believe Fred is litigating this again. He's been around long
>> enough
>> to know that censorship is a dead issue.
>>
>
> It is never too late to quit doing a dumb thing.

Thanks for two straight lines in a good posting. That is the first one.

> I might find gifting
> someone with a nice pearl necklace a fine thing to do, but unlike
> comprehensive information about sexuality, it doesn't belong in a general
> purpose encyclopedia intended and promoted for the use of a young world
> wide audience.
>
> As to censorship, we censor and delete dictionary definitions and recipes
> for God's sake; that is how Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not works.
>
Here is the other great straight line. Let's hope they aren't
parallel. We have indeed claimed to be in the business of
deleting recipes. That was a stupendously dumb thing.
We should just quit. The long and very silly argument
over why recipes on wikipedia are bad came down to
"Nobody can tell me how to make the best cookies."
As I have said repeatedly; saying that a recipe can
never be a NPOV entity, even when it is very
general, and not going to such idiotic
minutiae as describing how to make
a "Very very dry martini." except
in very very specific cultural
circumstances, is silly.
Point blank silly.


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Here is the other great straight line. Let's hope they aren't
> parallel. We have indeed claimed to be in the business of
> deleting recipes. That was a stupendously dumb thing.

Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia have
ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.

I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
> have
> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>
> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.

They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location
(Wiktionary and Commons).

Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only
reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they
were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...

Mike

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>
>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long time. The
>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
>> have
>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
>> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
>> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
>> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>>
>> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.
>
> They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location
> (Wiktionary and Commons).

Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.

Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
should be presented by the images.

> Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only
> reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they
> were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...

People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they have too
little information, even while they are about a valid topic. Sometimes,
stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic.
Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar
topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually lost. All
of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would have stubs.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:

> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps this is off-topic, but I wanted to say it for a long
>>> time. The
>>> more time passes, the more I wonder if people who work on Wikipedia
>>> have
>>> ever seen an encyclopedia. On Wikipedia, dictionary definitions and
>>> image galleries are forbidden, and stubs are frowned upon. Yet every
>>> encyclopedia I have ever seen has dictionary definitions, and image
>>> galleries, and stubs-a-plenty.
>>>
>>> I guess that conclusion is that we are doing something wrong.
>>
>> They're not forbidden: they're just in a different location
>> (Wiktionary and Commons).
>
> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>
> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
> should be presented by the images.

In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to
having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to
be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very
surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image
gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing
off the authors' photography skills. ;-)

(BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,
e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will
decide to remove them after this email...)

>> Could you clarify what you mean by "stubs are frowned upon"? The only
>> reason I can think of for that is that it would be better if they
>> were developed into better articles rather than left as stubs...
>
> People dislike stubs. Sometimes, stubs get deleted because they
> have too
> little information, even while they are about a valid topic.
> Sometimes,
> stubs get merged into larger articles with suspicious choice of topic.
> Sometimes, stubs get converted into redirects to articles on similar
> topics, where information contained in the stubs is eventually
> lost. All
> of this is done in cases where a traditional encyclopedia would
> have stubs.

All I can say to that is that it's a great pity if that happens...

Mike


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Brion Vibber wrote:

>>
>> The challenge here isn't technical, but political/cultural; choosing how
>> to mark things and what to mark for a default view is quite simply
>> _difficult_ as there's such a huge variance in what people may find
>> objectionable.
>>
>>
>>
...
>> Generally sexual imagery is the prime target since it's the biggest
>> hot-button "save the children" issue for most people -- many parents
>> wouldn't be happy to have their kid read "list of sexual positions" but
>> would rather they read the text than see the pictures, even if they're
>> drawings.
>>
>>
>> Ultimately it may be most effective to implement something like this
>> (basically an expansion of the "bad image list" implemented long ago for
>> requiring a click-through on certain images which were being frequently
>> misused in vandalism) in combination with a push to create distinct
>> resources which really *are* targeted at kids -- an area in which
>> multiple versions targeted to different cultural groups are more likely
>> to be accepted than the "one true neutral article" model of Wikipedia.
>>
>>

Do you have no shame?

Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?

We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?

A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
was because he couldn't speak the queens english
properly. Really!


Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen


_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Michael Peel wrote:
> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>
>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
>> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
>> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
>> should be presented by the images.
>
> In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to
> having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to
> be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very

And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied.

> surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image
> gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing
> off the authors' photography skills. ;-)
>
> (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,
> e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will
> decide to remove them after this email...)

I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.yu> wrote:
> Michael Peel wrote:
>> On 15 May 2009, at 08:36, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
>>> Wiktionary has dictionary definitions, but they can't be expanded to
>>> cover what encyclopedic aspects of the topic could be covered.
>>>
>>> Commons has image galleries, but it does not have encyclopedic image
>>> galleries. Commons galleries feature images based on their aesthetic
>>> value, but do not offer encyclopedic information about the topic that
>>> should be presented by the images.
>>
>> In cases where there is encyclopaedic benefit and/or aspects to
>> having definitions and/or image galleries, then I'd expect WP:IAR to
>> be applied. In the vast number of cases, though, I'd be very
>
> And aterwards, I'd expect WP:AFD to be applied.
>
>> surprised if this was the case - e.g. nearly every single image
>> gallery I've seen on Wikipedia has been for the benefit of showing
>> off the authors' photography skills. ;-)
>>
>> (BTW, I've seen image galleries used at least semi-encyclopaedically,
>> e.g. at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>> Solar_eclipse_of_August_1,_2008 , although perhaps someone will
>> decide to remove them after this email...)
>
> I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
> that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
> http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
> will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.

I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one
at the bottom of this page:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae

I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work
specialising in galleries.

--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Hi David, All,

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Gerard <dgerard@gmail.com> wrote:
> The obvious thing to do would be for a third party to offer a
> filtering service. So far there are no examples, suggesting there is
> negligible demand for such filtering in practice - many individuals
> have said they want filtering, but not so much they want to do the
> work themselves.

This is just a sub-item of a pet peeve of mine. Why aren't there
successfull mirrors for
reading Wikipedia? There is obviously room for enhancement in the
Wikipedia reading
experience, and a customizable parental control would be only one of
possibilities. If
done well enough, users would tolerate mild advertising in exchange
and so it seems
to be a valid business model.

WMF should even be thankful for lessening the load to their servers.


Regards,
Peter

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

John Vandenberg wrote:
>> I have once made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_gallery_of_toucans
>> that was deleted. Let's say it was similar to
>> http://www.emeraldforestbirds.com/EmeraldGallery.htm and I believe you
>> will find such a gallery is encyclopedic.
>
> I have checked, and the deleted visual gallery is identical to the one
> at the bottom of this page:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ramphastidae

I'm glad someone saved it :) However in some cases, number of images in
such a gallery may be too big to merge it with a page on a similar topic.

> I think we benefit from using Commons as an auxiliary reference work
> specialising in galleries.

Commons is not an encyclopedia. Galleries of this type do not exist on
Commons, and do not really belong there.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Your really didn't address my question. Why do you think WMF resources are best used to create and support a mirror for people who are disgusted by sexuality rather than making easier for third-parties to create mirrors for *any* of different of audiences in the world that find various different things unacceptable?

Birgitte SB

--- On Thu, 5/14/09, Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aryeh Gregor <Simetrical+wikilist@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery
> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 2009, 4:59 PM
> Anyone who thinks Wikipedia isn't
> censored because it allows pictures
> of penises is fooling himself.  Wikipedia is
> absolutely censored from
> images its editors find disgusting. 
>
> <snip sexuality rant>
>
> On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Birgitte SB <birgitte_sb@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > I think our efforts would be better focused making all
> of our content better suited for re-usability by different
> tastes and then letting third-party work out exactly which
> tastes need to be targeted.  Rather than creating a mirror
> ourselves for "No Nudity" and leaving the whatever existing
> stumbling blocks are in place for general re-purposing of
> the content.
>
> It would definitely be a good start to create a hierarchy
> of
> categories for the use of private parties who would like to
> censor
> their own Internet access, or that of those they have
> responsibility
> for.  The way to go would be neutral designations
> like
> "Category:Pictures containing genitals", "Category:Pictures
> containing
> breasts", "Category:Depictions of Muhammad", and so
> on.  This strictly
> adds value to the project.
>
> Then we would pick a set of categories to be blocked by
> default.
> Blocked images wouldn't be hidden entirely, just replaced
> with a link
> explaining why they were blocked.  Clicking the link
> would cause them
> to display in place, and inline options would be provided
> to show all
> images in that category in the future (using preferences
> for users,
> otherwise cookies).  Users could block any categories
> of images they
> liked from their profile.
>
> To begin with, we could preserve the status quo by
> disabling only very
> gory or otherwise really disgusting images by
> default.  More
> reasonably, we could follow every other major website in
> the developed
> world, and by default disable display of any image
> containing male or
> female genitalia, or sex acts.  Users who wanted the
> images could,
> again, get them with a single click, so there is no loss
> of
> information -- which is, after all, what we exist to
> provide.
> Wikipedia does not aim to push ideologies of sexual
> liberation.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Have you any idea how california-centered that sounds?
>
> We all stood shoulder to shoulder against Uwe Kils and
> the Norwegian Vikings, and this is what we get?
>
> A more perniciously, smoother talked version of the same
> old spiel. One would be really excused at this point to
> wonder if the only reason Uwe Kils got de-adminned
> was because he couldn't speak the queens english
> properly. Really!
>
>

Hmm! Some would argue that ever since Noah Webster no American speaks
the Queen's English properly. :-)

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

El 5/14/09 4:14 PM, Mike.lifeguard escribió:
> While this may be true for Wikipedia (English Wikipedia?), it is
> certainly not true of Wikimedia project generally. For example,
> Wikibooks has a subproject Wikijunior which is an attempt to create
> high-quality children's books. Part of the defined scope here is that
> the books are appropriate for children. While I despise censorship (cf
> my recent posts, or my statements on Commons) this is commendable in my
> mind. Though I don't participate in generating content for Wikijunior on
> a regular basis, I do think it is a worthwhile project, and is an
> important alternative to be mentioned during such discussions.

Spiffy! Sounds like it needs more lovin' and attention, I forgot it was
even there. ;)

> There is
> a safe sandbox at Wikijunior (well, semi-safe, English Wikibooks still
> gets vandalism, though we now have FlaggedRevs [.which could use a config
> change; it's in bugzilla :D]

Found it in the general sea of issues and have moved it to Rob's work
queue. :)

-- brion

) where people concerned with such things
> can generate appropriately-censored content for children.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Thu, 2009-05-14 at 10:29 -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
>> Slippery-slope arguments aside, it seems unfortunate that as creators of
>> "educational resources" we don't actually have anything that's being
>> created with a children's audience in mind -- Wikipedia is primarily
>> being created *by adults for adults*.
>>
>> That's fine for us grown-ups but we're missing an important part of the
>> educational "market". Like it or not, part of creating educational
>> material for children is cultural sensitivity: you need to make
>> something that won't freak out their parents.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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