On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, "Kim Bruning" <k...@bruning.xs4all.nl> 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, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
