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

[Lilburne]

Boi,

All comparisons of WP with other sources were cherry picked. They picked 
articles where
the science was well established, or they picked articles which were 
being edit warred to
exhaustion if you know of comparisons where that isn't the case then 
cough them up.


Wikipedia happens to figure high in Google search rankings. That is the 
only reliable relevance that
it has to any subject. Often its high ranking is to the detriment of far 
more reliable sites. Richard II
king of England in 1345 - three years that resided in a feature article. 
Thomas Rainsborough the
noted Ranter a year. Jagged85 years and years falsifying articles in 
History, Medicine,
Mathematics, and Literature, and allowed to carry on doing so for 
several years after discovery.

Much of his nonsense remains.

Ignoring the millions of "X is a footballer in the 6th division of the Y 
league", "X is a moth in the
Y family", "X is a village of 50 people in the region of Y" type 
articles. Most of the rest are like
John Dee. An unreadable hodge-podge of 'maybe facts' culled from ancient 
sources, and mangled
into nonsense to avoid charges of plagiarism. Article that give as much 
weight to gossip and
sensation as they do to achievements. Lets try "Alfred Gilbert" where 
the pursuit of gossip has

lost the actual story of his life.


On 05/04/2015 12:07, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic 
either. The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and 
compared those in several sources... Then again why bore you with 
information you already could know..


Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" 
your point, it however fails to convince.


Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant 
source. Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an 
opportunity for you. You claim to know the subject matter.

Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne > wrote:


On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.


One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the
sources.


Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of
well established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are
neither of the above.

Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a
rambling mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural
philospher, but is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the
magician and conjuror.

Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a
close run thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
processes to
get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the
magician are instead
promoting Dee the mathematician.

I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of
breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on
the first page of a
search engine's results.



___
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,
?subject=unsubscribe>




___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Craig Franklin]

Hello,

Might I suggest that if folks want to continue talking about this, they
rename this thread, as it is no longer about Kourosh Karimkhany, and it is
just creating background noise for those of us who have no desire to
discuss the whole Wikipedia Zero freedom thing yet again?

Cheers,
Craig

On 5 April 2015 at 21:07, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
> The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
> several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
> could know..
>
> Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
> point, it however fails to convince.
>
> Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
> Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
> for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
> Thanks,
>GerardM
>
> On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne  wrote:
>
> > On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >
> >> Hoi,
> >> Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
> >> encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
> >>
> >>
> > One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
> >
> >
> >  Studies have indicated that
> >> Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
> >>
> >
> > Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
> > established scientific
> > knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
> > disputed content.
> > It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither of
> > the above.
> >
> > Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica article.
> > The Britannica
> > article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
> > mess that tries
> > to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but
> is
> > thwarted
> > at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
> > conjuror.
> >
> > Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
> > thing, and
> > one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
> > processes to
> > get there.
> >
> > Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician
> are
> > instead
> > promoting Dee the mathematician.
> >
> >  I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed,
> >> people
> >> do care about Wikipedia Zero.
> >>
> >
> > God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
> > informative and reliable
> > sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the
> first
> > page of a
> > search engine's results.
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Research is not what we compete with. Research is not encyclopaedic either.
The research I refer to compared a set of subjects and compared those in
several sources... Then again why bore you with information you already
could know..

Cherry picking an article from Brittanica is wonderful, it "proves" your
point, it however fails to convince.

Your God or mine, the fact is that Wikipedia is a most relevant source.
Given your complaint about the John Dee article, there is an opportunity
for you. You claim to know the subject matter.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 12:06, Lilburne  wrote:

> On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
>> encyclopaedia. It is not original research.
>>
>>
> One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.
>
>
>  Studies have indicated that
>> Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.
>>
>
> Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well
> established scientific
> knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly
> disputed content.
> It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither of
> the above.
>
> Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica article.
> The Britannica
> article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling
> mess that tries
> to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but is
> thwarted
> at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician and
> conjuror.
>
> Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run
> thing, and
> one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought
> processes to
> get there.
>
> Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician are
> instead
> promoting Dee the mathematician.
>
>  I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed,
>> people
>> do care about Wikipedia Zero.
>>
>
> God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more
> informative and reliable
> sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the first
> page of a
> search engine's results.
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Lilburne]

On 05/04/2015 06:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research.



One can indeed engage in original research by cherry picking the sources.



Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors.


Nonsense. Reliability has only ever been checked in the case of well 
established scientific
knowledge (where it was found to have 30% more errors), and highly 
disputed content.
It has not been checked over the millions of articles that are neither 
of the above.


Take the WP article on John Dee and compare it to the Britannica 
article. The Britannica
article is both readable and well rounded. The WP article is a rambling 
mess that tries
to present Dee the Mathematician, Scientist and natural philospher, but 
is thwarted
at every turn by those that want John Dee to be foremost the magician 
and conjuror.


Perhaps in the end Dee the mathematician wins out, but it is a close run 
thing, and
one has to pour over the stilted language and mish mash of thought 
processes to

get there.

Ironically enough many of the sources used to promote Dee the magician 
are instead

promoting Dee the mathematician.


I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero.


God help us if that is the case. Fortunately there are far more 
informative and reliable
sites about then wikipedia. Unfortunately they tend not to be on the 
first page of a

search engine's results.


___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Reliable is not an absolute. Wikipedia is in the final analysis an
encyclopaedia. It is not original research. Studies have indicated that
Wikipedia is as reliable as its competitors. Wikipedia does link ever more
to the VIAF indicators by the OCLC and thereby it links to the sum of all
knowledge as it is available in libraries.

I think you have it backward. Given that Wikipedia is best of breed, people
do care about Wikipedia Zero. It is why Wikipedia Zero is not part of any
walled garden; it is there for every company who cares to provide it free
of charge.

For the rest I find that I am getting annoyed.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 5 April 2015 at 01:52, Anthony Cole  wrote:

> No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source.
>
> Anthony Cole 
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andreas,
> >
> > 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> > > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <
> > kikkocrist...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> > > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
> > > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia
> > Zero
> > > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other
> sites)
> > in
> > > the following countries:
> >
> > I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
> > question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
> > making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
> > It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
> > is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
> > this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
> > the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
> > Facebook Zero.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
> > > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
> > > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
> >
> > This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
> > https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
> >
> > > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
> > > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
> > > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
> > > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
> > > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
> > > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still
> primarily
> > > be a Facebook experience to them.
> >
> > I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
> >
> > This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
> > to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
> > content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
> > reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
> > reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
> > for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
> > strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
> > to do this.
> >
> > Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
> > space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
> > Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
> > services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
> > and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
> > In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
> > non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
> > Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.
> >
> > C
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Anthony Cole]

No one would care about Wikipedia Zero if Wikipedia was a reliable source.

Anthony Cole 


On Sun, Apr 5, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> Hi Andreas,
>
> 2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <
> kikkocrist...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> > As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
> > Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia
> Zero
> > and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites)
> in
> > the following countries:
>
> I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
> question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
> making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
> It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
> is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
> this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
> the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
> Facebook Zero.
>
> [...]
>
> > Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
> > Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
> > articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
>
> This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
> https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721
>
> > Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
> > fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
> > Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
> > Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
> > also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
> > impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
> > be a Facebook experience to them.
>
> I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.
>
> This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
> to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
> content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
> reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
> reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
> for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
> strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
> to do this.
>
> Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
> space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
> Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
> services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
> and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
> In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
> non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
> Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.
>
> C
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Cristian Consonni]

Hi Andreas,

2015-04-02 18:25 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni 
> wrote:
>
>> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
> Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero
> and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in
> the following countries:

I need another clarification. As far as I know (and I recall a
question in the board Q&A at Wikimania in London), it's internet.org
making available Wikipedia content (as per the license) on their app.
It is not an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation and (therefore) it
is not related to Wikipedia Zero. Also, internet.org/Facebook can do
this thanks to our license (more below). Unless something changed in
the last months you can not say that Wikipedia Zero is bundled with
Facebook Zero.

[...]

> Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
> Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
> articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.

This is failry old news, these pages exists since 2010:
https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/21721

> Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
> fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
> Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
> Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
> also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
> impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
> be a Facebook experience to them.

I see the problem, but this is not related at all with Net Neutrality.

This is what you can do with any free/libre content. There is no way
to stop Facebook (or Flickr [sic et simpliciter]) from reusing our
content. Let me quote SJ (again from the Board Q&A in London) "Please
reuse our content". There should be as few limitations as possible to
reusing the content, in principle. Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia
for this very exact reason after all. Even in a world with the
strongest possible Net Neutrality laws in force Facebook will be able
to do this.

Let me weigh in another argument, I know that the idea of a "Public
space on the internet" is accepted even in the framework of Net
Neutrality. The idea is that some list of websites that offer public
services (e.g. government websites, public libraries websites, schools
and universities websites) should always be accessible with no charge.
In this view Wikipedia could be included in the list as an educational
non-profit (other projects may also be included, e. g. the Khan
Academy). Wikimedia Foundation, in this sense, is leading by example.

C

___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni 
wrote:

> 2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> > I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF consider it obvious that
> > there is such an effect.
>
> I keep hearing this argument, but what myself (and I think also Mike)
> am contesting is this "automatic implication" that Wikipedia Zero
> brings behind itself Facebook Zero, Twitter Zero and all the others
> zero rating services.
> I don't see this automatism, and I would like therefore see some
> evidence for it, with dates possibly.



As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
Internet.org, describing Internet.org app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero
and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in
the following countries:

Zambia (31 Jul 2014)
https://internet.org/press/introducing-the-internet-dot-org-app
Tanzania (29 Oct 2014)
https://internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-app-launches-in-tanzania
Kenya (14 Nov 2014)
http://internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-app-comes-to-kenya
Colombia (14 Jan 2015)
https://internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-app-launches-in-colombia
Ghana (22 Jan 2015)
https://internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-app-available-in-ghana
India (10 Feb 2015)
http://internet.org/press/internet-dot-org-app-now-available-in-india

A few months prior to the start of these bundles, Jimmy Wales was asked on
Quora "What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org
project, especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to
become a collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia
Foundation?",

He replied:

---o0o---

I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and
Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org team is in contact with our
Wikipedia Zero team.

Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet"
(i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going
to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions
to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge,
our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se.
But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.

In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and
support it fully.

---o0o---

http://www.quora.com/What-does-Jimmy-Wales-think-about-Mark-Zuckerbergs-Internet-org-project-especially-in-light-of-Wikipedia-Zero-Is-there-a-chance-for-it-to-become-a-collaborative-project-between-Facebook-and-the-Wikimedia-Foundation

I am less convinced of Facebook's altruistic motives.

Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/FIS-Alpine-World-Ski-Championships-2007-Mens-giant-slalom-qualification/639330712814390?fref=ts#
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Hopf-algebra/110243959027029?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Minimum-alveolar-concentration/132648116773162?fref=ts
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brian-Luighnech-Ua-Conchobhair/124597054293418?fref=ts

Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
be a Facebook experience to them.

So, in the context of Facebook Zero/Wikipedia Zero bundles, it seems to me
the Wikipedia Zero deal is to a large extent there to ensure that Wikipedia
becomes part of the telco's advertising. Access to Wikipedia articles is
already a given in Facebook Zero.




> (I have already demanded it in
> the past[3])
> I do not consider it obvious at all. Please note that I am not saying
> that this effect can not exist /a priori/, I am completely agnostic
> about it and for this exact reason I would like it to be tested (it is
> also worth pointing out that since you are making the claim you are
> the one with the burden of proof).
>
> About Thomas Lohninger's opinion, he stated in the talk that you
> linked previously [4a] that WMF and Wikimedia Chile ask to withdraw or
> amend the Chilean net neutrality law, but if you read the letter sent
> (see [4b] for the letter, [4c] has context) the letter "asked to
> confirm that Wikipedia Zero is not covered by this order [the circular
> from Chilean government implementing the Net Neutrality law]"[*].
>


Thanks for the link. The Spanish text in the linked document bears you out,
though I would assume the correspondence went on a bit after that.

Regards,
Andreas



> Again, this is different: asking that Wikipedia Zero could continue
> running in the fr

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

[Cristian Consonni]

2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe :
> I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF consider it obvious that
> there is such an effect.

Not so obvious, in my opinion.

The EFF says about Wikipedia zero that it is a "laudable effort"[1]
even acknowledging that it may harm competition even in the non-profit
world. In another article the EFF says that Wikipedia Zero is "an
exception"[2] among Zero rating services because his procedures are
more transparent.

This is very different from asking to stop or shut down Wikipedia Zero.

> You cannot seriously argue that there are "no facts" available to
> demonstrate this. It's business studies 101.

I keep hearing this argument, but what myself (and I think also Mike)
am contesting is this "automatic implication" that Wikipedia Zero
brings behind itself Facebook Zero, Twitter Zero and all the others
zero rating services.
I don't see this automatism, and I would like therefore see some
evidence for it, with dates possibly. (I have already demanded it in
the past[3])
I do not consider it obvious at all. Please note that I am not saying
that this effect can not exist /a priori/, I am completely agnostic
about it and for this exact reason I would like it to be tested (it is
also worth pointing out that since you are making the claim you are
the one with the burden of proof).

About Thomas Lohninger's opinion, he stated in the talk that you
linked previously [4a] that WMF and Wikimedia Chile ask to withdraw or
amend the Chilean net neutrality law, but if you read the letter sent
(see [4b] for the letter, [4c] has context) the letter "asked to
confirm that Wikipedia Zero is not covered by this order [the circular
from Chilean government implementing the Net Neutrality law]"[*].
Again, this is different: asking that Wikipedia Zero could continue
running in the framework of the net neutrality law is different from
demanding an amendment to the law, in the fact that it is asking to
consider Wikipedia an exception. From what I can gather from the
discussions on the advocacy advisors list I think that this is an
opinion held by several Wikimedians (including myself).

I think, Andreas, that your view (or Jens' or Thomas') is a legitimate
position, but taking a really materialistic stance this is not a zero
sum game. IMHO the "exception approach" is the only one, at least the
only one I can think of, that may have a net positive outcome (i.e.
giving access to Wikipedia to people and having a very wide-covering
net neutrality protection), your proposition has the negative effect
of eliciting the access to Wikipedia to people (and I very much
understand Josh's reaction in this respect).
Always taking this materialistic approach, I think it is legitimate to
weight competing values, i.e. it is not automatic that Net Neutrality
is a value that has a greater weight than access to knowledge (even if
mediated through the in-many-ways-imperfect Wikipedia).

Cristian

[1] 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-transparency-principles-must-extend-mobile-internet-access-too
[2] 
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divide
[3] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/000758.html
[4a] 
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_201412282145_-_net_neutrality_days_of_future_past_-_rejo_zenger_-_thomas_lohninger.html#video
(from 40.45)
[4b] 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carta_a_SUBTEL_ref_Wikipedia_Zero.pdf
[4c] 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-September/000752.html

___
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] Fwd: Introducing Kourosh Karimkhany, Vice President of Strategic Partnerships

[Andreas Kolbe]

Mike,

With all due respect to your longstanding work on internet issues, you said
there were no facts to support an argument that zero-rating one product,
when all others are subject to a consumer charge, suppresses competition.

I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF consider it obvious that
there is such an effect.

You cannot seriously argue that there are "no facts" available to
demonstrate this. It's business studies 101. Competition is driven by cost,
service and quality. Wikipedia's own growth, and the demise of its paid-for
competitors like Encarta, is in large part due to the fact that Wikipedia's
users occurred no cost for accessing it, other than the cost of being
online. Removing that cost in developing markets for Wikipedia, while
imposing it on everyone else aiming to serve the public, is a strategy
aimed at creating a monopoly. Monopolies are ultimately harmful to freedom.

You may call that an opinion, too, but history presents us with a wealth of
evidence demonstrating the truth of that assertion. I presented examples
earlier in this thread of how restricting users to a "Walled Wikipedia" can
do real-world harm. And I agree with Jens when he voices the opinion that
it is hubristic to believe that Wikipedia is the sum of all human
knowledge. At the most basic level, Wikipedia content is always dependent
on sources generated outside Wikipedia itself, whose combined volume dwarfs
Wikipedia.

Speaking more generally, I would like to see a humbler Wikimedia
Foundation: less in love with its own carefully cultivated image, more
interested in quality, more interested in serving the public than in taking
over the world, more aware, honest and transparent about its projects'
failings. Wikipedia should have nothing to sell, not even itself. It should
just be helpful to the consumer. The degree to which Wikipedia realised
that ideal is what originally attracted me to it. I also believe it is a
wiser long-term strategy for Wikimedia itself.

In your post, Mike, you acknowledge the "heterodoxy" of your position, and
that you haven't been ostracised for it. That's great, but it is important
to remember that yours is a minority view, and that your more "orthodox"
peers aren't participants on this mailing list. Perhaps we should make them
aware of this discussion, and invite them to participate.

Andreas



On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Mike Godwin  wrote:

> [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 fre

[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,


--