[Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Mike Godwin]

[Resubmitted with some HTML stuff removed, I hope.]

Andreas writes:

"Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
strongly disagree with your view."

I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces.
That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts.

Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very
strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed. There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free
and open web."

I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be
publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link
here when I have it.

Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a
"prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open
web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But
I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know
the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long
(400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you
actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the
comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused
to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted
here.

My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,
and they know why I differ with them about this stuff. What I have
explained to them is that my experiences of working with in-country
NGOs in the developing world (who don't, in fact, disagree with me
about this) have shaped my opinion. If your own experience in working
on access issues in (say) Africa or Southeast Asia is stronger than my
own, I'd be more likely to be persuaded by your, uh, "original
research" than by your effort to selectively adduce footnotes in
support of your assertions. At least that's my inclination after a
quarter of a century of working for internet freedom. (I was the first
employee at EFF, where I worked for nine years.)

The Access Now editorial, in particular, was drafted by someone who
had not been open to discussing why it doesn't make sense to describe
Wikipedia Zero as having "forged deals" with telcos. How do I happen
to know this? Because, as a result of conversations with Marvin
Ammori, I tried reaching out to Access Now. (The author is not among
the many Access Now lawyers I know personally.)  Those efforts never
went anywhere--the writer wasn't interested in discussing it. What you
may not know, if you are not based in Washington, DC, policy circles,
is that very many (although not all) network-neutrality activists are
afraid that if there is *any* exception to a categorical prohibition
on zero-rated services, this will somehow undermine network neutrality
forever. I do not share their predisposition (or yours) to understand
the issue in such simplistic, binary terms.

Please forgive me for not re-reading the Access Now editorial again,
even though you quote it so heavily here. I've discussed the editorial
face-to-face, however, with my Access Now friends in DC, and again at
the Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul last year, and just last
week at RightsCon in Manila, where I was a guest speaker and moderator
of a panel on internet-rights initiatives in Southeast Asia.

I didn't happen to see you at any of those events, but they were quite
busy and crowded, so perhaps I missed you. Perhaps your own labors on
behalf of a free and open internet were so demanding that they
prevented you from attending. If so, I understand entirely.

I'll be back in Phnom Penh working on the Great Charter for Cambodian
Internet Freedom for a couple of weeks in June--if you can find your
way there, I'd be happy to introduce you to activists who, like me,
believe that Wikipedia Zero is the kind of project that helps citizens
more immediately and pervasively than a commitment to charging for
mobile internet access by the byte.

Fortunately, my heterodoxy on the issue of net neutrality has not
prevented the prominent organizations you mention from continuing to
work with me on issues like NSA reform, copyright and patent reform,
and updating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  That
stuff is going to be my major work obligation in April and May. I
guess I'm lucky that the prominence of those organizations has not led
them to being so casually dismissive of me as you have chosen to be.


Best regards,


--

[Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Mike Godwin]

Andreas writes:

"Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very
strongly disagree with your view."

I said there are no facts, and you responded by citing opinion pieces.
That's cool, but opinions are not themselves facts.

Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone "prominent" whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone "prominent" -- who believes in a free and open web "very
strongly" disagrees with me, then you are misinformed. There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to "a free
and open web."

I've actually written about this issue at length, and will be
publishing another article on the issue next week. I'll post the link
here when I have it.

Whether the U.S. government's Federal Communications is not itself a
"prominent organization" that has committed itself to "a free and open
web" is a proposition worth challenging is, of course, up to you. But
I hope you don't expect such a challenge to be taken seriously. I know
the FCC's new Report and Order on net neutrality is a very long
(400-page) document, and there is of course no requirement that you
actually have read it (much less some appreciable fraction of the
comments that led to it). But I've done so. The FCC expressly refused
to adopt the categorical, simplistic, binary approach you have posted
here.

My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,
and they know why I differ with them about this stuff. What I have
explained to them is that my experiences of working with in-country
NGOs in the developing world (who don't, in fact, disagree with me
about this) have shaped my opinion. If your own experience in working
on access issues in (say) Africa or Southeast Asia is stronger than my
own, I'd be more likely to be persuaded by your, uh, "original
research" than by your effort to selectively adduce footnotes in
support of your assertions. At least that's my inclination after a
quarter of a century of working for internet freedom. (I was the first
employee at EFF, where I worked for nine years.)

The Access Now editorial, in particular, was drafted by someone who
had not been open to discussing why it doesn't make sense to describe
Wikipedia Zero as having "forged deals" with telcos. How do I happen
to know this? Because, as a result of conversations with Marvin
Ammori, I tried reaching out to Access Now. (The author is not among
the many Access Now lawyers I know personally.)  Those efforts never
went anywhere--the writer wasn't interested in discussing it. What you
may not know, if you are not based in Washington, DC, policy circles,
is that very many (although not all) network-neutrality activists are
afraid that if there is *any* exception to a categorical prohibition
on zero-rated services, this will somehow undermine network neutrality
forever. I do not share their predisposition (or yours) to understand
the issue in such simplistic, binary terms.

Please forgive me for not re-reading the Access Now editorial again,
even though you quote it so heavily here. I've discussed the editorial
face-to-face, however, with my Access Now friends in DC, and again at
the Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul last year, and just last
week at RightsCon in Manila, where I was a guest speaker and moderator
of a panel on internet-rights initiatives in Southeast Asia.

I didn't happen to see you at any of those events, but they were quite
busy and crowded, so perhaps I missed you. Perhaps your own labors on
behalf of a free and open internet were so demanding that they
prevented you from attending. If so, I understand entirely.

I'll be back in Phnom Penh working on the Great Charter for Cambodian
Internet Freedom for a couple of weeks in June--if you can find your
way there, I'd be happy to introduce you to activists who, like me,
believe that Wikipedia Zero is the kind of project that helps citizens
more immediately and pervasively than a commitment to charging for
mobile internet access by the byte.

Fortunately, my heterodoxy on the issue of net neutrality has not
prevented the prominent organizations you mention from continuing to
work with me on issues like NSA reform, copyright and patent reform,
and updating the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act.  That
stuff is going to be my major work obligation in April and May. I
guess I'm lucky that the prominence of those organizations has not led
them to being so casually dismissive of me as you have chosen to be.


Best regards,


--Mike Godwin




On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Andre

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten  wrote:

> I can agree on the dilemma you present.
>
> But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, be
> to close down the projects that is not run "compatible with the values
> underlying the idea of a free and open web"?.
>
> I am (still) of the opinion that is is of utmost importance for the
> movement and our brand that we start closing down projects. And not only
> the 20-30 which are hijacked by unserious people but also the 50-100 which
> are not properly managed and infested with vandalism and unserious articles
>
> Anders



This reminds me of a slide shown at Wikimania.[1] It read as follows:

---o0o---

Reality check 3: 284 Wikipedias

12 dead (locked)
53 zombies (open, no editors)
94 struggling (open, < 5 editors)

125 in good or excellent health

---o0o---

And I would disagree with the judgement implied in these figures that a
Wikipedia with 5 or 6 editors is "in good or excellent health". The
Croatian Wikipedia had considerable more contributors than that, and still
turned into a disaster.[2]

I suspect the Foundation will be reluctant to close down projects for which
there is any hope. However, I would very much like to see the Foundation
provide the public with honest, realistic and transparent information and
consumer advice on the quality of these various Wikipedias, both in terms
of political freedom, as mentioned earlier, and in more general terms terms
of content reliability.


[1] https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/498102860459302912
[2]
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Kourosh Karimkhany]

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tanweer Morshed 
 wrote:

> Welcome to Kourosh! Wikimedians around the world have already been creating
> partnerships under various programs including GLAMs and with universities,
> institutions etc. This is rational from the sense that this new department
> (Strategic Partnerships) would address all these issues along with further
> ways for improvement. Looking forward to Kourosh and his team's endeavors,
> hope they bring meaningful and impact-driven partnerships for Wikimedia
> movement. :)
>
> Tanweer
> Executive member
> Wikimedia Bangladesh


Thank you for the warm welcome messages. I am sincerely thrilled to work
for the Wikimedia Foundation. As an immigrant from Iran and a former
journalist, I deeply appreciate free speech and the free culture movement,
and will vigorously defend them in this position. I'll seek partnerships
that spread the world's knowledge more widely without comprising our
values. Always happy to take community feedback.

Kourosh
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its
> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American
> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical
> conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero)
> harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make
> case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each
> zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero
> is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or
> suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the
> Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that
> support this argument, at least not yet.
>



Prominent organisations campaigning for a free and open web very strongly
disagree with your view.

The anti-competitive nature of zero-rated services is the exact point
Thomas Lohninger makes in the presentation I linked to earlier.[1]
(Comments on Wikipedia Zero specifically start at time code 40.45.)

---o0o---

Imagine if Encyclopaedia Britannica had a service like this 10 years ago.
Something like Wikipedia never could have come into existence, because
there would already be one incumbent player that's hugely dominant, that
has free access to all the customer base. And it doesn't matter if it's the
best service ... but it's free. And so people will use that. And Wikipedia
as a community project never would have taken off and come to the point
where they are right now.

---o0o---

Would you really argue with that?

Facebook Zero and Wikipedia Zero are transparently about getting to market
early, ahead of other corporate players, and establishing dominant
positions before others – including non-Western, home-grown solutions – can
get a foot in the door.

AccessNow[2] takes the same view:

---o0o---

Wikimedia is not alone in forging “zero-rating” deals with telcos. Facebook
has also struck deals to offer low-data versions of its services in both
developed and developing countries. But Wikimedia argues that unlike
Facebook Zero, its service is non-commercial, and therefore deserves a
special Wikipedia carve-out because no money is changing hands in exchange
for prioritization over other services. No money, no net neutrality
violation.

This reasoning fails to pass the smell test. The company’s own recently
updated terms of service recognize that payment and benefit need not be
monetary. In fact, Wikimedia is using its well-known trademarks as currency
in deals with telecom partners as it seeks to acquire more users via
Wikipedia Zero.

Current users understand that the revolutionary nature of the internet
rests in its breadth and diversity. The internet is more than Wikipedia,
Facebook, or Google. But for many, zero-rated programs would limit online
access to the “walled gardens” offered by the Web heavyweights. For
millions of users, Facebook and Wikipedia would be synonymous with
“internet.” In the end, Wikipedia Zero would not lead to more users of the
actual internet, but Wikipedia may see a nice pickup in traffic.

As the Wikimedia Foundation claims to know, the diversity and plurality of
knowledge the internet can deliver is, in essence, what makes net
neutrality so important; equal treatment of data results in equal access to
all. It’s hard to see how zero-rated services can comport with this
principle.

In addition, suggesting that free access to Wikipedia or Facebook is the
solution to limited internet access in the developing world is like putting
a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It leaves the underlying, complex causes of
the digital divide untreated. Moreover, offering services that don't count
against data caps, in developed and less-developed countries alike, tips
the balance in favour of zero-rated services, effectively salting the earth
of low-cost net neutral alternatives in the future. The long-term effect of
these services will be a decline in innovation and competition online —
with a particular bias against homegrown services in favor of companies
based thousands of miles away in Silicon Valley — and, ironically, a
reduction in access to information and knowledge.

---o0o---

"Fails to pass the smell test."

"Salting the earth."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which you used to work for before you
took your job at Wikimedia, makes the same point about the anti-competitive
nature of zero-rated services, specifically with reference to Wikipedia
Zero:[3]

---o0o---

It goes without saying that users will be much more inclined to access a
zero rated service than one for which they need to pay, and that this tilts
the playing field in favor of the zero rated content owner. On its face,
this isn't neutral at all. Yet some have argued that it is worth allowing
poor consumers to access at least part of the Internet, even if they are
shut out from accessing the rest of it because they can't afford to do so.

Howe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Pine W]

Dear Pierre-Selim,

I look forward to discussing this new metric at the Wikimedia Conference.

I might even take photographs of the deliberations and upload them to
Commons in order to improve my personal pixel metric.

Have you figured out a way to translate pixels into multiple languages?

I hope you will document the new pixel metric, and the methods for
measuring it, in the Learning Patterns Library.

Regards,
Pine
On Apr 1, 2015 12:59 PM, "Pierre-Selim"  wrote:

> Dear movement fellows,
>
> Impact is crucial for our movement, and although metrics will always be
> imperfect, we must strive to reinvent ourselves and always come up with new
> innovative ways of  measuring what we bring to the Wikimedia projects, to
> free knowledge, and to human society.
>
> Measuring impact regarding collections of media holds its own challenges
> and although we have been focusing on this for a while now, much work still
> lies ahead.
>
> We were inspired by the “bytes added” metric, one of the pinnacles of
> written content expansion measurement, which goes beyond mere edit count.
> The same reasoning holds true for media:a puny upload count cannot come
> close to the real awesomeness.
>
> This is why, as we appreciate that size matters, Wikimedia France quality
> commitee is proud to introduce its brand new set of metrics: the pixel
> count and the quality pixel count − since quality is of firstmost
> importance.
>
> You may query the Pixel count metric for your FDC reports as part of our
> wm-metrics webapp [1]
>
> Furthermore, an implementation of these new metrics will also ship with our
> new new (teasing!) product [2]
>
> As of April 1st 2015 Wikimedia France has supported the upload on Wikimedia
> Commons of:
>
>- 1 229 694 933 639 pixels [3]
>
>
>- among those pixels, 22 407 932 851 are quality pixels (18,223512%) [4]
>
>
> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
>
> Confident in the relevance of these new indicators, we would be delighted
> and honored to see the Pixel count integrated in the Global Metrics.
>
> As always we welcome feedback, hugs and pull requests.
>
> Sincerely,
> For the quality committee of Wikimedia France
> Caroline, Jean-Fred, Pierre-Selim and Petit Tigre
>
> [1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wm-metrics/fdc
> [2]
>
> https://github.com/Commonists/MediaCollectionDB/commit/4c2ab42f83e894c9dd317038ad025abdeb946f6e
> [3] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2882
> [4] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2886
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre-Selim
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[rupert THURNER]

Lol j aime pierre selim!!
On Apr 1, 2015 11:52 PM, "Katherine Casey" 
wrote:

> Everybody always tries to get rid of the content pixels because they beat
> up the other pixels, but I tell you what, if you don't give those content
> creator pixels what they want they're going to take their RGB and go home
> and THEN where will your silly little projects be without any content
> pixels, hmm?
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Aleksey Bilogur  >
> wrote:
>
> > I love today.
> > On Apr 1, 2015 5:28 PM, "quiddity"  wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > > >> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute
> > pixels,
> > > >> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> > > >
> > > > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > > > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > > > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background
> pixels
> > > > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> > > >
> > >
> > > I assume you mean "assigning *mass*" to the pixels. Weight is so
> > > Earth-centric!
> > >
> > > I would like to join the kawaii-pixel WikiProject. Please let me know
> > > when we start debating the relative merits of various color models,
> > > and naming conventions, and kawaii-challenged accessibility tools.
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -- quiddity
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Katherine Casey]

Everybody always tries to get rid of the content pixels because they beat
up the other pixels, but I tell you what, if you don't give those content
creator pixels what they want they're going to take their RGB and go home
and THEN where will your silly little projects be without any content
pixels, hmm?

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Aleksey Bilogur 
wrote:

> I love today.
> On Apr 1, 2015 5:28 PM, "quiddity"  wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> > wrote:
> > > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > >> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute
> pixels,
> > >> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> > >
> > > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> > > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> > >
> >
> > I assume you mean "assigning *mass*" to the pixels. Weight is so
> > Earth-centric!
> >
> > I would like to join the kawaii-pixel WikiProject. Please let me know
> > when we start debating the relative merits of various color models,
> > and naming conventions, and kawaii-challenged accessibility tools.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > -- quiddity
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Peter Southwood]

OK, you say 'There must be another way to work for the value of "free knowledge 
for the people"', so what is it?
Peter
(also in the global south)

-Original Message-
From: wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org 
[mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jens Best
Sent: 31 March 2015 09:27 AM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of 
Strategic Partnerships

Dear Gerard,

your arguments are just emotional rhetorics. Saying that "white, privileged and 
well educated" people aren't allowed to critize ways how first-world-led 
telecoms (like Orange, Telenor) are spreading a wrong, non-open "internet" in 
developing countries is just plain emotional rhetoric far away from any fact.

Wikipedia Zero is NOT bringing the free knowledge of the world to the people, 
it's bringing Wikipedia to the people, not more, not less. Also, zero-rating is 
helping to establish user habits which are used to have different prices for 
different kinds of data - That is the clearest violation of net neutrality and 
therefore of an open and free web.

Ignoring this is just helping the (first-world-led) Telecoms to establish NOT a 
free internet which also helped to create something like Wikipedia, but a 
walled garden system where you pay for different data of even (as it is the 
case e.g. in some parts of India) different websites. I think that it is 
ignorant to profit only short-term by bringing a Walled Wikipedia to the people 
and having Wikipedia in this exclusive deal in comparison to establish a 
sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is far more than
Wikipedia) to the people.

There must be another way to work for the value of "free knowledge for the 
people" but to destroy net neutrality and the experience of an open web in the 
very beginning at the same time. It is the duty of WMF to take care also of the 
framework which enabled Wikipedia in the start. Ignoring this and being proud 
of having a comfortable deal with some Telecoms is plain wrong and 
irresponsible - especially for a free and open digital development of the 
Global South.

best regards

Jens Best

2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would 
> not have otherwise. It is well established that having information 
> readily available is an important indicator for further development. 
> Not having Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
>
> Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if..
> My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to 
> share in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly 
> secondary. Sources may be important but they are secondary to having 
> the information available in the first place. As long as we have 
> sources in full blown Wikipedia, as long as it is WMF that provides 
> the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your point. Yes, ideally we want 
> people to ensure that people know about sources. When sources are just 
> statements of fact and they are in turn not accessible because of cost. What 
> is your point in practical terms?
>
> Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not 
> forget who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you 
> propose is taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 30 March 2015 at 20:37, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption 
> > case[1] has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
> >
> > Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia 
> > users
> who:
> >
> > - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users
> cannot
> > even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
> > - Cannot view alternative sources
> > - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
> >
> > At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for
> Wikipedia
> > that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local 
> > elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such
> monopolies
> > are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea 
> > of a free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* 
> > rather than
> > *freedom* of information.
> >
> > The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia 
> > attempts
> at
> > manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia 
> > contributor
> has
> > little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain 
> > undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far 
> > more unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia 
> > demonstrated all too clearly.
> >
> > Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for 
> > information
> in
> > developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirabl

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Aleksey Bilogur]

I love today.
On Apr 1, 2015 5:28 PM, "quiddity"  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Marc A. Pelletier 
> wrote:
> > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> >> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
> >> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> >
> > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> >
>
> I assume you mean "assigning *mass*" to the pixels. Weight is so
> Earth-centric!
>
> I would like to join the kawaii-pixel WikiProject. Please let me know
> when we start debating the relative merits of various color models,
> and naming conventions, and kawaii-challenged accessibility tools.
> Thanks!
>
> -- quiddity
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[quiddity]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Marc A. Pelletier  wrote:
> On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
>> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
>> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
>
> That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
>

I assume you mean "assigning *mass*" to the pixels. Weight is so Earth-centric!

I would like to join the kawaii-pixel WikiProject. Please let me know
when we start debating the relative merits of various color models,
and naming conventions, and kawaii-challenged accessibility tools.
Thanks!

-- quiddity

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] This Month in Education: March 2015

[The 'This Month In Education' Team]

Hello everyone,

Sorry for cross posting. I'm sending the new issue of This Month in
Education. This month witnessed holding a lot of WikiWomen related events
which has received a lot of media coverage. You will find some of the event
coverage here as well as the updates of successful programs around the
world that were able to continue and expand.

Enjoy reading,

Samir Elsharbaty, Communications Intern, Wikipedia Education Program


*This Month in Education*: March 2015[edit

]
*Updates, reports, news, and stories about how Wikipedia and Wikimedia
projects are used in education around the world.*

   - Uruguay: A new edition of Wikipedia Education Program kicks off in
   Uruguay
   

   - Czech Republic: Czech senior citizen program scales up
   

   - Egypt: Cairo University students wrap up their sixth term on Wikipedia
   

   - Israel: Education/Newsletter/March 2015/Educator conference
   successfully concludes teachers' online courses
   

   - Argentina: Wikimedia Argentina reinforces gender diversity on
   Wikipedia with several women targeted events
   

   - Mexico: Novel photo projects related to editathon at Tec de Monterrey
   

   - Media: Articles of interest in other publications: Events
   commemorating WikiWomen History Month, WikiMed and Black History editathons
   


*Headlines

· Highlights

· Single
page

· Newsroom
 · Archives
 ·
Unsubscribe
*
*--*

*The This Month In Education Team*
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Newsletter

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Chris Keating]

I give this project FF out of a possible FF.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Christophe Henner <
christophe.hen...@gmail.com> wrote:

> They are not free pixels.
>
> Only real free pixels deserve to be counted.
> Le 1 avr. 2015 23:00, "Andrea Zanni"  a écrit :
>
> > As always, every tool is developed thinking about Wikipedia and Commons,
> > never all the other sister projects!
> > What about those poor pixels?
> > Are they different from Commons pixels??!?!!1!
> >
> > Luckily, today the WMF said otherwise:
> > see the "Sister projects" news here
> >
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes
> >
> > Aubrey
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > 2015-04-01 22:09 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
> > >
> > > > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > > > > This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute
> > > pixels,
> > > > > encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> > > >
> > > > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > > > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > > > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background
> pixels
> > > > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> > > >
> > > > Also, some historic pixels may be worth several newer ones.  Pixel
> > > > valuation is an art as much as it is a science.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for your valuable input, we will think about it for next
> > > iterations.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -- Marc
> > > >
> > > > Ouais bon, poisson d'avril?  :-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > :-)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pierre-Selim
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost, 1 April 2015

[Tim Starling]

It's nice that someone in the movement still has a sense of humour.
Did you see the English Wikipedia's TFA box?



"Support running as a straight ornithology article, with no attempt to
be funny; Oppose any version played for laughs where the blurb is
intentionally misleading. This make-the-blurb-misleading "tradition"
is a legacy of Raul and should have been jettisoned a decade ago; it
makes a mockery of genuinely important topics, it's incomprehensible
to those in parts of the world which don't observe April Fools (that
the stream of complaints it generate every year are always scrubbed
from Talk:Main page and the complainants sneered at for not getting
the joke, doesn't mean they're not genuine complaints), and it means
anything that has genuine date significance for April 1 gets bumped to
make way for cack-handed jokes. Yes, DYK and OTD still do this
(although ITN doesn't), but "the standards of DYK" is not something
that TFA should set as its ambition. – iridescent 21:36, 15 February
2015 (UTC) "

-- Tim Starling

On 02/04/15 07:48, Andrea Zanni wrote:
> Well, I was really excited about the Sister project news... :-(
> 
> (but I think it's a pretty neat joke)
> 
> Aubrey
> 
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:
> 
>> (reminder: This is a prank, for "April Fools Day".  Please feel free to
>> ignore this issue entirely, or at any rate don't waste your time responding
>> to this or getting upset/excited by it.)
>>
>>A.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Wikipedia Signpost <
>> wikipediasignp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia
>> and
>>> its editor base
>>>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes
>>>
>>> Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
>>>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Special_report
>>>
>>> Featured content: Stop Press. *Marie Celeste* Mystery Solved. Crew Found
>>> Hiding In Wardrobe.
>>>
>>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Featured_content
>>>
>>>
>>> Single page view
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>>>
>>> PDF version
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
>>> --
>>> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
>> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
> 



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Christophe Henner]

They are not free pixels.

Only real free pixels deserve to be counted.
Le 1 avr. 2015 23:00, "Andrea Zanni"  a écrit :

> As always, every tool is developed thinking about Wikipedia and Commons,
> never all the other sister projects!
> What about those poor pixels?
> Are they different from Commons pixels??!?!!1!
>
> Luckily, today the WMF said otherwise:
> see the "Sister projects" news here
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes
>
> Aubrey
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Pierre-Selim 
> wrote:
>
> > 2015-04-01 22:09 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
> >
> > > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > > > This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute
> > pixels,
> > > > encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> > >
> > > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> > > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> > >
> > > Also, some historic pixels may be worth several newer ones.  Pixel
> > > valuation is an art as much as it is a science.
> > >
> >
> > Thank you for your valuable input, we will think about it for next
> > iterations.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > -- Marc
> > >
> > > Ouais bon, poisson d'avril?  :-)
> > >
> >
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pierre-Selim
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Andrea Zanni]

As always, every tool is developed thinking about Wikipedia and Commons,
never all the other sister projects!
What about those poor pixels?
Are they different from Commons pixels??!?!!1!

Luckily, today the WMF said otherwise:
see the "Sister projects" news here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes

Aubrey


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Pierre-Selim 
wrote:

> 2015-04-01 22:09 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :
>
> > On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > > This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute
> pixels,
> > > encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
> >
> > That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> > equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> > pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> > out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
> >
> > Also, some historic pixels may be worth several newer ones.  Pixel
> > valuation is an art as much as it is a science.
> >
>
> Thank you for your valuable input, we will think about it for next
> iterations.
>
>
> >
> > -- Marc
> >
> > Ouais bon, poisson d'avril?  :-)
> >
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Pierre-Selim
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost, 1 April 2015

[Andrea Zanni]

Well, I was really excited about the Sister project news... :-(

(but I think it's a pretty neat joke)

Aubrey

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Asaf Bartov  wrote:

> (reminder: This is a prank, for "April Fools Day".  Please feel free to
> ignore this issue entirely, or at any rate don't waste your time responding
> to this or getting upset/excited by it.)
>
>A.
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Wikipedia Signpost <
> wikipediasignp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia
> and
> > its editor base
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes
> >
> > Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Special_report
> >
> > Featured content: Stop Press. *Marie Celeste* Mystery Solved. Crew Found
> > Hiding In Wardrobe.
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Featured_content
> >
> >
> > Single page view
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
> >
> > PDF version
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01
> >
> >
> > http://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
> > --
> > Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
>
>
>
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation 
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
> sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
> https://donate.wikimedia.org
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-04-01 03:57 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> For me (and other students) "going online" wasn't cheap back in the 90s

Perhaps the date is the issue here, but is this some attempt at humour?
 "Wasn't cheap"?  Are you seriously comparing your student lifestyle
with the socioeconomic reality of the people that Wikipedia Zero is
aimed at?

"Back in the 90s" you could trivially get an internet connection for a
month for the price of a couple hours' work.  That you had at your
disposal a computer, food, shelter and clean water - let alone the means
to dedicate most of your time to study - puts you firmly in the
*opulent* category on a worldwide scale.

In most of the world, the price for the data for the opportunity to look
at an encyclopedia page is *genuinely* unafordable to the vast majority
of the population.  Being able to get access to information without
having to go without food may not be a consideration for *you*, but it
is a real concern for the vast majority of the population of the planet.

That you even dared make that comparison has completely drained any
credibility your hyperbole and zealousness might have had.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] CIS-A2K draft work plan for July 2015 to June 2016

[Vishnu]

Dear Wikimedians,

We are happy to share with you the draft work plans for the period July 
2015 to June 2016 [1]. We have more or less followed the same work plan 
templates from last year. Some of these plans have been done in 
consultation with the community members. We look forward to receiving 
your feedback and inputs on the talk pages. This time we have included 
an endorsement section at the end of every program plan for the 
community members to endorse, should they wish to do so.


Based on these plans we have also put up the next round of FDC proposal 
here[2].


We intend to revise these draft work plans based on your and FDC 
feedback in July, 2015, subject to grant support from FDC.


Best,
Vishnu

[1] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/India_Access_To_Knowledge/Work_plan_July_2015_-_June_2016
[2] 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2014-2015_round2/The_Centre_for_Internet_and_Society/Proposal_form


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Jens Best]

what Josh Lim wrote in the other threat:

Hi Jens,

In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?
Close down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the
dark?  We talk of a "more sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is
far more than Wikipedia)”, yet we’re not seeing anything coming out of this
discussion.

I will be brutally honest to everyone in this mailing list: this entire
discussion about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality has become very
patronizing against us in the developing world who benefit from the
program.  The fact that we’re having this discussion without developing
world voices (other than myself) is already troubling in itself since, so
far, every discussion about Wikipedia Zero that I’ve seen only includes
those "white, privileged and well-educated people” who you defend.

And yet you guys talk as if you know what’s best for the developing world.
That’s the tone that I’ve been sensing in this entire discussion thus far,
and I’m sorry, but it’s not helpful.  Please don’t speak as if you guys
know what it’s like on the ground in Asia or Africa.

I’ve had to swallow my own pride just to accept the fact that net
neutrality has to take the back burner to bringing more information out
there to people.  I have always believed in net neutrality as a means of
ensuring a free and open Internet to everybody.  But if you’re in a country
like the Philippines where the majority of people don’t even have the
luxury of going online (and if you do, it’s bloody expensive), then having
access to some information—even if that information is imperfect—is still
better than none at all, since at least we can still correct any
misinformation that may arise.  And as Wikipedians, we are in a position to
do just that through ensuring that our content is well-monitored, neutral
and comprehensive so that at least there’s a multitude of viewpoints
present even if the information is coming from a single source.

We should make people in the developing world aware of net neutrality, yes,
but we must also be careful to consider the existing socio-economic
conditions of the countries where this program has been deployed.  I am all
for the sharing of knowledge and the free exchange of information for the
greatest benefit, but we cannot have that discussion if people are not able
to have access to the Internet in the first place.  We cannot afford at
this point to put the cart before the horse, and as I’ve mentioned earlier,
in the absence of a meaningful alternative, this is the best we can do so
far.

Also, just so you know: Wikipedia Zero, at least in this country, is being
implemented by a local telecom with no discernible link to the big players
like Orange or T-Mobile or Telenor.  They view it so far as good CSR and
not as a means of controlling the flow of information or wanting to make a
profit.  So yeah, at least for us it’s been good so far.  If it happens
though that things turn sour, then expect us to fight for our principles.

Thanks,

Josh

---

my answer to Josh:

Hi Josh et al.,

as you seemed a bit upset, I want to take the chance to answer you to
better understand my position.

Taking your "brutal honesty" into account I will try to be the same. I
wasn't sure especially about that point in the discussion, because my
knowledge about the access situations around the world is only based on
several discussions I had with web people from developing countries around
the world in the recent years and by reading reports about it. Over the
last years on several occasions I spoke with many people from developing
countries who are actively promoting the internet and its enourmous
possibilities as the best tool mankind created for it so far.

So I always kept in mind that there are as many different approaches to the
open use of the web as there are people around the world. I'm also worried
when I see that in some countries new "web" users know nothing about the
internet because for them data stuff is facebook stuff. Also I'm worried
that the economic situation in several regions are producing situations
which aren't helpful to keep the web what it's supposed to be, e.g. when in
India people buy cheap access to Facebook, but "the whole internet" costs
much more. Because as all this is data, this separation is artifical and
access providers as well as dominant market content players are using their
power to promote price models based on content and data types instead of
the use of the whole internet.

For me (and other students) "going online" wasn't cheap back in the 90s and
I am not sure how the use of the web would have developed if back then
there would have been an offer onyl getting some websites for a cheaper
price. In fact there were these offers - called "walled gardens" where you
got a selection of information and data types by pre-selected partners of
the access provider. Similiar story was the rise of AOL and their walled
garden system. People who went on

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Pierre-Selim]

2015-04-01 22:09 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier :

> On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> > This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
> > encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.
>
> That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
> equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
> pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
> out of the FOV aren't worth as much!
>
> Also, some historic pixels may be worth several newer ones.  Pixel
> valuation is an art as much as it is a science.
>

Thank you for your valuable input, we will think about it for next
iterations.


>
> -- Marc
>
> Ouais bon, poisson d'avril?  :-)
>

:-)



>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Jens Best]

Dear Nathan et al.

I answered Josh in the other threat but will copy my answer to him again
here below so that anybody interested to continue can do this in the
"right" threat.

Nathan, I am disgusted by your comparisons. "colonialist aspect"? "little
reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the
supposedly uncivilized." These allegations - presented as comparisons - are
purely insulting.

Oh, and actually it was Lila who introduced WP0 to this threat - otherwise
I wouldn't have taken the chance to hint Kourosh to this field which was
announced to be in his future field of responsibility.

I will not continue discussing with people making insulting comparisons to
violent christian missionaries or similarily offending rhetoric stuff which
in no way helps the discussion.

I - as everybody else in this discussion - are not to be judged by my race.
Believing just because I am white I could only think and behave in
colonistic pattern is an insult and not a contribution to the discussion.

cheers

Jens


2015-04-01 21:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan :

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc  wrote:
>
> > To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
> > presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
> > good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might
> be
> > different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
> > constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly
> normal
> > that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be
> different
> > than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the
> constraints
> > change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
> > whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if
> users
> > in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think
> to
> > be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own
> accord.
>
>
> I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens,
> the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any
> deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some
> who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel
> shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this
> religious view of net neutrality.
>
> Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist
> aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of
> European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly
> uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better
> what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero
> is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is),
> then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.
>
> And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you
> misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to
> Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was
> off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally,
> I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Jens Best]

Hi Josh et al.,

as you seemed a bit upset, I want to take the chance to answer you to
better understand my position.

Taking your "brutal honesty" into account I will try to be the same. I
wasn't sure especially about that point in the discussion, because my
knowledge about the access situations around the world is only based on
several discussions I had with web people from developing countries around
the world in the recent years and by reading reports about it. Over the
last years on several occasions I spoke with many people from developing
countries who are actively promoting the internet and its enourmous
possibilities as the best tool mankind created for it so far.

So I always kept in mind that there are as many different approaches to the
open use of the web as there are people around the world. I'm also worried
when I see that in some countries new "web" users know nothing about the
internet because for them data stuff is facebook stuff. Also I'm worried
that the economic situation in several regions are producing situations
which aren't helpful to keep the web what it's supposed to be, e.g. when in
India people buy cheap access to Facebook, but "the whole internet" costs
much more. Because as all this is data, this separation is artifical and
access providers as well as dominant market content players are using their
power to promote price models based on content and data types instead of
the use of the whole internet.

For me (and other students) "going online" wasn't cheap back in the 90s and
I am not sure how the use of the web would have developed if back then
there would have been an offer onyl getting some websites for a cheaper
price. In fact there were these offers - called "walled gardens" where you
got a selection of information and data types by pre-selected partners of
the access provider. Similiar story was the rise of AOL and their walled
garden system. People who went online with AOL first showed clearly
different user habits because of this walled garden experience, they
haven't experienced the free web therefore "internet" for them was much
less then it actually offered. And still the digital media literacy e.g. of
many users in Germany sucks also because they didn't "learn" the internet
properly.

Back to today. You said you felt patronized by the discussion, that wasn't
my intention. But there are several NGOs from developing countries feeling
patronized by the telecoms which provided a pre-selected internet to the
people. One of them said at the IGF in Istanbul: "It's like they say: Here
have some Facebook and a dash of Wikipedia zero-rated, but the rest you
have to pay." - So, feeling patronized in a discussion isn't surely a good
feeling, but being patronized in the use of the internet in your country
has a much more bigger negative impact on society.

Just one thing: I didn't come up with this "white, privileged and well
educated"-stuff that was Gerard in my eyes trying to make a rhetoric trick.
But it's not working, because the world isn't that black/white and even if
there is one local telecom which isn't somehow connected to a big player.
The main partners of WP0 (Orange and Telenor) ARE global players and they
surely have a more "white and privileged" standpoints when it comes to
develop access provider business in developing countries. We all see and
experienced the hard bandages with which the "white and privileged"
telecoms fight in USA and Europe when it comes to ruin net neutrality. So
how comfortable for them to avoid this later fights by not offering "the
internet" as they did in US/Europe, but to train user habits by giving them
the "different data type, different price"-experience from the beginning.
And don't be fouled: The zero-rated experience is part of the "different
data type, different price"-experience - and WMF fell for the trap.

Why did WMF fall for the trap? Well, let's say, because of Assuming Good
Faith. Surely in the beginning, like on many other ideas, it all sounded to
good to be true: "free wikipedia for the people" - That's music in all our
ears. But really believing, that "spreading the knowledge" is a new mission
(or truely and eternal "CSR") of business telecoms - well, good luck with
that attitude around the world. Let's ask this gratious access providers
why not giving more free knowledge to the world - What about the 30,000
free videos of Harvard University or the 500 videos under Creative Commons
of a local professional school? Oh, well, that's a lot of data traffic not
to charging for…the telecom guy says… let's keep this zero-rating idea
stick to the text-based Wikipedia - without the chance to use the external
links to the internet for free. Let's give the people the little *Walled
Wikipedia Knowledge cake* and not the whole for free - well, that's
patronizing in my eyes.

It is a clear strategy by telecoms around the world to weaken net
neutrality in many ways. Getting people used to pay different prices for
different data is one

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-04-01 03:58 PM, Pierre-Selim wrote:
> This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
> encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.

That metric is all wrong, because it presumes that all pixels are
equally valuable.  Surely, you should be also assigning weights to
pixels depending on how much information they carry - background pixels
out of the FOV aren't worth as much!

Also, some historic pixels may be worth several newer ones.  Pixel
valuation is an art as much as it is a science.


-- Marc

Ouais bon, poisson d'avril?  :-)



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Not all pixels are created equals: introducing brand new Wikimedia France's metrics

[Pierre-Selim]

Dear movement fellows,

Impact is crucial for our movement, and although metrics will always be
imperfect, we must strive to reinvent ourselves and always come up with new
innovative ways of  measuring what we bring to the Wikimedia projects, to
free knowledge, and to human society.

Measuring impact regarding collections of media holds its own challenges
and although we have been focusing on this for a while now, much work still
lies ahead.

We were inspired by the “bytes added” metric, one of the pinnacles of
written content expansion measurement, which goes beyond mere edit count.
The same reasoning holds true for media:a puny upload count cannot come
close to the real awesomeness.

This is why, as we appreciate that size matters, Wikimedia France quality
commitee is proud to introduce its brand new set of metrics: the pixel
count and the quality pixel count − since quality is of firstmost
importance.

You may query the Pixel count metric for your FDC reports as part of our
wm-metrics webapp [1]

Furthermore, an implementation of these new metrics will also ship with our
new new (teasing!) product [2]

As of April 1st 2015 Wikimedia France has supported the upload on Wikimedia
Commons of:

   - 1 229 694 933 639 pixels [3]


   - among those pixels, 22 407 932 851 are quality pixels (18,223512%) [4]


This is only the beginning: next step is the measurement of cute pixels,
encyclopedic pixels and amazing pixels.

Confident in the relevance of these new indicators, we would be delighted
and honored to see the Pixel count integrated in the Global Metrics.

As always we welcome feedback, hugs and pull requests.

Sincerely,
For the quality committee of Wikimedia France
Caroline, Jean-Fred, Pierre-Selim and Petit Tigre

[1] https://tools.wmflabs.org/wm-metrics/fdc
[2]
https://github.com/Commonists/MediaCollectionDB/commit/4c2ab42f83e894c9dd317038ad025abdeb946f6e
[3] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2882
[4] http://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/2886



-- 
Pierre-Selim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Nathan]

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc  wrote:

> To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
> presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
> good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might be
> different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
> constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly normal
> that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be different
> than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the constraints
> change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
> whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if users
> in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think to
> be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own accord.


I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens,
the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any
deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some
who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel
shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this
religious view of net neutrality.

Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist
aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of
European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly
uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better
what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero
is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is),
then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you
misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to
Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was
off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally,
I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Signpost, 1 April 2015

[Asaf Bartov]

(reminder: This is a prank, for "April Fools Day".  Please feel free to
ignore this issue entirely, or at any rate don't waste your time responding
to this or getting upset/excited by it.)

   A.

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Wikipedia Signpost <
wikipediasignp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Wikipedia and
> its editor base
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/News_and_notes
>
> Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Special_report
>
> Featured content: Stop Press. *Marie Celeste* Mystery Solved. Crew Found
> Hiding In Wardrobe.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01/Featured_content
>
>
> Single page view
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single
>
> PDF version
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-01
>
>
> http://www.facebook.com/wikisignpost / https://twitter.com/wikisignpost
> --
> Wikipedia Signpost Staff
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation 

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Gilles Dubuc]

To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might be
different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly normal
that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be different
than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the constraints
change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if users
in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think to
be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own accord.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Hi Nathan and everybody,
>
> Last time I checked my mail (containing my repsonse to Gerard) wasn't
> published and as I sent it yesterday morning I'm suprised that it took that
> long to "arrive".
>
> Also, I would like you to stop your wrong assumptions about "off-topic" -
> As Gerard made a statement to Wikipedia Zero my answer to him isn't "surely
> off topic". I didn't decide to discuss the pros/cons of WP0 in the
> Welcome-Mail to Kourosh.
> In my welcoming response I just pointed out to Kourosh that one of his new
> responsibilities (highlighted by Lila) is a big problem for the global
> community which cares about an open and free web, inculding several NGOs of
> the Global South who spoke out clearly against Wikipedia Zero e.g. at the
> Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul (where net neutrality was
> a main subject of discussion). As this subject was subsequentially
> discussed in the threat my answer to Gerard's input was not off-topic at
> all.
>
> Right now I don't feel any open-mindedness towards even the possibilitiy
> that The Great WMF could have made a mistake by going to bed with the
> telecoms to get zero-rated. As long as there isn't even the slightest
> willingness to acknowledge the possibility that WP0 was a mistake it
> becomes more and more senseless to talk with official and inofficial
> representatives of the WMF-system.
>
> Maybe WMF and with it Wikipedia has to learn the consequences of its
> mistakes the hard way. But the ignorance towards facts which was presented
> over the last months when it comes to the glorious Wikipedia Zero and the
> fact that it is a violation of core principle of the free and open web is
> enourmous and without any excuse for an organisation carrying that amount
> of responsibility when it comes to stand for an open web which made
> Wikipedia possible in the first.
>
> Hopefully with Kourosh the organisation will get somebody who has the
> outside-world experience and the professional courage to stop mistakes like
> Wikipedia Zero. We'll see. Apart from that I rest my case, all the
> recurring participants in the ongoing discussion exchanged their arguments
> already. I don't see new faces in the discussion and therefore I'm actually
> not interested to repeat my arguments over and over.
>
> Just, because I promised him, two main answer to James:
>
> - Of course net neutrality has a monetary aspect. Read the
> definition[1]: "…treat
> all data on the Internet  equally,
> not discriminating or *charging differentially* by content, site, platform,
> application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication". If you
> have to pay different prices for different data it is a basic violation of
> net neutrality. net neutrality isn't about techy aspects, it is about power
> and structural equality in the web.
>
> - Wikipedia Zero can't offer the promised grow because by definition it is
> a *Walled Wikipedia*. WP0 will always be just a marketing tool for telecoms
> to lure new customers in and train them that different data has different
> price tag. Their teachings are: "When you wanna leave Wikipedia, wanna
> follow the links to really enrich your knowledge by using all the other
> free content in the web - you have to pay." So therefore Wikipedia Zero is
> not about the free knowledge of the world, it is a Wikipedia which has
> chosen the wrong side of the play about a free and open web for the
> self-involved purpose of being the one and only source for knowledge.
> Welcome to world of first-world-owned telecoms teaching their new Global
> South-customers an "internet" far away from what the internet was supposed
> to be.
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jens
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>
> PS: @Marc No Marc, no "bits of my message were accidentally elided". When I
> write in a mailinglist I, of course, express my opinion and my points of
> view, but your nit-picking and pseudo-kind cynical remarks additionally
> prove how biased the whole discussion is at the moment in the WMF-universe.
> Critics are not welcome. Message recieved, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Jens Best]

Hi Nathan and everybody,

Last time I checked my mail (containing my repsonse to Gerard) wasn't
published and as I sent it yesterday morning I'm suprised that it took that
long to "arrive".

Also, I would like you to stop your wrong assumptions about "off-topic" -
As Gerard made a statement to Wikipedia Zero my answer to him isn't "surely
off topic". I didn't decide to discuss the pros/cons of WP0 in the
Welcome-Mail to Kourosh.
In my welcoming response I just pointed out to Kourosh that one of his new
responsibilities (highlighted by Lila) is a big problem for the global
community which cares about an open and free web, inculding several NGOs of
the Global South who spoke out clearly against Wikipedia Zero e.g. at the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul (where net neutrality was
a main subject of discussion). As this subject was subsequentially
discussed in the threat my answer to Gerard's input was not off-topic at
all.

Right now I don't feel any open-mindedness towards even the possibilitiy
that The Great WMF could have made a mistake by going to bed with the
telecoms to get zero-rated. As long as there isn't even the slightest
willingness to acknowledge the possibility that WP0 was a mistake it
becomes more and more senseless to talk with official and inofficial
representatives of the WMF-system.

Maybe WMF and with it Wikipedia has to learn the consequences of its
mistakes the hard way. But the ignorance towards facts which was presented
over the last months when it comes to the glorious Wikipedia Zero and the
fact that it is a violation of core principle of the free and open web is
enourmous and without any excuse for an organisation carrying that amount
of responsibility when it comes to stand for an open web which made
Wikipedia possible in the first.

Hopefully with Kourosh the organisation will get somebody who has the
outside-world experience and the professional courage to stop mistakes like
Wikipedia Zero. We'll see. Apart from that I rest my case, all the
recurring participants in the ongoing discussion exchanged their arguments
already. I don't see new faces in the discussion and therefore I'm actually
not interested to repeat my arguments over and over.

Just, because I promised him, two main answer to James:

- Of course net neutrality has a monetary aspect. Read the
definition[1]: "…treat
all data on the Internet  equally,
not discriminating or *charging differentially* by content, site, platform,
application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication". If you
have to pay different prices for different data it is a basic violation of
net neutrality. net neutrality isn't about techy aspects, it is about power
and structural equality in the web.

- Wikipedia Zero can't offer the promised grow because by definition it is
a *Walled Wikipedia*. WP0 will always be just a marketing tool for telecoms
to lure new customers in and train them that different data has different
price tag. Their teachings are: "When you wanna leave Wikipedia, wanna
follow the links to really enrich your knowledge by using all the other
free content in the web - you have to pay." So therefore Wikipedia Zero is
not about the free knowledge of the world, it is a Wikipedia which has
chosen the wrong side of the play about a free and open web for the
self-involved purpose of being the one and only source for knowledge.
Welcome to world of first-world-owned telecoms teaching their new Global
South-customers an "internet" far away from what the internet was supposed
to be.


cheers

Jens

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

PS: @Marc No Marc, no "bits of my message were accidentally elided". When I
write in a mailinglist I, of course, express my opinion and my points of
view, but your nit-picking and pseudo-kind cynical remarks additionally
prove how biased the whole discussion is at the moment in the WMF-universe.
Critics are not welcome. Message recieved, continue with your holy mission.
Hail Wikipedia, the mother of all knowledge available to the poor!

2015-04-01 19:20 GMT+02:00 Nathan :

> Jens - your reply to Gerard on the other thread (where it is surely off
> topic) was published a couple of hours ago.
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Jens Best  wrote:
>
> > Dear James,
> >
> > your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
> > but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
> > published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this "moderated".
> >
> > When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
> > mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is
> more
> > than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
> > it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
> > Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
> > the "we are the knowledge of the world"-fraction woul

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[rupert THURNER]

On Apr 1, 2015 6:03 PM, "Josh Lim"  wrote:
>
> Hi Jens,
>
> In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?
Close down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the
dark?  We talk of a "more sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is
far more than Wikipedia)”, yet we’re not seeing anything coming out of this
discussion.
>

Imo the most sustainable solution would be to strive for XXX MB
unrestricted free data for Wikipedia users. I am of course aware that this
poses additional administrative burden to telcos. And therefore is not so
easy to negotiate.

> I will be brutally honest to everyone in this mailing list: this entire
discussion about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality has become very
patronizing against us in the developing world who benefit from the
program.  The fact that we’re having this discussion without developing
world voices (other than myself) is already troubling in itself since, so
far, every discussion about Wikipedia Zero that I’ve seen only includes
those "white, privileged and well-educated people” who you defend.
>
> And yet you guys talk as if you know what’s best for the developing
world.  That’s the tone that I’ve been sensing in this entire discussion
thus far, and I’m sorry, but it’s not helpful.  Please don’t speak as if
you guys know what it’s like on the ground in Asia or Africa.
>
> I’ve had to swallow my own pride just to accept the fact that net
neutrality has to take the back burner to bringing more information out
there to people.  I have always believed in net neutrality as a means of
ensuring a free and open Internet to everybody.  But if you’re in a country
like the Philippines where the majority of people don’t even have the
luxury of going online (and if you do, it’s bloody expensive), then having
access to some information—even if that information is imperfect—is still
better than none at all, since at least we can still correct any
misinformation that may arise.  And as Wikipedians, we are in a position to
do just that through ensuring that our content is well-monitored, neutral
and comprehensive so that at least there’s a multitude of viewpoints
present even if the information is coming from a single source.
>
> We should make people in the developing world aware of net neutrality,
yes, but we must also be careful to consider the existing socio-economic
conditions of the countries where this program has been deployed.  I am all
for the sharing of knowledge and the free exchange of information for the
greatest benefit, but we cannot have that discussion if people are not able
to have access to the Internet in the first place.  We cannot afford at
this point to put the cart before the horse, and as I’ve mentioned earlier,
in the absence of a meaningful alternative, this is the best we can do so
far.
>
> Also, just so you know: Wikipedia Zero, at least in this country, is
being implemented by a local telecom with no discernible link to the big
players like Orange or T-Mobile or Telenor.  They view it so far as good
CSR and not as a means of controlling the flow of information or wanting to
make a profit.  So yeah, at least for us it’s been good so far.  If it
happens though that things turn sour, then expect us to fight for our
principles.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Josh
>
> > Wiadomość napisana przez Jens Best  w dniu 31 mar
2015, o godz. 15:27:
> >
> > Dear Gerard,
> >
> > your arguments are just emotional rhetorics. Saying that "white,
privileged
> > and well educated" people aren't allowed to critize ways how
> > first-world-led telecoms (like Orange, Telenor) are spreading a wrong,
> > non-open "internet" in developing countries is just plain emotional
> > rhetoric far away from any fact.
> >
> > Wikipedia Zero is NOT bringing the free knowledge of the world to the
> > people, it's bringing Wikipedia to the people, not more, not less. Also,
> > zero-rating is helping to establish user habits which are used to have
> > different prices for different kinds of data - That is the clearest
> > violation of net neutrality and therefore of an open and free web.
> >
> > Ignoring this is just helping the (first-world-led) Telecoms to
establish
> > NOT a free internet which also helped to create something like
Wikipedia,
> > but a walled garden system where you pay for different data of even (as
it
> > is the case e.g. in some parts of India) different websites. I think
that
> > it is ignorant to profit only short-term by bringing a Walled Wikipedia
to
> > the people and having Wikipedia in this exclusive deal in comparison to
> > establish a sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is far more
than
> > Wikipedia) to the people.
> >
> > There must be another way to work for the value of "free knowledge for
the
> > people" but to destroy net neutrality and the experience of an open web
in
> > the very beginning at the same time. It is the duty of WMF to take care
> > also of the framework which enabled Wikipedia in the start. Ignoring

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Marc A. Pelletier]

On 15-04-01 01:06 PM, Jens Best wrote:
> I will take the time to explain you why [I believe] net neutrality
> is more than you suggest and why [I think] we need to be a
> little bit less starry-eyed [than I believe we are] when
> it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice
> to Wikipedia.
> Also I will add some remarks about why [I think] a little bit
> more humbleness from [those I perceive to be] the "we are the
> knowledge of the world"-fraction would be appropiated in
> the whole discussion.

It would appear that bits of your message were accidentally elided when
it was sent.  I took the opportunity to restore the bits that were
clearly missing - no doubt you did not intend to express your opinion as
though it was fact nor apply it uniformly to everyone on the mailing list.

-- Marc


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Nathan]

Jens - your reply to Gerard on the other thread (where it is surely off
topic) was published a couple of hours ago.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Jens Best  wrote:

> Dear James,
>
> your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
> but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
> published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this "moderated".
>
> When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
> mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is more
> than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
> it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
> Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
> the "we are the knowledge of the world"-fraction would be appropiated in
> the whole discussion.
>
> best regards
>
> Jens
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[Jens Best]

Dear James,

your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this "moderated".

When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is more
than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
the "we are the knowledge of the world"-fraction would be appropiated in
the whole discussion.

best regards

Jens

2015-04-01 18:37 GMT+02:00 James Salsman :

> Jens,
>
> Why do you say net neutrality has anything to do with price? It's about
> best-effort delivery of packets without censorship or, for example,
> treating packets that say "do you want to join our radical fundamentalist
> agnostic cell," the same way as we treat packets that say, "do you want to
> subscribe to our newsletter."
>
> In 1973, the packet switching X.25 systems which resemble today's internet
> more closely than the IMP point-to-point testing at the time had no
> provisions for packet inspection or "quality of service" adjustments. But
> if you didn't subscribe to a database that you might want to access (which
> may or may not cost money) then you had no access because if there were no
> login credentials then you could tell everyone how to use the database when
> it could only handle on the order of dozens of users at a time. What you
> want in saying that you think zero rating violates net neutrality is the
> MIT open Multics movement, which exists on the internet today in the form
> of free and ad-supported hosting services like Wikia. Net neutrality is
> about no preferred qualities of packet delivery service, because those
> are best handled by adaptive rate coding at the application layer, which is
> what the WMF causes the implementation of when they contract with cell
> carriers to allow access to Wikipedia content for no charge. The fact that
> Wikipedia is civilization's best summary of accumulated knowledge so far is
> the reason why carriers are willing to provide the transmission power to
> their users at no charge in areas where they still ordinarily compete on a
> per-bit fee. That is an economic application design choice that has nothing
> to do with packet delivery choices.
>
> Similarly, in the 1860s the Hayes printing telegraph ticker tape had no
> restrictions on who could send a transmission or what it's content might
> be, and in cases of congestion, the operator noticing a collision first
> would back off, and the other would re-transmit in an egalitarian
> fashion, but the data you sent would obtain a response in proportion to the
> amount the recipient was being paid.
>
> Wikipedia Zero is a great program and I hope something like Wikiversity
> Zero assessments will be how hundreds of millions of people learn new facts
> pertinent to their lives and helpful to them in ten years. With adaptive
> instruction coupled to Wikipedia Accuracy Review, I believe that such a
> system will support the transition from creating new articles to
> maintaining existing content. I hope both the WMF and the WEF support this
> effort, because if the WEF was paying for it, it would likely not influence
> the safe harbor provisions protecting the WMF from legal liability due to
> inaccuracies. I am sad when dictatorships use Wikipedia Zero for propaganda
> purposes, but I am not sure how much of a problem that is relative to the
> advantages.
>
> Best regards,
> James Salsman
>
>
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

[James Salsman]

Jens,

Why do you say net neutrality has anything to do with price? It's about
best-effort delivery of packets without censorship or, for example,
treating packets that say "do you want to join our radical fundamentalist
agnostic cell," the same way as we treat packets that say, "do you want to
subscribe to our newsletter."

In 1973, the packet switching X.25 systems which resemble today's internet
more closely than the IMP point-to-point testing at the time had no
provisions for packet inspection or "quality of service" adjustments. But
if you didn't subscribe to a database that you might want to access (which
may or may not cost money) then you had no access because if there were no
login credentials then you could tell everyone how to use the database when
it could only handle on the order of dozens of users at a time. What you
want in saying that you think zero rating violates net neutrality is the
MIT open Multics movement, which exists on the internet today in the form
of free and ad-supported hosting services like Wikia. Net neutrality is
about no preferred qualities of packet delivery service, because those
are best handled by adaptive rate coding at the application layer, which is
what the WMF causes the implementation of when they contract with cell
carriers to allow access to Wikipedia content for no charge. The fact that
Wikipedia is civilization's best summary of accumulated knowledge so far is
the reason why carriers are willing to provide the transmission power to
their users at no charge in areas where they still ordinarily compete on a
per-bit fee. That is an economic application design choice that has nothing
to do with packet delivery choices.

Similarly, in the 1860s the Hayes printing telegraph ticker tape had no
restrictions on who could send a transmission or what it's content might
be, and in cases of congestion, the operator noticing a collision first
would back off, and the other would re-transmit in an egalitarian
fashion, but the data you sent would obtain a response in proportion to the
amount the recipient was being paid.

Wikipedia Zero is a great program and I hope something like Wikiversity
Zero assessments will be how hundreds of millions of people learn new facts
pertinent to their lives and helpful to them in ten years. With adaptive
instruction coupled to Wikipedia Accuracy Review, I believe that such a
system will support the transition from creating new articles to
maintaining existing content. I hope both the WMF and the WEF support this
effort, because if the WEF was paying for it, it would likely not influence
the safe harbor provisions protecting the WMF from legal liability due to
inaccuracies. I am sad when dictatorships use Wikipedia Zero for propaganda
purposes, but I am not sure how much of a problem that is relative to the
advantages.

Best regards,
James Salsman
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Josh Lim]

Hi Jens,

In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?  Close 
down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the dark?  We talk 
of a "more sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is far more than 
Wikipedia)”, yet we’re not seeing anything coming out of this discussion.

I will be brutally honest to everyone in this mailing list: this entire 
discussion about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality has become very patronizing 
against us in the developing world who benefit from the program.  The fact that 
we’re having this discussion without developing world voices (other than 
myself) is already troubling in itself since, so far, every discussion about 
Wikipedia Zero that I’ve seen only includes those "white, privileged and 
well-educated people” who you defend.

And yet you guys talk as if you know what’s best for the developing world.  
That’s the tone that I’ve been sensing in this entire discussion thus far, and 
I’m sorry, but it’s not helpful.  Please don’t speak as if you guys know what 
it’s like on the ground in Asia or Africa.

I’ve had to swallow my own pride just to accept the fact that net neutrality 
has to take the back burner to bringing more information out there to people.  
I have always believed in net neutrality as a means of ensuring a free and open 
Internet to everybody.  But if you’re in a country like the Philippines where 
the majority of people don’t even have the luxury of going online (and if you 
do, it’s bloody expensive), then having access to some information—even if that 
information is imperfect—is still better than none at all, since at least we 
can still correct any misinformation that may arise.  And as Wikipedians, we 
are in a position to do just that through ensuring that our content is 
well-monitored, neutral and comprehensive so that at least there’s a multitude 
of viewpoints present even if the information is coming from a single source.

We should make people in the developing world aware of net neutrality, yes, but 
we must also be careful to consider the existing socio-economic conditions of 
the countries where this program has been deployed.  I am all for the sharing 
of knowledge and the free exchange of information for the greatest benefit, but 
we cannot have that discussion if people are not able to have access to the 
Internet in the first place.  We cannot afford at this point to put the cart 
before the horse, and as I’ve mentioned earlier, in the absence of a meaningful 
alternative, this is the best we can do so far.

Also, just so you know: Wikipedia Zero, at least in this country, is being 
implemented by a local telecom with no discernible link to the big players like 
Orange or T-Mobile or Telenor.  They view it so far as good CSR and not as a 
means of controlling the flow of information or wanting to make a profit.  So 
yeah, at least for us it’s been good so far.  If it happens though that things 
turn sour, then expect us to fight for our principles.

Thanks,

Josh

> Wiadomość napisana przez Jens Best  w dniu 31 mar 2015, 
> o godz. 15:27:
> 
> Dear Gerard,
> 
> your arguments are just emotional rhetorics. Saying that "white, privileged
> and well educated" people aren't allowed to critize ways how
> first-world-led telecoms (like Orange, Telenor) are spreading a wrong,
> non-open "internet" in developing countries is just plain emotional
> rhetoric far away from any fact.
> 
> Wikipedia Zero is NOT bringing the free knowledge of the world to the
> people, it's bringing Wikipedia to the people, not more, not less. Also,
> zero-rating is helping to establish user habits which are used to have
> different prices for different kinds of data - That is the clearest
> violation of net neutrality and therefore of an open and free web.
> 
> Ignoring this is just helping the (first-world-led) Telecoms to establish
> NOT a free internet which also helped to create something like Wikipedia,
> but a walled garden system where you pay for different data of even (as it
> is the case e.g. in some parts of India) different websites. I think that
> it is ignorant to profit only short-term by bringing a Walled Wikipedia to
> the people and having Wikipedia in this exclusive deal in comparison to
> establish a sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is far more than
> Wikipedia) to the people.
> 
> There must be another way to work for the value of "free knowledge for the
> people" but to destroy net neutrality and the experience of an open web in
> the very beginning at the same time. It is the duty of WMF to take care
> also of the framework which enabled Wikipedia in the start. Ignoring this
> and being proud of having a comfortable deal with some Telecoms is plain
> wrong and irresponsible - especially for a free and open digital
> development of the Global South.
> 
> best regards
> 
> Jens Best
> 
> 2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> 
>> Hoi,
>> With Wikipedia Zero people have access to 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Jens Best]

Dear Gerard,

your arguments are just emotional rhetorics. Saying that "white, privileged
and well educated" people aren't allowed to critize ways how
first-world-led telecoms (like Orange, Telenor) are spreading a wrong,
non-open "internet" in developing countries is just plain emotional
rhetoric far away from any fact.

Wikipedia Zero is NOT bringing the free knowledge of the world to the
people, it's bringing Wikipedia to the people, not more, not less. Also,
zero-rating is helping to establish user habits which are used to have
different prices for different kinds of data - That is the clearest
violation of net neutrality and therefore of an open and free web.

Ignoring this is just helping the (first-world-led) Telecoms to establish
NOT a free internet which also helped to create something like Wikipedia,
but a walled garden system where you pay for different data of even (as it
is the case e.g. in some parts of India) different websites. I think that
it is ignorant to profit only short-term by bringing a Walled Wikipedia to
the people and having Wikipedia in this exclusive deal in comparison to
establish a sustainable way to bring free knowledge (which is far more than
Wikipedia) to the people.

There must be another way to work for the value of "free knowledge for the
people" but to destroy net neutrality and the experience of an open web in
the very beginning at the same time. It is the duty of WMF to take care
also of the framework which enabled Wikipedia in the start. Ignoring this
and being proud of having a comfortable deal with some Telecoms is plain
wrong and irresponsible - especially for a free and open digital
development of the Global South.

best regards

Jens Best

2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
> have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
> available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
> Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
>
> Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if..
> My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share
> in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources
> may be important but they are secondary to having the information available
> in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as
> long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your
> point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
> sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not
> accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?
>
> Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget
> who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
> taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 30 March 2015 at 20:37, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
> > has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
> >
> > Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users
> who:
> >
> > - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users
> cannot
> > even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
> > - Cannot view alternative sources
> > - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
> >
> > At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for
> Wikipedia
> > that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
> > elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such
> monopolies
> > are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
> > free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
> > *freedom* of information.
> >
> > The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts
> at
> > manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor
> has
> > little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
> > undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
> > unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
> > too clearly.
> >
> > Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information
> in
> > developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which
> it
> > is not).
> >
> > To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
> > Kazakhstan.
> >
> > Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government "does
> > not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia".[2]
> >
> > The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]
> >
> > The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that
> the
> > Kazakh Wikipedia project "is implemented under the auspices of the
> > Government of Kazakhstan and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Aleksey Bilogur]

Er, Mike, this is a minor point but your signature seems to indicate that
you were general counsel for over a millennium---very impressive!

Personally I think that Zero should be evaluated from an impact
perspective. While it's indisputable that it's strategically aligned with
the WMF mission, if the message isn't reaching the audience is strategic
alignment a good enough argument to keep chugging? The Foundation has taken
a lot of flak for taking stances like that---totally strategically aligned,
sure, but nil for impact. Seems to me that in its current form it's just
going to drag along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it
needs to be would down.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> GerardM writes:
>
> > With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
> > have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
> > available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
> > Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
> >
> > [...]
> > My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to
> share
> > in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary.
> Sources
> > may be important but they are secondary to having the information
> available
> > in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia,
> as
> > long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is
> your
> > point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
> > sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn
> not
> > accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?
> >
> > Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not
> forget
> > who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
> > taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
>
> I agree with everything Gerard says here. My mission as a Wikimedian,
> both during my tenure as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and
> in my time as a volunteer Wikimedian, has been to get the world's
> knowledge into everybody's hands for free. Wikipedia Zero is so
> consistent with this primary goal that I value it even more highly
> than network neutrality (which I also favor, as a general rule, in
> countries with developed and humanely priced internet services).
>
> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its
> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American
> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical
> conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero)
> harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make
> case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each
> zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero
> is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or
> suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the
> Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that
> support this argument, at least not yet.
>
> I've spent the last two years working on internet-policy issues in
> developing countries, from Myanmar to Cambodia to South Sudan, and my
> personal experience has been that Wikipedia Zero is a profoundly
> important developmental resource in developing countries, where the
> key barrier to Wikipedia access (as a user or contributor) is the data
> caps on the mobile devices that the vast majority of users need to get
> access to the internet. Wikipedia Zero gets us past that barrier in
> these countries. Yes, in an ideal world, perhaps, there might be an
> argument against privileging Wikipedia Zero in this way -- but in an
> ideal world everybody would have free access to Wikipedia already.
>
> To get to an ideal world, we'll need everyone to have access to
> Wikipedia (and to Wikimedia resources generally) -- not just those of
> us in developed countries, but to everyone everywhere. Wikipedia Zero
> is a strategic approach to expanding access for everybody in every
> country. As we do this, we'll be creating incentives for developing
> countries' telcos and internet providers to expand their access and
> facilities in ways that will enable more and more citizens to fully
> participate as users and contributors to Wikipedia. Any other approach
> reminds me of the beginning chess player who looks at a board prior to
> the first move and says "how do I get to checkmate from here?" The
> experienced chess player knows you have to make a number of strategic
> decisions and deployments in advance in order to make eventual victory
> possible.  Wikipedia Zero is one strategy that gets us to the end
> result we all want to see.
>
> Best regards,
>
>
> --Mike Godwin
> WMF General Counsel 1007-2010
> Director of Innovation Policy and General Counsel, The R Street Institute
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Mike Godwin]

If only my emails were wiki-editable.  Thanks for the correction
regarding my affiliation.

"Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag
along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be
would down."

The only two possible choices, eh?


--Mike




On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aleksey Bilogur
 wrote:
> Er, Mike, this is a minor point but your signature seems to indicate that
> you were general counsel for over a millennium---very impressive!
>
> Personally I think that Zero should be evaluated from an impact perspective.
> While it's indisputable that it's strategically aligned with the WMF
> mission, if the message isn't reaching the audience is strategic alignment a
> good enough argument to keep chugging? The Foundation has taken a lot of
> flak for taking stances like that---totally strategically aligned, sure, but
> nil for impact. Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag
> along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be would
> down.
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:
>>
>> GerardM writes:
>>
>> > With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
>> > have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
>> > available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
>> > Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
>> >
>> > [...]
>> > My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to
>> > share
>> > in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary.
>> > Sources
>> > may be important but they are secondary to having the information
>> > available
>> > in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia,
>> > as
>> > long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is
>> > your
>> > point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
>> > sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn
>> > not
>> > accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?
>> >
>> > Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not
>> > forget
>> > who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
>> > taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
>>
>> I agree with everything Gerard says here. My mission as a Wikimedian,
>> both during my tenure as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and
>> in my time as a volunteer Wikimedian, has been to get the world's
>> knowledge into everybody's hands for free. Wikipedia Zero is so
>> consistent with this primary goal that I value it even more highly
>> than network neutrality (which I also favor, as a general rule, in
>> countries with developed and humanely priced internet services).
>>
>> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its
>> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American
>> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical
>> conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero)
>> harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make
>> case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each
>> zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero
>> is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or
>> suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the
>> Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that
>> support this argument, at least not yet.
>>
>> I've spent the last two years working on internet-policy issues in
>> developing countries, from Myanmar to Cambodia to South Sudan, and my
>> personal experience has been that Wikipedia Zero is a profoundly
>> important developmental resource in developing countries, where the
>> key barrier to Wikipedia access (as a user or contributor) is the data
>> caps on the mobile devices that the vast majority of users need to get
>> access to the internet. Wikipedia Zero gets us past that barrier in
>> these countries. Yes, in an ideal world, perhaps, there might be an
>> argument against privileging Wikipedia Zero in this way -- but in an
>> ideal world everybody would have free access to Wikipedia already.
>>
>> To get to an ideal world, we'll need everyone to have access to
>> Wikipedia (and to Wikimedia resources generally) -- not just those of
>> us in developed countries, but to everyone everywhere. Wikipedia Zero
>> is a strategic approach to expanding access for everybody in every
>> country. As we do this, we'll be creating incentives for developing
>> countries' telcos and internet providers to expand their access and
>> facilities in ways that will enable more and more citizens to fully
>> participate as users and contributors to Wikipedia. Any other approach
>> reminds me of the beginning chess player who looks at a board prior to
>> the first move and says "how do I get to checkmate from here?" The

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Mike Godwin]

GerardM writes:

> With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
> have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
> available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
> Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
>
> [...]
> My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share
> in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources
> may be important but they are secondary to having the information available
> in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as
> long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your
> point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
> sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not
> accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?
>
> Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget
> who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
> taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.

I agree with everything Gerard says here. My mission as a Wikimedian,
both during my tenure as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and
in my time as a volunteer Wikimedian, has been to get the world's
knowledge into everybody's hands for free. Wikipedia Zero is so
consistent with this primary goal that I value it even more highly
than network neutrality (which I also favor, as a general rule, in
countries with developed and humanely priced internet services).

It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its
recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American
telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical
conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero)
harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make
case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each
zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero
is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or
suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the
Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that
support this argument, at least not yet.

I've spent the last two years working on internet-policy issues in
developing countries, from Myanmar to Cambodia to South Sudan, and my
personal experience has been that Wikipedia Zero is a profoundly
important developmental resource in developing countries, where the
key barrier to Wikipedia access (as a user or contributor) is the data
caps on the mobile devices that the vast majority of users need to get
access to the internet. Wikipedia Zero gets us past that barrier in
these countries. Yes, in an ideal world, perhaps, there might be an
argument against privileging Wikipedia Zero in this way -- but in an
ideal world everybody would have free access to Wikipedia already.

To get to an ideal world, we'll need everyone to have access to
Wikipedia (and to Wikimedia resources generally) -- not just those of
us in developed countries, but to everyone everywhere. Wikipedia Zero
is a strategic approach to expanding access for everybody in every
country. As we do this, we'll be creating incentives for developing
countries' telcos and internet providers to expand their access and
facilities in ways that will enable more and more citizens to fully
participate as users and contributors to Wikipedia. Any other approach
reminds me of the beginning chess player who looks at a board prior to
the first move and says "how do I get to checkmate from here?" The
experienced chess player knows you have to make a number of strategic
decisions and deployments in advance in order to make eventual victory
possible.  Wikipedia Zero is one strategy that gets us to the end
result we all want to see.

Best regards,


--Mike Godwin
WMF General Counsel 1007-2010
Director of Innovation Policy and General Counsel, The R Street Institute

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,