* 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
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 wiki
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
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, funda
+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
>
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
tri
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."
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.
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
coalitio
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-li
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
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, ins
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 networ
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 pu
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 Wiki
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 ca
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,
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
c
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 T
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
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
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 i
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 Austral
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 c
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
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 h
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 Wi
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.nytim
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 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 co
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
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 a
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* onl
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 adva
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
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)."
> >
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 to
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 inc
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 w
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 n
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 cer
"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
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? ;)
Principl
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 a
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 viol
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 thi
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
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 i
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
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/
50 matches
Mail list logo