Re: [Wikimedia-l] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives
The new Google Maps simplified navigation and removed many useful features... Layers like Wikipedia, weather, webcams, photos, videos, previous searches are no longer available, while transit, traffic and bicycling can be found in the getting around box. http://googlesystem.blogspot.nl/2013/05/the-new-google-maps-now-available.html Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 23:45:12 +0100 From: Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives On 25 August 2013 23:33, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote: this is one point where WMF _may_ be able to help, We already have Special:Nearby I've started a discussion on en.Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Nearby_.26_replacing_Google_Maps.27_Wikipedia_layer Please feel free to point to it from a suitable page on Meta, or elsewhere -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives
2013/8/25 Strainu strain...@gmail.com: 2013/8/25 Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com: Unfortunately I couldn't find any layer for Wikipedia on http://openstreetmap.org Perhaps the WMF should provide that? Kolossos has done a tremendous job with his work on the subject. Moving from the toolserver to the labs could be a good moment to increase the resource allocated to that project. I think OSM would be happy with the idea. One of their layers (the transport map) is already provided by a third party AFAIK. This year at Wikimania in Hong Kong there has been a Wikimaps panel, where it was discussed the possibility to duplicate the OSM whole stack to serve OpenStreetMap in Wikipedia. The bottom line for me was we want more OpenStreetMap in Wikimedia projects. Many user active in the field, some people from Wikidata and from WMF devs and staff were there. During that discussion the point that emerged was it is doable, but it is not easy to replicate the stack (or only the tileserver) to do so some dedicated developers are needed, so my understanding is that the point is is this a need that is widespread enough that the Foundation should look into it? As Peter said: 2013/8/25 Peter Gervai grin...@gmail.com: On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com wrote: You can also propose a new features to be added to the official OSM database schema. It is not a question of OSM database, it's a question of services based on the database, especially those related to slippy map with mapped external content. OSMF doesn't have the resources to get this done, and they even struggle under the load of their tile server being used by the general public. In fact you're advised against using their tile server and you are advised to create one for your own. For example this is one point where WMF _may_ be able to help, but it's a high demand service. Also, always in HK, there has been a OSM introductory workshop and a brief mapping party organized by User:Aude. We should strive on working together with OpenStreetMap, we supplement each other. As I said in a thread some weeks ago in Italy, Wikimedia Italia (the WMF Italian chapter) is discussing with the Italian OSM community to make Wikimedia Italia also a OSMF chapter (they have the same model, drawn mostly from our experience). Besides that, I think I am happy with OSM being managed by another entity (the OSM Foundation), I think that it is healtier for the the FLOSS/OpenCulture movement and also it is better for OSM which is a very big project. Of course in case of need e.g. if some government try to censor OSM, I think that we as a community and also WMF should weigh in. 2013/8/25 Tomasz Ganicz polime...@gmail.com: http://openstreetmap.org - is just a starting point to OSM About the main issue discussed here I quote completely Tomasz. This is one of the first things to know about OSM, probably the tool you need already exists, it is just out there. IMHO, many people use Google Maps because it just works, you write go from A to B and it shows routing. Search pizzeria and they pop out. OSM has all this stuff, but they are spread in different sites, for example: * http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Routing * or the already cited http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services To me this looks a little like the people who are not using Linux because they don't want to spend time/are not able to find their way around distributions, versions and things like that; the perception being that there is only one Windows or Mac OS (which is not true but, that's the whole point). Cristian ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] The Wikipedia Library
For everyones ease :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients James Alexander Legal and Community Advocacy Wikimedia Foundation (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Lionel Allorge lionel.allo...@lunerouge.org wrote: Hi, Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: ' http://enwp.org/WP::The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients Your link is broken. Regards. -- Lionel Allorge Lune Rouge : http://www.lunerouge.org April : http://www.april.org ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/8/25 Strainu strain...@gmail.com: 2013/8/25 Romaine Wiki romaine_w...@yahoo.com: Unfortunately I couldn't find any layer for Wikipedia on http://openstreetmap.org http://osm.org/ is an example renderer. OSM is the _database_. The information is in it, and there are several renderers showing various external content. This year at Wikimania in Hong Kong there has been a Wikimaps panel, where it was discussed the possibility to duplicate the OSM whole stack to serve OpenStreetMap in Wikipedia. The bottom line for me was What should be noted, however, that we should: 1) avoid to duplicate anything which is done very well by OSMF (which is maintaining, operating and expanding OSM database), and 2) plan anything a way which helps OSM to get more user contribution, either through Notes or by direct editing (so we should make it easy for users to reach OSM edit fesatures over there. Btw see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Collaboration_with_Wikipedia g ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Mobile image upload
James Thanks for sharing that and great to see the uploader is from Kerala India! In terms of mobile editing arriving... It's here!: http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/25/edit-wikipedia-on-the-go/ Jon On 25 Aug 2013 05:14, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: Mobile image upload is a huge plus thus thanks to all who made it happen. It is allowing those who might not otherwise have be able to get involved to do so. Just saw this image come in through the mobile site http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirty_white_pseudomembrane_classically_seen_in_diptheria_2013-07-06_11-07.jpg I have never seen diphtheria as it is exceedingly rare in my area of the world. And technically this image is very hard to take. Look forwards to mobile editing arriving. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an internet service provider and thus it cannot violate net neutrality. I cannot see how Wikipedia Zero can violate any net neutrality laws in any countries, as they simply do not apply in this case. Having said that, I wonder what even the motivation is in trying to suggest to close programs that provide easier and affordable access to the contents of Wikimedia sites to a wider population. The usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc. Cheers, Denny 2013/8/25 rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com hi, most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on the mailing list: is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere? just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]: Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere. After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some developed countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui 2013/8/26, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3: Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt. Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered or used via these services. If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.comwrote: To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with providers giving away certain data for free. S On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi, most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on the mailing list: is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere? just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]: Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere. After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some developed countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. -Martijn 2013/8/26, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com: Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article), paragraph 3: Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt. Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered or used via these services. If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not, then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain stephen.b...@gmail.com wrote: To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with providers giving away certain data for free. S On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi, most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on the mailing list: is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere? just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]: Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality rupert. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l , mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
On 26/08/2013 18:14, Martijn Hoekstra wrote: I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. -Martijn Wikipedia Zero seeks to increase (free) access to one of our project. If we don't think that's a good idea, what the heck are we doing running the project in the first place? KTC -- Katie Chan Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is associated with or employed by. Experience is a good school but the fees are high. - Heinrich Heine ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] The Wikipedia Library
I'm sensitive to concerns about the Library's location. It is partly a legacy issue: The Wikipedia Library partnerships started on English Wikipedia, and that's where the Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, and Cochrane account donations were coordinated. This made some sense at the time because these were English language source being donated (although the donations were promoted to and open to all global editors and projects). That will remain--global notifications about account donations and organizing will be sent using Global Message Delivery, Wikimedia Foundation blog posts and Signpost mentions will make other announcements. This is always a tricky issue for our movement but the intent is very much to benefit all projects and conduct outreach to all regions. For neutrality, META is obviously best, but for overall convenience, English Wikipedia remains the largest and most active project, with the highest concentration of English language speakers. So in that sense it's a question of maximizing convenience versus equalizing inconvenience. If hosted on Meta, everyone has to switch wikis to get there. If hosted on ENWP, all non-ENWP still editors have to switch wikis to get there, but the huge chunk of ENWP editors do not. This will hopefully become much less of an issue with interface changes like Flow and Global Watchlists. Meta did just get notifications, so that's helpful, but I still feel collaboration is somewhat limited by our current infrastrcutre. There are other concerns such as turning Meta into a true hub for all of our editors, and representing our global nature by hosting global projects there. These are important, and I want to give it more thought. So, in the meantime going to look into hosting this on Meta, and I will definitely at least mirror a portal there. It may take some time while we continue to organize and get set up I'd like to continue talking more about this. Cheers, Jake Orlowitz (Ocaasi) jorlow...@gmail.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com: On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere. After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some developed countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. -Martijn Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision) I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us closer to our vision. JP Béland aka Amqui ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com: On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere. After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some developed countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. -Martijn Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision) I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us closer to our vision. JP Béland aka Amqui I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used here. It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent services via tariff structure. What competitors for Wikipedia exist? And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their or our benefit? What benefit do we get? Sent from Kangphone ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives
2013/8/26 Sumana Harihareswara suma...@wikimedia.org: Thanks to everyone who's been offering ideas and thoughts in this thread! Could we move to maps-l (cc'd)? https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/maps-l Thank you for reminding me of a mailing list I should have subscribed to a long ago ;o. C ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero ?
Hoi, For your information ... an interview with Mr Zuggerberg... In my opinion there is an opportunity as he is looking for dense information.. we are really good at that :) Thanks, Gerard http://www.wired.com/business/2013/08/mark-zuckerberg-internet-org/ On 23 August 2013 14:38, Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada emi...@gmail.comwrote: Looks like NSA has bought some new hard drives and needs moar data. 2013/8/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com Hoi, But when they provide the infrastructure that allows our content to be seen by many more people, they do us a service. In the end it is what we are about. Last thing I heard we were first of all about getting the knowledge out there. Thanks, GerardM On 23 August 2013 12:14, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote: Nothing good comes with people like Mark Zuckerberg or Peter Thiel, they don't share our vision of a *really* free and open internet. So, actually, Emmanuel, I couldn't care less which direction they gonna make their next moves. It will all be a disguise of what they really attempt and with whom they really cooperate. It's time to realize that there isn't a shared vision of the web between Silicon Valley and Wikimedia. Their words are empty. When they speak of freedom, they speak of the freedom of money and control. Just because they use the word internet they don't speak of the same thing we do. Jens 2013/8/23 Emmanuel Engelhart kel...@kiwix.org Le 23/08/2013 10:59, Kul Wadhwa a écrit : I have my concerns as well so we're watching how things unfold for now. Perhaps to add to Teemu's question (If I could be so bold) how would internet.org need to evolve to make it worth our time and effort to be involved? If what I fear becomes real, then I would be sad that our movement joins such a dishonest project. If they want to give access to a subset of Internet services and adapt their communication (honesty about the product), then we face a dilemma. A dilemna between our wish to give access to our content (tactical move) and the one of having a free, neutral and un-clustered Internet (strategical view)... Big discussions in view, but we already have done it with Wikipedia zero and I know the WMF tends to be pragmatic in such situations ;) If they really want to help to give a neutral access to internet... then this is really a dream we should be part of! But, this is all about speculations... I just wanted to explain why this launch doesn't sound well to my hears. But I know nothing about their real intentions and concrete projects. That's why, it's IMO urgent to wait... and see in which direction they will make the next moves. Emmanuel -- Kiwix - Wikipedia Offline more * Web: http://www.kiwix.org * Twitter: https://twitter.com/KiwixOffline * more: http://www.kiwix.org/wiki/Communication ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe -- -- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero ?
Hear, hear. Ziko 2013/8/23 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com Hoi, But when they provide the infrastructure that allows our content to be seen by many more people, they do us a service. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list 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] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?
It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point. Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do) become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from? how many road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets. With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media service, and issues of the like. Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this, as far as I can see. One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate), functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit somehow and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the particular law in question might come into play. However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner. Your interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial legalistic issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+ countries laws (other than copyright issues, and free definitions for Commons, that I can see). If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage issue IS a problem here, please point it out. If there is one that I do not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider. On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, George William Herbert george.herb...@gmail.com wrote: On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com: On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, JP Béland lebo.bel...@gmail.com wrote: And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say, netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in countries where the law is less developed? As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot just abstain from any activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere. After that, are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some developed countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way more morally wrong in my opinion. That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP, which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it. But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high ethical and moral standards. JP Beland aka Amqui I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible. -Martijn Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision) I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us closer to our vision. JP Béland aka Amqui I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used here. It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent services via tariff structure. What competitors for Wikipedia exist? And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their or our benefit? What benefit do we get? We get a wider readership, at least in the short term. Why else would we be doing this? Or was the question rhetorical, as the answer was rather obvious to me. If it was, I don't understand the point you were trying to make with it. Sent from Kangphone
