Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Milos Rancic]

Thanks! I see it's from November. Somebody could point earlier to this and
spare us u couple of emails of this month quota :P
On Jan 2, 2016 09:20, "Bodhisattwa Mandal" 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding
> internet.org.
>
>
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_Internet.org
>
> Regards,
> Bodhisattwa
> On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning"  wrote:
>
> > Hi Milos,
> > Happy new year to you!
> >
> > I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful.
> > I've replied inline below.
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > > I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> > > businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
> > > something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> > > infrastructure.
> >
> > Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand
> > it though.
> >
> > Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and
> > receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or
> > destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access
> > without let or hindrance).
> >
> > Previously this is how the market worked.
> >
> > Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the
> > market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled
> > garden model. (if not already there)
> >
> > It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content
> > operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this
> > coming decade.
> >
> > > Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> > > underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> > > richer and they won't need this kind of service.
> >
> > We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at
> > any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we
> > would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have
> > pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
> >
> > > * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> > > one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> > > support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> > > are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> > > into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> > > and the rest of our global super-movement.
> >
> > *Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia
> > zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't
> > hurt the people we depend on in turn.
> >
> > People such as the open source community and internet standards
> > organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules.
> > We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what
> > representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > Kim Bruning
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi,

I just got the link of the official statement of WMF regarding internet.org.

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero/Development#Regarding_Internet.org

Regards,
Bodhisattwa
On 2 Jan 2016 05:01, "Kim Bruning"  wrote:

> Hi Milos,
> Happy new year to you!
>
> I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful.
> I've replied inline below.
>
> On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> > businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
> > something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> > infrastructure.
>
> Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand
> it though.
>
> Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and
> receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or
> destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access
> without let or hindrance).
>
> Previously this is how the market worked.
>
> Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the
> market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled
> garden model. (if not already there)
>
> It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content
> operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this
> coming decade.
>
> > Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> > underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> > richer and they won't need this kind of service.
>
> We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at
> any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we
> would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have
> pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)
>
> > * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> > one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> > support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> > are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> > into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> > and the rest of our global super-movement.
>
> *Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia
> zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't
> hurt the people we depend on in turn.
>
> People such as the open source community and internet standards
> organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules.
> We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what
> representatives of these groups may be saying to us.
>
> sincerely,
> Kim Bruning
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Kim Bruning]

Hi Milos, 
Happy new year to you! 

I thought your mail to the list was very thoughtful.
I've replied inline below. 

On Fri, Jan 01, 2016 at 06:50:16AM +0100, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
> something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> infrastructure. 

Hmm, this example has little to do with net neutrality as I understand
it though. 

Net neutrality means that you pay your ISP to allow you to send and
receive packets to/from anyone without discrimination to source or
destination. (In other words you're paying for actual internet access
without let or hindrance).

Previously this is how the market worked.

Without going into details here, many sources tell us that the
market is now threatening to shift towards a winner-takes-all walled
garden model. (if not already there)

It's going to be a challenge to keep open source and open content
operating and relevant in such an increasingly hostile environment this
coming decade.

> Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> richer and they won't need this kind of service.

We can ask them whether they want to continue having such a service at
any time. Or we can set some participation threshold above which we
would accept a petition to stop. (It is always wise to have
pre-prepared go/no-go safety checks at particular points in time)

> * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> and the rest of our global super-movement.

*Nod* We have to beware of fouling our own nest. Even though Wikipedia
zero appears to help our own cause now, we need to be careful we don't
hurt the people we depend on in turn.

People such as the open source community and internet standards
organisations might prove quite sensitive to changing Internet rules.
We should put our ears to the ground and listen carefully to what
representatives of these groups may be saying to us.

sincerely,
Kim Bruning

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 6:28 AM, Bodhisattwa Mandal <
bodhisattwa.rg...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely
> criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the
> violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked
> Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.
>
>
> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms
>
>
> http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-service/
>


As Bodhisattwa points out, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI)
recently put Inernet.org -- now re-branded "Free Basics" -- on hold in
India.[1] Facebook's offering free content is characterised by net
neutrality activists as an attempt to build a monopoly,[2] or establish a
gatekeeper role.[3]

Tim Berners-Lee is on record as asking people to "Just say no" to such
efforts.[4]

Jimmy Wales on the other hand is on record[5] as saying that he fully
supports Internet.org:

---o0o---

*What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org project,
especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to become a
collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia Foundation?*

I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and
Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org team is in contact with our
Wikipedia Zero team.

Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet"
(i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going
to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions
to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge,
our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se.
But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.

In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and
support it fully.

---o0o---

What do the other WMF board members think about Internet.org/Free Basics,
and about the risks involved in allowing the establishment of online
gatekeepers or monopolies?

And if you have concerns in this area, how does it inform your thinking
about Wikipedia Zero and other Wikimedia projects? Do you see any risk that
Wikimedia projects themselves could end up acting as an online gatekeeper
or monopoly, and if so, what are you doing to mitigate that risk?[6][7]

[1]
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms
[2]
http://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/features/free-basics-vs-free-internet-your-guide-to-the-raging-net-neutrality-debate-782554
[3]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlash-imperils-vision-for-free-global-web
[4]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-30/zuckerberg-s-india-backlash-imperils-vision-for-free-global-web
[5]
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-about-Mark-Zuckerbergs-Internet-org-project-especially-in-light-of-Wikipedia-Zero-Is-there-a-chance-for-it-to-become-a-collaborative-project-between-Facebook-and-the-Wikimedia-Foundation
 https://archive.is/1Lxlc
[6]
https://www.accessnow.org/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open/
[7]
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Bodhisattwa Mandal]

Hi,

Indian netizens, specially the open source activists, are severely
criticizing Internet.org and Free basics right from the beginning on the
violation of net neutrality issue. In response to that, TRAI has asked
Reliance Communication to hold Facebook Free Basics service.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/Put-FBs-Free-Basics-service-on-hold-TRAI-tells-Reliance-Communications/articleshow/50290490.cms

http://qz.com/580884/india-has-hit-the-brakes-on-facebooks-free-internet-service/

Regards,
Bodhisattwa

On 1 January 2016 at 11:20, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:
> > You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia
> Zero initiative.
>
> From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia
> Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics.
> The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second
> group negatively discriminates a part of population.
>
> I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
> businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
> something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
> infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola:
> they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their
> products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes,
> "reduced price" could be zero.
>
> On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic
> importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number
> of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with
> a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in
> Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before
> or after you spend your data limit).
>
> However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it
> creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of
> Internet. That's quite serious.
>
> I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's
> Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your
> marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with
> their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of
> Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people
> capable to buy their software.
>
> Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
> underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
> richer and they won't need this kind of service.
>
> Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without
> WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we
> shouldn't do that, of course.
>
> There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative,
> but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not
> the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become
> quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited
> internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip
> into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.
>
> So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia
> organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:
>
> * Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a
> permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position
> is based on external factors, not on the design created by the
> companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on
> preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to
> various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario,
> we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And
> Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.
>
> * It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia
> organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit
> companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be
> relevant.
>
> * Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
> one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
> support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
> are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
> into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
> and the rest of our global super-movement.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Bodhisattwa Mandal
Administrator, Bengali Wikipedia

''Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free
access to the sum of all human knowledge.''
___

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 2:02 AM, Marcin Cieslak  wrote:
> You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero 
> initiative.

From my perspective, there is significant difference between Wikipedia
Zero (along with similar, free of charge services) and Free Basics.
The first group positively discriminates some websites, the second
group negatively discriminates a part of population.

I don't think the pure form of net-neutrality is sustainable. Many
businesses already have deals with other businesses to provide
something for free or "for free" or for reduced price via their
infrastructure. The classic examples are Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola:
they make a deal with a fast food restaurant to give you their
products for reduced price. And when we come to bits and bytes,
"reduced price" could be zero.

On top of that, we have a number of Internet services of strategic
importance. Wikimedia projects are one of such services. Yes, a number
of Google services and Facebook are such services, as well, along with
a number of services covering similar needs (Yandex and VKontakte in
Russia, for example). It's good to have such services for free (before
or after you spend your data limit).

However, when it comes to limiting access to particular services, it
creates an underclass, capable to participate just in one segment of
Internet. That's quite serious.

I don't think think Zuckerberg's initiative has such idea behind. It's
Coca Cola-like marketing campaign. When you become that big, your
marketing approach becomes big, as well. Familiarizing people with
their products is clever strategy. We know that from three decades of
Microsoft's tolerance of piracy in countries without enough of people
capable to buy their software.

Neither I think the initiative will really create a permanent
underclass. People in underdeveloped regions will eventually become
richer and they won't need this kind of service.

Wikimedia projects will be included inside of such plans even without
WMF's approval. And even if we theoretically could block access, we
shouldn't do that, of course.

There is one more important issue here: It's Facebook's initiative,
but it's also a cartel-like approach to the market. Facebook is not
the only company behind the initiative and the initiative could become
quite powerful and could grow behind giving free access to limited
internet just to the poorest inhabitants of the Earth. It could slip
into a worldwide option, served as default in many settings.

So, there are at least three important reasons why Wikimedia
organizations shouldn't participate in such initiative:

* Most importantly, while I don't think Free Basics will create a
permanent underclass, nobody could guarantee such thing. My position
is based on external factors, not on the design created by the
companies participating in Free Basics. They could work hard on
preserving a kind of status quo by gradually increasing access to
various services, while keeping zero price. In a nightmarish scenario,
we could get two Internets: one censored and one not censored. And
Wikimedia shouldn't support such possible future.

* It's Facebook's business, not ours. I don't think Wikimedia
organizations should be outside of any business deal with for-profit
companies, but I don't think our voice in such initiative could be
relevant.

* Finally, we belong to the movement which promotes net neutrality as
one of the core values. No matter how realistic it is, we should
support it. Wikipedia Zero is not net-neutral, but Wikimedia projects
are of such significance that it could be tolerated. Going further
into abandoning that principle would create definite divide between us
and the rest of our global super-movement.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Marcin Cieslak]

On 2015-12-31, Milos Rancic  wrote:
> Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> initiative.
>
> I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.

You might want to check out some discussions surrounding the Wikimedia Zero 
initiative.

Saper


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Ivan Martínez]

In Mexico Virgin Mobile is offering since December 11 this service and of
course Wikipedia is announced as a part of the offer. With an intentional
way, in my opinion, because although our free licenses that allow reuse of
the Wikipedia contents, communication of this criticized service seems to
be an alliance that take advantage of the moral quality of Wikipedia to
attract confidence.

There are few voices[1] that point how Free Basics is an enemy of freedom
of internet as Electronic Frontier Foundation [2], Mexican NGO Red en
Defensa de los Derechos Digitales [3], Chilean NGO Derechos Digitales [4]
among others.

Will be nice if we can start the discussion as community and movement and
take action. I don't know if WMF have something in plans about Free Basics.

Regards,

[1]
https://www.facebook.com/notes/accessnoworg/open-letter-to-mark-zuckerberg-regarding-internetorg-net-neutrality-privacy-and-/935857379791271/
[2]
https://www.eff.org/es/deeplinks/2015/09/facebooks-free-basics-more-open-better-security-still-walled-garden
[3]
https://r3d.mx/2015/12/15/facebook-da-internet-gratis-demasiado-bueno-para-ser-verdad/
[4]
https://www.derechosdigitales.org/9585/free-basics-expands-in-latin-america-cause-for-concern-or-potential-opportunity/




2015-12-30 19:49 GMT-06:00 Tito Dutta :

> Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads
> around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc.
> There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my
> favourite:
>
> http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html
> I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other
> hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have
> talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are
> supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.
>
> On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic  wrote:
>
> > Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> > initiative.
> >
> > I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: 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
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
*Iván Martínez*


*Presidente - Wikimedia México A.C.User:ProtoplasmaKid @protoplasmakid*

Hemos creado la más grande colección de conocimiento compartido. Ayuda a
proteger a Wikipedia, dona ahora:
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Free Basics

[Tito Dutta]

Free Basics campaign is both confusing and misleading, They are posting ads
around India "What net neutrality activists won’t tell you” etc.
There are a number of good articles on the web. This one is one of my
favourite:
http://www.catchnews.com/tech-news/should-facebook-become-internet-s-gatekeeper-or-free-basics-must-comply-with-net-neutrality-sunil-abraham-has-some-thoughts-1450954347.html
I don't know anyone who supported it with its understanding. On the other
hand a large number of my friends who signed this Facebook petition (I have
talked to many of them) supported it without having any idea what they are
supporting, In my opinion that's the worst part.

On 31 December 2015 at 06:56, Milos Rancic  wrote:

> Today I've learned about it. And I think WMF is the perfect prey for such
> initiative.
>
> I hope nobody sane is taking that seriously.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: 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
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,