[Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated' relationship with net neutrality

[Gayle Karen Young]

Hi folks,


Hope those of you in the US have had a lovely holiday weekend.  I'm getting
caught up and it’s been interesting to read the discussion this article has
prompted -- as this thread has made clear, there’s a lot to discuss, and
people have passionate feelings about the issue. I'm learning a lot. I’ll
leave some more follow-up on the particulars of the policy issues to the
Wikipedia Zero team, but I wanted to clarify some questions people raised
at the beginning on how I happened to be quoted.


The quotes from the article were never intended to represent the official
WMF position -- they were my own musings and spontaneous thoughts, taken
from what I had thought was just a friendly conversation. Last month I was
at an event hosted by the new US television network Fusion to speak on a
panel about millennial digital activism, and after the panel I chatted
about the future of the internet with someone to whom I had just been
introduced. I shared some thoughts, mostly about the ability of the
internet to increase collaboration. I made a couple of comments related
specifically to Wikipedia, including Wikipedia Zero, but they were more
just me exploring my own nascent ideas, not acting as an official voice. I
didn't know it would be used in a story related to net neutrality, nor did
I have the impression that I was being asked for an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation. Talk about a surprise to find myself quoted in
the Post!


I think we were all surprised to see my words represented so officially,
and it’s unfortunate they were used as the basis for representing the
position of the Foundation on net neutrality. What IS true is that I -- and
we -- passionately believe in the importance of Wikipedia Zero. Access to
knowledge is a fundamental right, and Wikipedia Zero is one important tool
that helps realize that right. It also gets us one step closer to that
vision of a world where every single person on the planet has free access
to the sum of all human knowledge -- which is certainly why I am here (and
why a lot of you are too).


Warm regards,

Gayle
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Kim Bruning]

Washington post article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/

sincerely,
Kim

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

Kim Bruning  writes:

> 
> 
> Washington post article
> 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> 

The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the
foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.

My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

- Ryan Lane


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mark]

On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:

Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.


I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about 
economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 
1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored 
uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain 
favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[rupert THURNER]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane  wrote:
> Kim Bruning  writes:
>
>>
>>
>> Washington post article
>>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>>
>
> The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
> amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the
> foundation has done). Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
> concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
> mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
> There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
>
> My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
> foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
> (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
> department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

i find this article very good. and also gale gives a quite balanced
and reasonable statement. ryan, the sentence from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality is:
"... should treat all data on the Internet equally..."
if you could elaborate a little how paying for one source, and not
paying for another is "equal"?

rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Ryan Lane wrote:
>Kim Bruning  writes (roughly):
>> 
>> 
>> Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
>> 
>
>The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
>amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
>the foundation has done). [...]

I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
It has a MediaWiki extension
 and custom back-end
(Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.

To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.

>My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
>foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
>(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
>department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong. :-)  Gayle's title is "Chief
Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone
else who reports to her; cf.
. I agree
that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
another thread.)

I'll let others respond on the basic point here about whether Wikipedia
Zero is violating net neutrality. I personally agree with Gayle that it's
complicated. :-)  I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.

That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.

Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.

One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
clearly wrong.

What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
-- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
advantage they cannot get as well.

So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.

And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).

So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally
defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
inadequate.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 30 November 2014 at 17:14, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.


This is arguably not an equitable proposition in practice, because
Wikimedia is *rather heavyweight* as online charities go. If we ask
for something, it carries weight.

That said, zero-priced mobile data is something the world could do
with more of. If we can push that as a good thing,


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Jens Best]

2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:

First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
quite an coincidence? ;)

Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.

Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know,
that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl.
mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the
people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data.

Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.


best regards

Jens Best

2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> > not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
>
> That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
> neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
> by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
>
> Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
> of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
> conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
>
> One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
> to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
> slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
> giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
> clearly wrong.
>
> What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
> welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
> of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
> their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
> -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
> hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
> advantage they cannot get as well.
>
> So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
>
> And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
> view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
> stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
> no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
> us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
> another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
> where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
>
> So yeah, this is probably not "net neutrality" as it is generally
> defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
> inadequate.
>
> -- Marc
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> 
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Todd Allen]

"Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."

Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.

Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
treatment is never accepted.

Todd

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jens Best  wrote:

> 2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:
>
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)
>
> Principles of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
> good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
> commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
> consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.
>
> Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Why? Well, they all know,
> that they are selling "dump pipes" and the "dump pipe"-Business (incl.
> mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
> So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
> treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
> It's an established brand with maximum of "positive karma", run by the
> people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
> any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
> against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of
> data.
>
> Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
> with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
> country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
> of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
> shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
> think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
> shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
> web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.
>
>
> best regards
>
> Jens Best
>
> 2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
> > On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> > > I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
> > > not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
> >
> > That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of "net
> > neutrality" (and, by extension, the definition of what violates it) is
> > by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
> >
> > Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
> > of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
> > conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
> >
> > One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
> > to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
> > slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
> > giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
> > clearly wrong.
> >
> > What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
> > welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
> > of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
> > their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
> > -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
> > hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
> > advantage they cannot get as well.
> >
> > So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> > And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> > are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
> >
> > And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
> > view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
> > stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
> > no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
> > us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
> > another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
> > where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
> >
> > So yeah

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

Mark  writes:

> 
> I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about 
> economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 
> 1. have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored 
> uses; or 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain 
> favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
> with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
> administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
> pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
> favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
> which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
> 


While a fine and principled view this is, its strict nature harms those
we're most interested in reaching.

We really need to consider what we're after when talking about net
neutrality. Offering free access to services to subscribers who don't have
data plans (most likely because they can't afford them) is a much different
thing than tiered levels of access for people who are paying for data.
Assuming there's no conflict of interest from the telecoms themselves this
is not actively harmful.

Note that for your points, neither 1 nor 2 is true, since there's no
standard rate.

- Ryan


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Ryan Lane]

MZMcBride  mzmcbride.com> writes:

> 
> Ryan Lane wrote:
> >Kim Bruning  ...> writes (roughly):
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
> >> 
> >
> >The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
> >amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
> >the foundation has done). [...]
> 
> I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
> possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
> It has a MediaWiki extension
>  and custom back-end
> (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
> the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
> infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
> 
> To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
> I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
> addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
> overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
> unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. "Only excellent" seems a bit rough.
> 

It was a project created and lead by the business development folks and was
given some engineering resources to make it happen. It's been incredibly
successful and has a real and important impact. Even taking engineering
projects into consideration, this is one of Wikimedia's most impacting
projects from the point of view of the mission.

> >My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
> >foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
> >(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
> >department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
> 
> This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong.   Gayle's title is "Chief
> Talent and Culture Officer" and the Director of Human Resources is someone
> else who reports to her; cf.
> . I agree
> that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
> speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
> Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
> Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
> another thread.)
> 

http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/

Sorry, I used director instead of chief. That doesn't change the fact that
her role is to lead HR. If you look at the staff page, you'll see this is in
the case and from a practical point of view, she does HR stuff.

Having any C level respond to the press is a bad approach, especially with a
subject this touchy. This is the entire reason for having a
communications/brand department.

- Ryan


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Jens Best writes:

> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)

Jens, rather than argue with you point by point, let me outline what
my own views are.

First, I'm a long-standing supporter of the Wikipedia mission to make
the world's information available for free to everyone. Second, I'm a
longstanding supporter of network neutrality. Third, I have no
organizational interest in favoring Wikipedia, although I consider
myself a Wikipedian.

I do not believe the Wikimedia mission--providing the world's
information to everyone for free--has any necessary connection to
network neutrality, even though I favor the latter very much. In
short, I'm entirely willing to modify my secondary goal (net
neutrality) if it advances my primary goal as a Wikipedian (free
knowledge for everyone). Conversely, I'm not willing to modify my
free-knowledge goal at all if it conflicts with an absolutist model of
network neutrality.

Here's what we know about internet access in the developing world
(which Wikipedia Zero is designed to serve): it relies primarily on
mobile platforms, and mobile smartphones typically are saddled with
data caps. Data caps discourage users from using Wikipedia as
extensively as we in the developed world use it. Furthermore, they
certainly discourage contributions from the developing world for the
same reason. Sidestepping those costs for would-be Wikipedians and
Wikipedia users is something very closely aligned with the
long-standing mission of the project.

Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
But we don't have to let their propagandists define us. Instead, we
have to communicate why Wikipedia Zero is not like what commercial
interests are doing.

What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will
make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable
policy in the developing world.

Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
other zero-rated services may pose.


--Mike Godwin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 30 November 2014 at 23:30, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
> higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
> increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
> increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
> this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
> world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
> And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will
> make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable
> policy in the developing world.


Do we have numbers showing this happening? If so, that's a powerful
story we could use.


> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
> network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
> other zero-rated services may pose.


It's pretty clearly for the greater glory of free knowledge.

I wonder if we can get other free content along for the ride, get that
zero-rated too.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Tim Starling]

On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
> "Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
> 
> Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
> favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
> not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
> 
> Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
> differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
> neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
> definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
> treatment is never accepted.

But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.

The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
they are the same price?

Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.

Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
don't use a big CDN. If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
users.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[svetlana]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote:
> On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
> > "Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
> > a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
> > (which is a clear violation of net neutrality)."
> > 
> > Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
> > favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
> > not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
> > 
> > Anything that says "Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
> > differently than data from another source" is a violation of net
> > neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
> > definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
> > treatment is never accepted.
> 
> But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
> arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
> built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
> saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
> cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
> 
> The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
> social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
> cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
> What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
> they are the same price?
> 
> Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
> harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
> those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
> perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
> will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.
> 
> Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
> don't use a big CDN.

Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users" things?

> If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
> would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
> that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
> users.
> 
> -- Tim Starling
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 


--
svetlana

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Milos Rancic]

I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality.

There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.

The fact that the net neutrality concept has been written from the
perspective of the dominant ideology, which adherents are not capable to
comprehend that there is something outside of the market, proves just the
point that those responsible for the definition should educate themselves a
bit and try again.
On Nov 30, 2014 12:05 PM, "Mark"  wrote:

> On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
>
>> Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
>> concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
>> mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being
>> slowed.
>> There's no extra charge to access other sources of information.
>>
>
> I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about
> economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1.
> have a "standard" rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or
> 2. have a "standard" rate and give a discount to certain favored uses. Most
> things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa;
> it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either
> case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether
> the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this
> case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes
> to prohibit.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Tim Landscheidt]

Mike Godwin  wrote:

> [...]

> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
> network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
> other zero-rated services may pose.

I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.

This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
views, not more people consume one view.

And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

Tim


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mark]

On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:

There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.


If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt 
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting 
proposal. It's the differential pricing between different sources of 
knowledge that I find more troubling: why should a user pay more to 
access the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's 
already attempting to shape, via differential pricing, where online 
users get their information.


-Mark


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Milos Rancic]

On Dec 1, 2014 8:26 AM, "Mark"  wrote:
>
> On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
>>
>> There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
>> entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which
belong
>> to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for
example.
>
>
> If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting proposal.
It's the differential pricing between different sources of knowledge that I
find more troubling: why should a user pay more to access the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's already attempting to
shape, via differential pricing, where online users get their information.

I agree that we should coordinate with the participants of the broader free
knowledge and free software movement and include their sites while
negotiating with mobile carries.

In the meantime this is what we have. Some corporations find that it's
clever PR idea not to charge for oxygen. That's not fully useful, but it's
quite essential. The next target is nitrogen, then we should take care of
other gases to make air completely free.

Counting the tendency initiated by WMF, net neutrality should move to
exclusively commercial or market terrain. I agree with that, but it's not
about us. Free content is common good and we are fortunate that mobile
providers will be soon forced to recognize that. (First it's about clever
PR, then it becomes the norm.)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, "Kim Bruning"  wrote:
>
>
> Washington post article
>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
>
> sincerely,
> Kim
>

This is obviously not the first time this comes up, and it's probably not
going to be the last time either. I think that Wikipedia Zero is a great
and valuable project that does the right thing. I also agree it violates
net neutrality for any reasonable definition of net neutrality, and there
is a number of very good objections to the practice. It would be great if
we were confident enough of this project to come out and say yes, this
violates net neutrality and here are the reasons why we think it's a good
thing in this case. It would make a far stronger case than the well,
actually, ... rule lawyer, question evasion, goalposts moving, talking
around the issue ... and that's why it has nothing to do with net
neutrality!

Wikipedia Zero is a great project that does amazingly good stuff for many
people who need it most. That's an awesome reason to violate net
neutrality, even when it has real dangers and drawbacks. When we start to
deny the dangers and drawbacks, all discussion becomes muddled, and stains
the zero project with dishonesty.

--Martijn
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Tim Starling]

On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote:
>> Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
>> don't use a big CDN.
> 
> Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users" things?

That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements
for freshness of content and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.),
and an ops team with a desire for independence.

-- Tim Starling


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
We do have the experience  needed. We have servers in Amsterdam and, it is
something we can repeat.

When the desires of our ops team negatively affect the performance of our
users, they have to reconsider what they are thinking. Imho that is not an
acceptable argument.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 1 December 2014 at 10:38, Tim Starling  wrote:

> On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote:
> >> Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
> >> don't use a big CDN.
> >
> > Why don't we? Is it one of the "expensive for us, cheap for users"
> things?
>
> That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements
> for freshness of content and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.),
> and an ops team with a desire for independence.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

This comparison is quite useful and got rather popular: «For all the 
arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of 
thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet 
more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?».

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html

Tim Starling, 01/12/2014 05:21:

But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment.


I doubt the worldwide internet backbone is (significantly) more complex 
or expensive than the electricity grid.



What you are
saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.


Opinions on this vary. Historically, for instance, electricity grids 
have been rather fragmented and have been unified only with strong 
regulations or nationalisations. Only now regulators are seriously 
taking care of supranational grids. Certainly we don't want to go 
backwards, because it usually takes decades to progress.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Tim Landscheidt, 01/12/2014 02:05:

Wikipedia Zero favours
solely Wikipedia (und sister projects)


Sister projects? Since when? Ah, I see they are in the new template 
agreement: 
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Template_Agreement
It would be nice to know what percentage of Wikipedia Zero customers can 
actually enjoy all Wikimedia projects.


David Gerard, 01/12/2014 00:34:
> I wonder if we can get other free content along for the ride, get that
> zero-rated too.

Even sister projects took years to include.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/57260/focus=57274

Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Tim Landscheidt writes:

> I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
> why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
> solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
> or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.

I'm not following your reasoning here. I don't see any sense in which
Wikipedia Zero is contradicting other opinions or resulting in
resources that "bite the dust." Wikipedia Zero is not rivalrous in any
economic sense that I'm aware of.

> This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
> things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
> neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
> nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
> views, not more people consume one view.

So, you'd rather have users pay by the bit for Wikipedia on their
mobile devices? This does not serve Wikipedia or its users in the
developing world. The chart I use here shows you what the cost of
broadband access is in the developing world, which relies primarily on
mobile platforms.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141201000351-209165-wikipedia-zero-will-serve-net-neutrality

> And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
> needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

But you haven't said what those severe doubts are. Having spent the
last couple of years working on access projects in the developing
world, I haven't encountered an alternative model that doesn't result
in higher prices for subscribers. As the chart I reproduce indicates,
in some places in the developing world, the annual cost of broadband
access exceeds the average per capita income. I do not see how it
serves Wikipedia's mission to require individual users to pay so much
for Wikipedia access.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 11/30/2014 01:12 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
> its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate"
> the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
> quite an coincidence? ;)

At least for me, it is not: I have always been opposed to statements of
the form "All X is good/bad" because such statements are always, by
definition, overly simplistic and unrealistic.

"Net neutrality" sounds like a good idea at first glance because it
superficially resembles the ill-defined and subtle desirable objective
of "prevent the oligarchies that owns the communication media from
effectively controlling and/or affecting what can be accessed/done in
order to further their interests at the detriment of people".

"Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because -
as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything
uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content
providers".  /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as
Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> "Net neutrality" as currently defined is an alluring concept because -
> as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as "make everything
> uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content
> providers".  /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as
> Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.


This makes me wonder if "yep, we sure do violate it, and here's
precisely why" might be a good answer. Though I'd rather not hand
Comcast any more sticks. (Compare the FSF's use of copyright
assignment and the typical commercial user of copyright assignment.)

I note a vague similarity to Erik's essay on why -NC is harmful: that
the idea of enforcing "noncommerciality" is pretty much a first world
affectation and doesn't really do the job people using it want it to.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Liam Wyatt]

I'm finding this highly principled conversation fascinating to read - I'm
genuinely learning a lot about the different arguments (both philosophical
and practical) used to support or critique Wikipedia Zero. What a diverse
and highly informed group of people this list contains! :-)

From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had
'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with
appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.:

"Net neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
> service provider market has thrived and innovated without it.
> Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a consumer
> bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.
> http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245
>


While I genuinely support the idealism of the net-neutrality debate, and it
makes sense in certain jurisdictional contexts (notably the USA), I am
won-over by the arguments that have been made here about how WikipediaZero
is non-rivalrous. As Marc P. put it earlier:

> So it's clearly neutral in the "equally available" sense of the term.
> And it remains neutral in the "competition" sense of the term since they
> are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
> And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
> view.


When looking at the practical reality of a high-school in a poorer district
of South Africa specifically asking for greater access to WP from their
local telecom company[1], it's hard to remain stuck on purely-principled
debates. That is a *real world* group of of people that is *specifically*
asked for easer access to Wikipedia - *of course *we should support that.

This is *not *to discount the importance of principles - and a lot of good
ones have been mentioned here - but I'm not going to argue against a
school-group in a poorer country wanting "free-access to the sum of human
knowledge" on their mobile phones because of a political fight in richer
countries about heavy-data usage on high-speed broadband.

-Liam

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j-ktiYTTds
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Nathan]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Liam Wyatt  wrote:

>
>
> From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had
> 'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with
> appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.:
>
> "Net neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
> > service provider market has thrived and innovated without it.
> > Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a
> consumer
> > bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.
> >
> http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245
> >
>
>
Thanks for the interesting link. While the article acknowledges that the
lack of net neutrality has favored certain Australian content providers at
the expense of others, it sounds like the most pernicious effects are
mitigated by the fact that at least part of the ISP infrastructure is
treated as a public utility that must permit competitors.

One more example of how an absolutist and global approach to net neutrality
fails to account for local nuance.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Yana Welinder]

Hi all,

As Gayle mentioned in her email, the article in the Washington Post did not
represent an official position on net neutrality from the Wikimedia
Foundation, or how we understand Wikipedia Zero. I wanted to provide some
background that does.

Wikipedia Zero is designed to empower people who cannot afford to access
information to get basic access to knowledge and participate in the
creation of knowledge. It’s widely understood that barriers like poverty
and limited internet connectivity are two major blockers preventing people
around the world from full access to knowledge, and there are a number of
groups working to address these issues as part of the broader Access to
Knowledge (A2K) movement.

Wikipedia Zero is a powerful tool for accessing knowledge, but it is not
the solution to the whole problem. It’s one tool in a toolbox. Real change
needs to address issues such as cost barriers, literacy, and access to
infrastructure. That’s why we’re also developing a more coordinated effort
within a broader A2K coalition to collectively address the systemic
challenges.

While Wikipedia Zero serves broader A2K objectives, we are mindful that
zero-rating can be a challenging issue for net neutrality advocacy. In
response, we’ve developed ten operating principles

to make sure that the initiative remains a free knowledge base with
operations that are transparent to users.[1] They are intended to deter
Wikipedia Zero from being used to introduce other zero-rating initiatives
that don't follow the operating principles. We developed these principles
after extensive consultation with net neutrality advocates about their
concerns regarding commercial zero-rating arrangements, and believe they
are strong and useful guidance for advocates to distinguish free access to
Wikipedia from other zero-rating programs.

We’ll continue working with policymakers on net neutrality and welcome your
constructive suggestions in this regard. We believe the vision of Wikimedia
— the sum of all knowledge, available to all — and the values of an open
internet are entirely consistent and in the global public interest. We’re
also learning from your comments and welcome more input on how the
Wikimedia community can support the A2K movement.

Best,
Yana

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles

-- 
Yana Welinder
Senior Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets 

NOTICE:  As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. In other
words, IANYL . For more on what this
means, please see our legal disclaimer
.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Josh Lim]

A developing country perspective is missing in this conversation, so I’m going 
to fill in the gap since I find it odd that we’re talking about "developing” 
countries, when everyone who’s been participating in this discussion so far has 
been from developed countries.

> Wiadomość napisana przez Tim Landscheidt  w dniu 1 
> gru 2014, o godz. 09:05:
> 
> Mike Godwin  wrote:
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
>> organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
>> logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
>> And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
>> network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
>> other zero-rated services may pose.
> 
> I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
> why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
> solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
> or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
> 
> This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
> things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
> neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
> nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
> views, not more people consume one view.

As far as I know, Wikipedia tries to synthesize several points of view so that 
we have a neutral approach to a particular topic, not favoring one view over 
the other.  In addition, the fact that you can edit through Wikipedia Zero 
allows for alternative voices to be heard.  I find it hard to believe that 
Wikipedia Zero stifles NPOV, if you’re hinting at people being "forced” to 
consume only one point of view, when even Wikipedia doesn’t aspire to do that.

> And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
> needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

I don’t know about where you’re in, but I can tell you that in the developing 
world, Wikipedia’s been very helpful in helping us spread the word about the 
projects.

In the Philippines, Wikipedia readership jumped when Wikipedia Zero was rolled 
out.  That’s more readers, and hopefully more editors.  We have a good 
relationship with the Philippines’ largest telecommunications company as a 
result, and they’ve been very supportive of our efforts to bring knowledge to 
more Filipinos.  And you say that that doesn’t contribute to "sustainable 
development”?

I think it’s profoundly important in this discussion that we need to avoid 
generalizing the world as if everyone’s in Europe or the United States.  Yes, 
net neutrality is important.  Yes, I support net neutrality and believe that 
ISPs shouldn’t discriminate against content providers.  But if it means 
bringing more information to more people, I’m willing to sacrifice that for a 
while because I think that Filipinos being given access to free information is 
more valuable — and more important — than what I believe in vis-à-vis net 
neutrality.  I hope everyone else here who doesn’t support Wikipedia Zero 
because of that will actually see the good that it has done for the developing 
world, and that the rest of us find great use for this program.

Regards,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com  | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[rupert THURNER]

Hi mike,

That pipes are dumb is fundamental for having cheap Internet access. Most
contracts for Wikipedia zero are done with telcos which either want to
catch up in getting more reach in the population, or those which have a
higher price for data. Not allowing them to use wikipedia to influence
competition and justify higher prices is helping to bridge the digital
divide. I do not find it fair that people in financially less favored
countries have to pay more per gigabyte traffic in USD than people in rich
countries. This gets even worse if one compares percentage of income spent
for a gigabyte.

The only well balanced answer out of Wmf I saw up to now clearly showing
the conflict this offering is in is the excellent WOP statement from gale.

it is easy to design a solution which is compliant to net neutrality: if a
person is reading wikipedia 200 MB traffic are free, any content. I d
consider it a fundamental failure of the wmf legal department, especially
yana, that they are not capable or willing to negotiate such contracts.

Rupert
On Dec 1, 2014 4:14 PM, "Mike Godwin"  wrote:

> Tim Landscheidt writes:
>
> > I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
> > why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
> > solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
> > or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
>
> I'm not following your reasoning here. I don't see any sense in which
> Wikipedia Zero is contradicting other opinions or resulting in
> resources that "bite the dust." Wikipedia Zero is not rivalrous in any
> economic sense that I'm aware of.
>
> > This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
> > things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
> > neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
> > nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
> > views, not more people consume one view.
>
> So, you'd rather have users pay by the bit for Wikipedia on their
> mobile devices? This does not serve Wikipedia or its users in the
> developing world. The chart I use here shows you what the cost of
> broadband access is in the developing world, which relies primarily on
> mobile platforms.
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141201000351-209165-wikipedia-zero-will-serve-net-neutrality
>
> > And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
> > needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
>
> But you haven't said what those severe doubts are. Having spent the
> last couple of years working on access projects in the developing
> world, I haven't encountered an alternative model that doesn't result
> in higher prices for subscribers. As the chart I reproduce indicates,
> in some places in the developing world, the annual cost of broadband
> access exceeds the average per capita income. I do not see how it
> serves Wikipedia's mission to require individual users to pay so much
> for Wikipedia access.
>
>
> --Mike
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Mike Godwin wrote:
>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.

I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.

I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
bedfellows, to be sure.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.

I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.

I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.


--Mike



On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
>
> I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
> Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
> page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
> telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
>
> I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
> thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
> wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
> available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
> by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
> in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
>
>>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>>world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
>
> Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
> they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
> Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
> interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
> bedfellows, to be sure.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[MZMcBride]

Mike Godwin wrote:
>If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
>him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
>Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
>Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
>
>I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
>how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
>does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
>announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
>
>I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
>haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.

I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.

Like you, I'm a Wikimedian, so my focus is naturally on the intersection
between issues and Wikimedia. I wish PBS and NPR and other fine
organizations did not have those awful sponsored interruptions. Other
sites and forums have other needs and other priorities, but perhaps we can
stick to focusing on Wikipedia Zero in this thread? :-)

I found Phoebe's summary of the fundraising banners thread supremely
useful. I'm hoping that someone can create a similar summary for Meta-Wiki
about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality (there are blog posts on
blog.wikimedia.org to maybe pull from too).

My personal view at the moment still somewhat strongly leans toward "it's
complicated," which I think, as David suggested, we may simply want
to embrace as a perfectly cromulent answer. But I do take issue, perhaps
not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
of Wikimedia's values.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

MZMcBride  wrote:

> I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
> And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
> hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.

If you have an alternative funding plan for NPR, you should publish it.

>But I do take issue, perhaps
> not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
> as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
> think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
> of Wikimedia's values.

I take issue with being accused of "language subversion and
manipulation." I invite you here not to accuse me of it any further.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as
the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used
by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding
net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet
descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be
paid by someone before the content is put onto the network.  NPR/radio
might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants
spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content
can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over
physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering
advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying
extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.

It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was
a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free
access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and
Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it
was added to the contracts with these organisations.

Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around
our current position.  Two that concern me are..

Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top
of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia
content to be sent freely across their network to the reader?  In
Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother)
enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their
content.  I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement
appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens.  If
a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but
inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia
Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content
freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?

Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and
Distributed Proofreaders, to be less freely accessible than Wikipedia,
because telcos only consider 'Wikipedia' as a viable loss leader, and
these other free content projects dont have the human resources needed
to establish contracts with telcos?  Wikipedia has been built on the
back of these other free content projects, with millions of volunteers
who scanned/photographed/transcribed free content which has been
imported into Wikipedia and sister projects.  *If* we help erode net
neutrality, and telcos turn the Internet into a TV model, it may not
prevent Wikipedia being distributed as the telcos might be happy to
use Wikipedia as a loss leader, but it will strangle the vibrant free
content marketplace of which we have been a thought leader, and helped
Wikipedia become what it is today.  Wikimedia is not an island.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
> If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
> him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
> Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
> Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
>
> I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand
> how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
> does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
> announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
>
> I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
> haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
>
>
> --Mike
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride  wrote:
>> Mike Godwin wrote:
>>>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>>>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>>>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
>>
>> I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
>> Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
>> page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
>> telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
>>
>> I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
>> thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
>> wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
>> available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
>> by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
>> in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
>>
>>>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>>>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>>>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>>>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>>>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>>>world. That is an una

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:
> Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...

Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an
argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards
of analysis.* It is, instead, specifically addressed to the specific
complaint about interpreting banners as advertising. (Drilling down
even further: I don't see the banners on Wikipedia at all. So
necessarily the banners cannot be annoying to me.)

Since much of what you write is based on the misunderstanding that I
was using PBS as a pro-Wikipedia-Zero argument, I'm passing over the
misunderstanding without comment.

The larger issue: do we care more about Wikipedia's mission or more
about preserving some absolutist application of net neutrality? I
think Wikipedia's mission is more important, and you may disagree,
which is fine.

As I said in the piece, I care about both. But I also know that an
absolutely rigorous application of net neutrality--you know, the kind
of invariant principle that hobbyists who never to try to fund
anything themselves are prone to cook up--would require that emergency
phone calls (think 911 in the USA or 999 in the UK, for example) be
charged to the user.

Do you think emergency communications should be charged to the user by
the bit, John? If not, how do you justify that departure from
absolutist net-neutrality principles? And if you're not an absolutist
about net neutrality, then why can't you allow for the possibility
that access to Wikipedia may do more to help citizens of the
developing world than absolutist net neutrality will help them?

If you are comfortable condemning the developing world to charging
Wikipedia users for information by the bit for the indefinite future,
then by all means insist on network neutrality without exceptions.
(And certainly make sure that you enable all users to turn off
expensive emergency communications!)

But I seem to recall something about Wikipedia's providing the world's
information to everyone for free. The developing world needs to be
able to do this via mobile providers, whose business model is to
charge by the bit (or by the data plan).  I don't recall elevating net
neutrality as a principle above Wikipedia's mission.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Jens Best]

Hi Mike,

sorry for the delay of my answer and thanks to all for the discussion
which is trying to look forward instead of just talking about the
mistakes and hopes surrounding Wikipedia Zero in the past. I would
like to follow your example, Mike, and not going point by point
through your arguments but trying to break new ground for future
solutions of the actual problem.

John Vandenberg gave us a nice picture by saying that Wikimedia isn’t
an island in the world of free content projects. It's more one of the
mountains in the landscape of Free Knowledge and public content
online. I think going in this direction can create a solution which
re-unites the varying positions.

Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
Free Knowledge.

Therefore the WP0-initiative proved that the future of the web should
include zero-rating when the word „access“ is taken in a classical
understanding of free publicness. Public like streets and libraries.
Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for
a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia
zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like
e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.

A Telecom provider which would then argue that a video library with
lots of free educational videos isn't the same thing as Wikipedia
clearly isn't sharing the views of the movement and obviously was led
by different interests than us. A Telecom which isn't ready to take
its responsibility for a society serious maybe wasn't a good partner
in the beginning. Such access providers shouldn’t be partners of us in
the future when Wikipedia is leading a global initiative to give as
many as possible Public Free Knowledge (text, foto, video, graphics,
data, visualizations) to the people. This would be a leap forward,
especially for the Global South.

An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our
brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in
giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering
with us. Also only selecting a few non-data-extensive education stuff
to zero-rate apart from Wikipedia isn't really a clear statement but
more of a fig leaf.

It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change
the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge
approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which
doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is
interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free
knowledge.

I have some thoughts about how the range of Public Free Knowledge
could be defined nationally and globally, but I would like to hear
your thoughts on my layout so far first.

best regards

Jens Best

2014-12-09 4:56 GMT+01:00, John Mark Vandenberg :
> Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as
> the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used
> by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding
> net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet
> descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be
> paid by someone before the content is put onto the network.  NPR/radio
> might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants
> spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content
> can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over
> physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering
> advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying
> extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.
>
> It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was
> a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free
> access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and
> Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it
> was added to the contracts with these organisations.
>
> Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around
> our current position.  Two that concern me are..
>
> Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top
> of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia
> content to be sent freely across their network to the reader?  In
> Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother)
> enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their
> content.  I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement
> appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens.  If
> a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but
> inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia
> Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content
> freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?
>
> Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and
> Di

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Jens writes:


On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for
> a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia
> zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like
> e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.

I agree. But I think it is not part of the mission of Wikipedia to try
to compel telecom companies to do this with regard to resources we
don't produce. Not even Creative Commons tries to do that, so far as I
know.

> An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our
> brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in
> giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering
> with us.

Why do we need to inspect their motives if the result is that more
people have more access to the free knowledge and other resources we
provide? Especially if the alternative--refusing to partner with
them--will likely result in citizens in the developing world having
less access than you and I do, perhaps for the rest of this century?

> It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change
> the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge
> approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which
> doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is
> interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free
> knowledge.

I think the focus of people at WMF should be on getting as much free
knowledge distributed, at as low a cost as possible, to everyone in
the developing world and elsewhere. I know that this is considered a
hopelessly primitive notion, but I'm stuck with thinking that
near-term access to free knowledge for a developing-world citizen in
her 20s is more important than refusal to engage in compromise without
which she may not get such unfettered access until she's in her 70s.
If ever.

WMF is not fundamentally a policy organization, although it does
engage in policy from time to time as required by external events.
Network neutrality has its own advocates independent of WMF. Let's let
them do their job, and let's try to do ours. And, as I pointed out,
Wikipedia Zero may actually result in the kind of demand that requires
mobile providers to build out their capacity enough to free users from
restrictive data plans.

This of course is a prerequisite for net neutrality to work in a
developing country.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Erik Moeller]

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
> Free Knowledge.

Hey Jens,

I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
advocating for free access to Wikipedia.

I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
but it should count for something.

Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
consistent with our mission, as well.

I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
off.

Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a
contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free
knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in
the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly
important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.

There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero.
It effectively saves lives.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller  wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
> > Free Knowledge.
>
> Hey Jens,
>
> I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
> thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
> coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
> started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
> who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
> thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
> knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
> advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
>
> I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
> Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
> role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
> available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
> absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
> but it should count for something.
>
> Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
> of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
> to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
> a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
> society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
> domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
> further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
> heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
> consistent with our mission, as well.
>
> I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
> free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
> apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
> organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
> building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
> serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
> off.
>
> Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a
> contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free
> knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
> equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
> better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
>
> Erik
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Jens Best]

Hi Eric,

your last line expresses a direction which would enhance the spirit of the
movement in an appropiate way. Let me repeat it: "Imagine a world where you
can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect
to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge."

THIS is a great punchline, a good next big target which could put Wikimedia
in the middle of a stronger and broader global movement. Free Public
Knowledge is also great when you think of the goals of Wikidata -
structured data connected to empower knowledge enabler and facilitators of
Free Education around the world with good data and informations. Free
Public Knowledge is putting the beacon named Wikipedia in front of a great
campaign which would reach out far beyond being the greatest encyclopedia
ever.

It is clear by now that imho it would also help to make something better
out of the flaw which Wikipedia Zero is right now when it comes to net
neutrality. (I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery,
Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly "absolutist". This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't
fit you.) It would be good for WMF to admit that with the best intentions a
mistake was made which scale wasn't really thought through before.

Wikipedia Zero is still primarily a marketing stunt for mobile providers
(e.g. Orange) which build up on the great trust in the name "Wikipedia".
Data is data, no user is thinking in terms like "good cause data" and "pure
commercial data" - and this kind of familiarization with data on different
rates (incl. zero rate) is what the mobile providers count on. I consider
activists for other aspects of a free and open web partners in crime and
not some other unrelated guys whose cause I'm willing to trade cheap when
it fits the selfish interests of my brand.

But, as mentioned, there is no sense in looking the stable door after the
horse has bolted - so let's think forward by reflecting activity-oriented
on putting Wikimedia in the middle of a broader movement for all Free
Public Knowledge and reduce ill-concieved partnerships with commercial
players on the way.

best regards

Jens Best

PS: Eric, gimme a moment (aka another later mail) to write about draft of
the definition of Free Public Knowledge (especially from the point of view
of our movement).

@GerardM
I don't wanna narrow your joy about WP0, but the thing with saving
lifes/protecting against ebola is that in neither[1] of the countries (Liberia,
Sierra Leone and Guinea) mentioned by James Heilman Wikipedia Zero is
active. So there is no proof that it wins laurels for that.

[1] according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships

2014-12-09 8:25 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in
> the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly
> important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.
>
> There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero.
> It effectively saves lives.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
> > > Free Knowledge.
> >
> > Hey Jens,
> >
> > I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
> > thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
> > coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
> > started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
> > who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
> > thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
> > knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
> > advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
> >
> > I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
> > Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
> > role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
> > available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
> > absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
> > but it should count for something.
> >
> > Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
> > of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
> > to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
> > a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
> > society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
> > domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
> > further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
> > heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
> > consistent with our mission, as well.
> >
> > I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

Jens writes:

> (I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery,
> Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net
> neutrality repeatedly "absolutist". This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't
> fit you.)

I suppose at this point I could declare that its "rhetorical
trickery," Jens, for you to declare my honest expression of my opinion
regarding network neutrality to be "rhetorical trickery." (It's
actually a reflection of discussions I had with my colleagues at the
Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul earlier this year.)

I frankly don't see why you need to understand my beliefs regarding
network neutrality as "cheap rhetorical maneuver" when in fact there
has always been variation among net-neutrality activists as to what
"network neutrality" might mean. I've been writing about the subject
for eight years now, and my writing on the issue is publicly
available. In general, a "cheap" maneuver is one that takes little
investment, and I've clearly invested more than most people. As for
"trickery," it hardly seems to me to be a trick when I'm not
concealing anything.

I want to suggest that if your first impulse is to criticize my
motives rather than to Assume Good Faith, you may want to consider
that I get nothing personally out of (a) advocating Wikipedia Zero, an
initiative that post-dates my tenure as WMF staff, or (b) talking
about network neutrality in a way that recognizes the particular
issues that mobile platform providers invoke.

As I pointed have pointed out, we *already* qualify network neutrality
with exceptions. These exceptions have not been ones you've noticed
before now, as far as i know. Should Wikipedia Zero be an exception? I
think so, for the reasons I've stated, as well as for the general
proposition that people in developing nations need unfettered access
to Wikipedia content now, and should not have to wait until the
Promised Land of generally unmetered access to mobile platforms is
created (which may not occur in our lifetimes).

>It would be good for WMF to admit that with the best intentions a
> mistake was made which scale wasn't really thought through before.

It would be better if one didn't begin with the assumption that no one
at WMF thought hard about these issues before Wikipedia Zero was
launched. And still better, in terms of effective persuasion, if you
didn't begin by assuming bad faith (e.g., "rhetorical trickery" on the
part of those who disagree with you. After all, I don't assume bad
faith on your part.
.


--Mike

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Mike Godwin]

+1
I agree entirely with every word of Erik's response here.


--Mike


> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:28:37 -0800
> From: Erik Moeller 
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship
> with net neutrality
> Message-ID:
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best  wrote:
>
>> Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
>> Free Knowledge.
>
> Hey Jens,
>
> I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
> thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader
> coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
> started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
> who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
> thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
> knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
> advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
>
> I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
> Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
> role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
> available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
> absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
> but it should count for something.
>
> Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
> of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
> to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
> a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
> society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
> domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
> further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
> heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
> consistent with our mission, as well.
>
> I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
> free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
> apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
> organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
> building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
> serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
> off.
>
> Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a
> contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free
> knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
> equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
> better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
>
> Erik
>
> --
> Erik Möller
> VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 14-12-09 08:45 AM, Jens Best wrote:

when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly "absolutist".


Except that it is.  At its heart, "net neutrality" demands that there be 
no QoS or pricing difference to 'net access depending on the endpoint. 
That is, fundamentally, an absolutist view.


As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many 
first-worlders because we equate that as "everything is equally 
inexpensive" to level the playing field.


Except that for the vast majority of the world's population, it means 
"everything is equally expensive and unafordable".


If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the 
desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the 
world then it *is* an absolutist stance.


-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[David Gerard]

On 9 December 2014 at 20:35, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:

> As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many first-worlders
> because we equate that as "everything is equally inexpensive" to level the
> playing field.
> Except that for the vast majority of the world's population, it means
> "everything is equally expensive and unafordable".


You may well have nailed the two-liner of why Wikipedia Zero is a good idea.


> If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the
> desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the world
> then it *is* an absolutist stance.


Rather, not *our* absolutism.


- d.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Kim Bruning]

Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also
articles praising us? :-)


https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868

I do think that wikipedia zero is useful in the short term. I'm
a bit worried about the long term though. 

Question: How do you predict wikipedia zero's effect on the internet in
the long term? There are clearly going to be both positive and
negative effects. Denying either is silly. What can we do to
strengthen the positive effects, and how do we mitigate the
negative?

At what thresholds would wikipedia zero be stopped in some
country and at what thresholds promoted? Are there
documents/analysis online?

sincerely,
Kim

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:07:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
> 
> Washington post article
>   
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> 
> sincerely,
>   Kim
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 

-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Kim Bruning wrote:
>Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also
>articles praising us? :-)
>
>
>   https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868

Quoting, 

  Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Wikipedia become “the Internet” for
  the users of mobile data supported by “zero rating” plans, because
  accessing these services doesn’t cause users to hit the data caps
  applied by the carriers, and in many cases the plans don’t require
  the user to sign up for mobile data at all.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles

  Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold as part of a bundle. Access to the
  Wikimedia sites through Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold through limited
  service bundles.

It seems pretty clear to me that users of Wikipedia Zero must pay a
non-trivial amount for "mobile data" above and beyond normal telephony
services, even if they only access "zero-rated services", otherwise it
is a limited service bundle which we are lead to believe is forbidden.

(It is also possible the intent of the requirement above is that it is
entirely okay to "sell Wikipedia Zero" through limited service bundles
so long as an operator does not offer even more limited services; in
that case the phrasing is grossly misleading.)

I assume the Foundation closely monitors offerings of operators it has
made an agreement with to ensure access to Wikipedia Zero is never sold
as part of a limited service bundle. Could the relevant records please
be released?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,