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