* Kim Bruning wrote:
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also
articles praising us? :-)
https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868
Quoting,
Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Wikipedia become “the Internet” for
the users of mobile data supported by
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also
articles praising us? :-)
https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868
I do think that wikipedia zero is useful in the short term. I'm
a bit worried about the long term though.
Question: How do you predict
Hi Eric,
your last line expresses a direction which would enhance the spirit of the
movement in an appropiate way. Let me repeat it: Imagine a world where you
can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect
to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge.
Jens writes:
(I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery,
Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly absolutist. This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't
fit you.)
I suppose at this point I could declare that its rhetorical
trickery,
On 14-12-09 08:45 AM, Jens Best wrote:
when calling the usual and established understanding of net
neutrality repeatedly absolutist.
Except that it is. At its heart, net neutrality demands that there be
no QoS or pricing difference to 'net access depending on the endpoint.
That is,
On 9 December 2014 at 20:35, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many first-worlders
because we equate that as everything is equally inexpensive to level the
playing field.
Except that for the vast majority of the world's
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
Wikipedia,
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I
Mike Godwin wrote:
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for
him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to
Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that
Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR.
And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements
hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
If you have an alternative funding plan for
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as
the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used
by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding
net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet
descending to a TV
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...
Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an
argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards
of
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:
Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public
Free Knowledge.
Hey Jens,
I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally
thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part
Hoi,
When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in
the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly
important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.
There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero.
It effectively saves
Hi mike,
That pipes are dumb is fundamental for having cheap Internet access. Most
contracts for Wikipedia zero are done with telcos which either want to
catch up in getting more reach in the population, or those which have a
higher price for data. Not allowing them to use wikipedia to influence
A developing country perspective is missing in this conversation, so I’m going
to fill in the gap since I find it odd that we’re talking about developing”
countries, when everyone who’s been participating in this discussion so far has
been from developed countries.
Wiadomość napisana przez
On Dec 1, 2014 8:26 AM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which
belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free
On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
sincerely,
Kim
This is obviously not the first time this comes up, and
On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote:
Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
don't use a big CDN.
Why don't we? Is it one of the expensive for us, cheap for users things?
That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements
for freshness of content
Hoi,
We do have the experience needed. We have servers in Amsterdam and, it is
something we can repeat.
When the desires of our ops team negatively affect the performance of our
users, they have to reconsider what they are thinking. Imho that is not an
acceptable argument.
Thanks,
GerardM
This comparison is quite useful and got rather popular: «For all the
arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of
thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet
more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?».
Tim Landscheidt writes:
I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely
why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours
solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting
or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
I'm not following your reasoning
On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Net neutrality as currently defined is an alluring concept because -
as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as make everything
uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content
providers.
I'm finding this highly principled conversation fascinating to read - I'm
genuinely learning a lot about the different arguments (both philosophical
and practical) used to support or critique Wikipedia Zero. What a diverse
and highly informed group of people this list contains! :-)
From my
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote:
From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had
'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with
appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.:
Net
Hi folks,
Hope those of you in the US have had a lovely holiday weekend. I'm getting
caught up and it’s been interesting to read the discussion this article has
prompted -- as this thread has made clear, there’s a lot to discuss, and
people have passionate feelings about the issue. I'm learning
Hi all,
As Gayle mentioned in her email, the article in the Washington Post did not
represent an official position on net neutrality from the Wikimedia
Foundation, or how we understand Wikipedia Zero. I wanted to provide some
background that does.
Wikipedia Zero is designed to empower people who
Kim Bruning kim@... writes:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
amazing program (and is one of the only
On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote:
Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the
concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the
mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed.
There's no extra charge to access other sources of
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote:
Kim Bruning kim@... writes:
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking.
Ryan Lane wrote:
Kim Bruning kim@... writes (roughly):
Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things
the foundation has done). [...]
I think
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.
That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of net
neutrality (and, by extension, the definition of what
On 30 November 2014 at 17:14, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
So it's clearly neutral in the equally available sense of the term.
And it remains neutral in the competition sense of the term since they
are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours.
This is
2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in
its definition becomes overly simplistic and unrealistic and inadequate
the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that
quite an coincidence? ;)
Principles
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality).
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
favoring -any- service over any
Mark delirium@... writes:
I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about
economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways:
1. have a standard rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored
uses; or 2. have a standard rate and give a discount to
MZMcBride z at mzmcbride.com writes:
Ryan Lane wrote:
Kim Bruning kim at ... writes (roughly):
Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj
The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an
amazing program (and is one of the only excellent
On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality).
Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote:
On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote:
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as
a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data
(which is a clear violation of net neutrality).
I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality.
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.
Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually
On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote:
There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the
entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong
to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.
If an ISP wanted to make *all*
Washington post article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
sincerely,
Kim
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
43 matches
Mail list logo
