Re: [Wikimedia-l] Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero ?

2013-08-27 Thread Leinonen Teemu
Hei, 

I kind of sympathize with Jens' points. Mr. Zuckerberg, and especially Facebook 
as a business, are not necessary in a perfect synchrony with the mission and 
vision of the Wikimedia / Wikipedia movement. Even if this is the case we may 
ask does it still make sense for us to collaborate with their initiative? Would 
it advantage our very own mission and vision?

I also think that we are all people, also Mr. Zuckerberg, and people have 
different sides. I interpret that in the internet.org a group of *people*, 
working for big corporations, have seen a possibility to do something *good* 
that is same time in the interests of their businesses. I think we often forget 
that also in big corporation there are people, individuals who do choices. I do 
not see in here any hidden agendas or wrong doing. I see people trying to do 
something good.

Like GerardM pointed out, the internet.org may help us to get knowledge for 
people who otherwise would not have access to the Wikipedia. I do not see that 
this would move us somehow to the dark side, especially when the *people* in 
the internet.org are not necessary evil. 

With the fact that the Wikimedia foundation is financially sustainable, we also 
have a great position to negotiate with the internet.org people. I actually 
think that they need more Wikimedia / Wikipedia than we need them. Still, I 
think collaboration with them could advance our mission.

Best regards, 

- Teemu

On 27.8.2013, at 9.32, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hoi,
 Jens, I am sorry there is nothing in what you say that has a bearing on
 what the aim is of the Wikimedia Foundation. Our aim is to get
 information/knowledge to every person in the world. The people that may be
 reached by this initiative are the ones we do not reach.
 
 When we can reach them through something like a Wikipedia ZERO approach,
 this would be awesome never mind if Facebook et al make money out of it.
 The NSA et al have a reach that includes us all. Nothing is likely to
 change at that. It is however beside the point. The point is that we may
 reach more people and consequently do a better job at what our aim is.
 Thanks,
 GerardM
 
 
 On 26 August 2013 23:58, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:
 
 The internet Mr. Zuggerberg wants was nothing to do with the ideas of free
 knowledge, online collaboration and open source as it is provided and
 promoted by Wikimedia.
 
 Don't believe the Hype. Even and especially if it is Hype 2.0.
 
 Just because the Silicon Valley billionaires got caught with sleeping with
 the NSA suddenly they push an open internet for the world-Idea to
 distract everybody from the dark roots.
 
 Wikimedia should stay far away from this crowd and its initiatives. Maybe
 in the future we should even get more distance between them (Facebook,
 Google, etc.) and us.
 
 Jens
 
 2013/8/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
 
 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.com
 wrote:
 
 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Mobile image upload

2013-08-27 Thread Jon Davies
Even though I should have been clearing my in-box after a week on holiday I
had to try this- Well done! Will try the commons upload app next.

On 26 August 2013 16:20, Jon Robson jdlrob...@gmail.com wrote:

 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




-- 
*Jon Davies - Chief Executive Wikimedia UK*.  Mobile (0044) 7803 505 169
tweet @jonatreesdavies

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and
Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered
Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT.
United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia
movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who
operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).
Telephone (0044) 207 065 0990.

Visit http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/ and @wikimediauk
___
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?

2013-08-27 Thread Denny Vrandečić
If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP
would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they
access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality.

But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We
are talking about providing access to Wikipedia. That's like saying
printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web
and gave it to them too.

I still think the question does Wikipedia zero violate net neutrality is
simply a categorical error (i.e. it errs in the sense that the categories
in the question do not match), and nothing I have seen convinced me
otherwise so far.

P.S., and just a sidenote: Britannica did not loose most of its reach due
to Wikipedia, but most of its business crumbled due to Encarta and cheap
CD-ROM based encyclopedias. When Wikipedia appeared in 2001, Encyclopedias
were already in a dismal state.




2013/8/27 Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com

 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.com wrote:
 snip
  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.
 
 snip
 
  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.

 I'm willing to play devil's advocate here.  Personally, I don't see
 Wikipedia Zero as bad or a serious threat to net neutrality, but I can
 certainly understand the argument that free access to Wikipedia might
 disadvantage other content providers and discourage people from paying
 for mobile internet.

 To give a timely (if rather American) example, the Video Music Awards
 were last night.  If I wanted to know what happened, I could visit the
 VMA site, or many news sites, or Wikipedia which was updated in near
 real time.  In the framework of Wikipedia Zero, getting the info from
 Wikipedia is free which would rationally discourage traffic to other
 news sites or VMA's own site.

 The same argument can be made for other reference websites (e.g.
 About.com, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  If they cost money to
 visit and we don't, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to
 getting traffic.

 Free information is incredibly powerful, and I think we all agree that
 it is generally a Good Thing.  This is doubly true in many of the poor
 nations where Wikipedia Zero partnerships have been formed, as poverty
 can make data charges seem prohibitive.  However, the presence of free
 information is also disruptive to for-profit information providers.
 For example, we all know how the internet has impacted newspaper
 sales, or how the internet (and sites like Wikipedia) ultimately led
 Encyclopedia Britannica to close their print operation.  Free
 information is powerful, and sometimes that power will disrupt or
 destroy for-profit information providers.

 Consider for a moment, how the story might sound if we changed the
 names a bit.  Suppose National Monopoly Telecom partnered with Google
 to bring Maps and News to poor people with no data charges?  Is that
 just as good?  What if they had ads on the pages which were presented
 without data charges?  What if it were Microsoft instead of Google?
 Etc.  The end users get a free service, and presumably that service is
 useful, and quite possibly most users will be glad they have it.
 Still, it is true that Wikipedia Zero and similar programs do cause
 some content to have a privileged place in the marketplace over other
 content, and that will drive traffic to the free option and reduce
 traffic to competitors.  Depending on your point of view, maybe that's
 not a big deal, but if you are a hardcore advocate of net neutrality
 then one might well argue that ISPs should treat all content equally
 and not have different rates for equivalent amounts of data coming
 from different sources.  It is well-formed criticism of the Wikipedia
 Zero project.  Personally, I don't think the principle of net
 neutrality should be so rigidly adhered to as to discourage the broad
 dissemination of knowledge among people who have historically lacked
 access to it, but I suppose some people might disagree.

 -Robert Rohde

 ___
 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-27 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Denny Vrandečić 
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com

  Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
 
   That's like saying
  printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
  violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the
  Web
  and gave it to them too.
 
 
  This analogy doesn't work very well because the we here is most likely
  not an ISP and it's only ISP being subject to net neutrality.
 
  Nemo
 

 Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does
 work. :)

 Denny


I'm rather amazed that I'm the one being called out by George Herbert for
making excessively legalistic rather than factually or
morally based remarks (which I find odd, and rather insulting at that. I
don't think I made a legalistic argument anywhere, and indeed, law tends to
be the last thing I consider in where we should stand on ethical issues). I
find this reasoning to be rule lawyering. We're not the ISP violating net
neutrality, no. It's the ISP's we actively work together with and strongly
encourage.

I now find myself in the somewhat uncomfortable position where I defend the
position where I say that this isn't a black and white issue, and net
neutrality does play a role, which makes it appear as if I think we are
doing horrible, horrible things to the world by providing Wikipedia Zero.
For clarity, that is not at all how I feel about the issue.



 ___
 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?

2013-08-27 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)

Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 13:32:

Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does
work. :)


Sure, but ISP conducting Wikipedia Zero programs are. :) WMF is just 
facilitating the activities being speculated about as potentially 
illegal in some countries, I don't think anyone here suggested that WMF 
is breaching the law.


The whole thread is rather speculative of course; perhaps an analogous 
question would be whether it would be appropriate for a WMF grant to 
fund an activity e.g. in France which would be illegal in Germany. WMF 
did and does force (some) entities in other countries to follow (some?) 
USA laws, out of moral or legal reasons.
All this just to say that the question of the original poster should not 
be considered an attack...


Nemo

___
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?

2013-08-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

---o0o---

*Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*

A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
with the mission.

---o0o---


The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA

I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
as part of the advertising deal.

At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

---o0o---

*Q: Is there money involved?*

A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.

---o0o---


I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.

The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
information market place.

Andreas


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 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?


 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

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-27 Thread JP Béland
Wikimedia movement and the WMF are not advocates for net neutrality,
but for free access to knowledge for everybody. Sure we want to
respect legal, moral and ethical standards while doing so, but the
only arguments I`ve read here where Wikipedia Zero could be at the
inverse of those standards is because it may give WMF an unfair
advantage over its competitors. From the moral point of view a lot of
people claimed to use in this thread, you have to ask yourself what
brings more good in providing free access to Wikipedia or avoiding
to give ourselves an unfair competitive advantage... Why not let WMF
competitors decide about that, because I'm sure not many for-profit
entreprises will do any actions against WMF because it facilitates,
through non-financial partnerships with ISPs, free access to Wikipedia
in countries where poverty is important.

JP Béland
aka Amqui


2013/8/27, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
 I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
 Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
 advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
 the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

 ---o0o---

 *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*

 A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
 leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
 encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
 Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
 with the mission.

 ---o0o---


 The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
 advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
 revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:

 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA

 I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
 as part of the advertising deal.

 At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
 arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

 ---o0o---

 *Q: Is there money involved?*

 A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
 paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.

 ---o0o---


 I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
 content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.

 The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
 are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
 brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
 information market place.

 Andreas


 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Internet.org and Wikipedia Zero ?

2013-08-27 Thread JP Béland
Wikimedia should stay far away from this crowd and its initiatives. Maybe
in the future we should even get more distance between them (Facebook,
Google, etc.) and us.

And how that would bring us closer to our vision to have all humans
have access to knowledge?

JP Béland

___
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] About the concentration of resources in SF (itwas: Communication plans for community engagement

2013-08-27 Thread Balázs Viczián
Would be nice to see feasibility checks before outsourcing some tasks to
chapters to make sure they are prepared for the task.

Cheers,
Balazs


2013/8/26 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com

 Hi Romaine,

 In the absence of any practical description of what an office on each
 populated continent would do, or what concrete organizational role it
 would fulfill (other than bringing communities together), it seems
 unlikely that the WMF is going to immediately reverse its relatively
 recent decision to follow a strategy directly contrary to what you
 propose. The model that Quim outlines makes much more sense; the work
 of the movement can be dispersed more naturally when stakeholders take
 on projects and initiatives that the WMF can support with grant
 funding. These projects have evidently had far and away more success
 than either general funding of WMF affiliates or expanding the WMF
 itself into far-away lands.

 ~Nate

 ___
 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] About the concentration of resources in SF (itwas: Communication plans for community engagement

2013-08-27 Thread Quim Gil

On 08/27/2013 08:37 AM, Balázs Viczián wrote:

Would be nice to see feasibility checks before outsourcing some tasks to
chapters to make sure they are prepared for the task.


Sure, these checks are part of the FDC / IEG / any decent grant process. 
Business as usual.


Also important:

Tech projects aiming to merge code in an existing project also need to 
be in sync with the maintainers and the community. This is why we have a 
separation between Featured project ideas (ready to be taken) and Raw 
projects (not yet filtered) at


https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects

Even the featured project ideas must get a reality check as soon as 
someone steps in at a given time for a specific program.


--
Quim Gil
Technical Contributor Coordinator @ Wikimedia Foundation
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil

___
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?

2013-08-27 Thread George Herbert
Andreas:

 The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
 are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
 brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
 information market place.


Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
 Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
 advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
 the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

 ---o0o---

 *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*

 A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
 leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
 encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
 Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
 with the mission.

 ---o0o---


 The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
 advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
 revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:


 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA

 I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
 as part of the advertising deal.

 At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
 arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
 http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:

 ---o0o---

 *Q: Is there money involved?*

 A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
 paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.

 ---o0o---


 I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
 content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.

 The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
 are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
 brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
 information market place.

 Andreas


 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 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 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-27 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:

 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.



Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other markets.
Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular is
envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub.

The other day, Jimmy Wales said, We are a start-up in stealth mode.[1]



 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.



How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are not?
Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for
providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like
the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many
people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not go
to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some
of CNN's page views.

Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more page
views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested
that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to
compete against traditional news outlets.



 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.



See above.



 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).



The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
public's best interest.


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.



Here is one that makes me uneasy: Wikimedia projects are particularly
vulnerable to manipulation – look at how long Qworty was allowed to do what
he did,[2] look at the plastic surgery (and likely sockpuppeting) case
presently at AN/I,[3] the Arnie Draiman story,[4] the Klee Irwin[5] or
Monsanto[6] articles, or indeed any of a good number of arbitration cases
commenting on neutrality, BLP violations etc.

In light of that vulnerability, the idea of making crowdsourced Wikimedia
projects stewards of the world's information, to the detriment of
professionally published and edited news and reference sources, seems to
have some obvious drawbacks. And the higher the stakes are, the more
concerted efforts at manipulation will be. In Wikimedia's case, such
efforts can be made anonymously.

News reporting and information providers have always been biased. But it is
good to be able to read both The Guardian and The Telegraph. Monopolisation
means that you get only one or the other. And while we know the biases of
The Guardian or The Telegraph, and can compensate for them, with Wikimedia
information the consumer never knows the bias of the person who last edited
a page or data record.

Andreas

[1]
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-wants-you-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-says-jimmy-wales-as-he-plans-to-open-data-to-all-8728357.html

[2]
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidentsoldid=570462412#Otto_Placik_editing_plastic_surgery_articles

[4] http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.530285

[5] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Klee-Irwin.gif

[6] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/monsanto.gif


Re: [Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

2013-08-27 Thread George Herbert
This is a huge question and problem, however:

Andreas:

 The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
 prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
 public's best interest.



If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
information monopoly, I object.

The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
model and launched a project to implement that better model.

No matter what happens with network access, that does not change the
unrelated entry barrier, which is at the conceptual level.

Us not taking advantage of network opportunities does not change that, it
just degrades our ability to deliver to our existing mission.

If you feel that the WMF should do its job worse, to enable alternatives to
flourish, I disagree.



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
 george.herb...@gmail.comwrote:

  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.
 


 Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other markets.
 Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular is
 envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub.

 The other day, Jimmy Wales said, We are a start-up in stealth mode.[1]



  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.
 


 How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are not?
 Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for
 providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like
 the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many
 people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not go
 to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some
 of CNN's page views.

 Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more page
 views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested
 that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to
 compete against traditional news outlets.



  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.
 


 See above.



  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).
 


 The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
 prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
 public's best interest.


 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.
 


 Here is one that makes me uneasy: Wikimedia projects are particularly
 vulnerable to manipulation – look at how long Qworty was allowed to do what
 he did,[2] look at the plastic surgery (and likely sockpuppeting) case
 presently at AN/I,[3] the Arnie Draiman story,[4] the Klee Irwin[5] or
 Monsanto[6] articles, or indeed any of a good number of arbitration cases
 commenting on neutrality, BLP violations etc.

 In light of that vulnerability, the idea of making crowdsourced Wikimedia
 projects stewards of the world's information, to the detriment of
 professionally published and edited news and reference sources, seems to
 have some obvious drawbacks. And the higher the stakes are, the more
 concerted efforts at manipulation will be. In Wikimedia's case, such