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

[Martin Rulsch]

> Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries'
> laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about
> Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all
> of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.
>
> It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every
> country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in
> the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant.
>
> I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in
> my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them.
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a:
“(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda
or
the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional
aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about
current historical events or similar purposes. […]” Hence, German law of
course allows usage of the swastika in Wikipedia, one of the best places to
further civil enlightenment. Yet, one German left-wing party member, Katina
Schubert ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katina_Schubert ), “filed criminal
charges against German Wikipedia […] for featuring Nazi symbols such as the
swastika in its articles [… but] after criticism from other members of her
party, Schubert withdrew her charges.”

Best regards
Martin Rulsch

Btw., great combination of country laws …
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Andre Engels]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>

Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction.


> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.


For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not
illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in
countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is:
Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I
don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many
people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net
neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia
Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for
a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or
better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this
does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV.

-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Todd Allen]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER
wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>
> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
>
> Rupert
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>

Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries'
laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about
Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all
of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.

It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every
country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in
the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant.

I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in
my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them.

Todd Allen

-- 
Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:05 AM, George Herbert
 wrote:
> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
>> The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
>> prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
>> public's best interest.
>
>
>
> If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
> access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
> information monopoly, I object.
>
> The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
> model and launched a project to implement that better model.

Good point. So the question you are asking is "How can we legalize
Wikipedia Zero in all countries and avoid such a discussion in
future?". What do you think of doing the following:

First, WMF should declare officially if it wants to follow net
neutrality or not. This eases the future design of offerings. And it
facilitates dealing with net neutral borderline countries, like China.
 "we like net neutrality, but we do think it does not apply for our
own contents" might bear a reputational risk, and therefor impact
donors money inflow, weaken negotiation position. Essential is that
this does _not_ mean "promote net neutrality" - which at least i
cannot read out of the vision or mission.

Second, find a way to legalize Wikipedia Zero. A simple proposal might
be a contract in the lines of:
   "If one reads a Wikipedia article on the mobile device, then he
shall get 3 MB free internet traffic for this day."

This would have the following advantages:

1. it is a real teaser to people to read wikipedia every day
2. there is no cost trap when clicking out of zero.wikipedia.org.
3. people can really participate in the movement,
e.g. read/write emails, facebook groups,
read blog.wikimedia.org.
4. mobile applications traffic is included
5. compared to today, the conditions would be simple
6. it is cheaper because no effort goes into separating
our contents into zero.wp.org, m.wikipedia.org, etc.

Rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :

> Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> paragraph 3:
>
> "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
>
> "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
> access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
> or used via these services."
>
> If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.

Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.

As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.

Rupert

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[JP Béland]

Unless WMF signed a contract of exclusivity with all major ISPs for
Wikipedia to be the only "information" website to be distributed for free
on their mobile networks, then I don't think there is an act of unfair
competition from the part of WMF, nothing refrains others actors to set up
the same thing with the ISPs. As George said, we are not to do something
worse just for the sake of letting others catch up.

JP Béland



2013/8/27 George Herbert 

> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
> > The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
> > prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
> > public's best interest.
>
>
>
> If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
> access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
> information monopoly, I object.
>
> The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
> model and launched a project to implement that better model.
>
> No matter what happens with network access, that does not change the
> unrelated entry barrier, which is at the conceptual level.
>
> Us not taking advantage of network opportunities does not change that, it
> just degrades our ability to deliver to our existing mission.
>
> If you feel that the WMF should do its job worse, to enable alternatives to
> flourish, I disagree.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
> > wrote:
> >
> > > It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
> > >
> > > Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often
> > do)
> > > become a local monopoly of sorts.  Monopilies are not necessarily bad
> > (how
> > > many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from?  how
> many
> > > road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the
> > > monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other
> markets.
> > Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular
> is
> > envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub.
> >
> > The other day, Jimmy Wales said, "We are a start-up in stealth mode."[1]
> >
> >
> >
> > > With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses
> > > their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or
> their
> > > preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email
> > > service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media
> > service,
> > > and issues of the like.
> > >
> >
> >
> > How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are
> not?
> > Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for
> > providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like
> > the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many
> > people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not
> go
> > to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some
> > of CNN's page views.
> >
> > Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more
> page
> > views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested
> > that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to
> > compete against traditional news outlets.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> > > relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> > > isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing
> > this,
> > > as far as I can see.
> > >
> >
> >
> > See above.
> >
> >
> >
> > > One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate),
> > > functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit
> > somehow
> > > and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the
> > > particular law in question might come into play.
> > >
> > > However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality
> > > seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner.  Your
> > > interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or
> > > morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial
> > legalistic
> > > issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+
> > > countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for
> > > Commons, that I can see).
> > >
> >
> >
> > The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
> > prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
> > public's best interest.
> >
> >
> > If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> > > issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I
> do
> > > not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
> > >
> 

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

[George Herbert]

This is a huge question and problem, however:

Andreas:

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



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

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

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

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

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



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
> wrote:
>
> > It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
> >
> > Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often
> do)
> > become a local monopoly of sorts.  Monopilies are not necessarily bad
> (how
> > many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from?  how many
> > road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the
> > monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets.
> >
>
>
> Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other markets.
> Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular is
> envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub.
>
> The other day, Jimmy Wales said, "We are a start-up in stealth mode."[1]
>
>
>
> > With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses
> > their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their
> > preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email
> > service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media
> service,
> > and issues of the like.
> >
>
>
> How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are not?
> Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for
> providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like
> the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many
> people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not go
> to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some
> of CNN's page views.
>
> Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more page
> views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested
> that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to
> compete against traditional news outlets.
>
>
>
> > Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> > relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> > isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing
> this,
> > as far as I can see.
> >
>
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> > One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate),
> > functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit
> somehow
> > and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the
> > particular law in question might come into play.
> >
> > However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality
> > seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner.  Your
> > interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or
> > morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial
> legalistic
> > issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+
> > countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for
> > Commons, that I can see).
> >
>
>
> The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
> prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
> public's best interest.
>
>
> If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> > issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> > not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
> >
>
>
> Here is one that makes me uneasy: Wikimedia projects are particularly
> vulnerable to manipulation – look at how long Qworty was allowed to do what
> he did,[2] look at the plastic surgery (and likely sockpuppeting) case
> presently at AN/I,[3] the Arnie Draiman story,[4] the Klee Irwin[5] or
> Monsanto[6] articles, or indeed any of a good number of arbitration cases
> commenting on neutrality, BLP violations etc.
>
> In light of that vulnerability, the idea of making crowdsourced Wikimedia
> projects stewards of the world's information, to the detriment of
> professionally published and edited news and reference sources, seems to
> have some obvious drawbacks. And the highe

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
wrote:

> It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
>
> Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
> become a local monopoly of sorts.  Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
> many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from?  how many
> road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the
> monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets.
>


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

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



> With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses
> their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their
> preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email
> service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media service,
> and issues of the like.
>


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

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



> Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
> as far as I can see.
>


See above.



> One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate),
> functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit somehow
> and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the
> particular law in question might come into play.
>
> However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality
> seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner.  Your
> interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or
> morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial legalistic
> issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+
> countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for
> Commons, that I can see).
>


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


If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
>


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

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

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

Andreas

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

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

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

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

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

[6] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/0

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:17 PM, George Herbert wrote:

> Andreas:
>
> > The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> > brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> > information market place.
>
>
> Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




Well, you asked, below: [1]

---o0o---

And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in
some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their
or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?

---o0o---

I was answering your question.

Andreas

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127746.html





>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
> > I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> > Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> > advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> > the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
> >
> > A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging
> from
> > leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> > encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> > with the mission.
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> >
> > The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did
> involve
> > advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the
> advertising
> > revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
> >
> >
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
> >
> > I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the
> Foundation
> > as part of the advertising deal.
> >
> > At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> > arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > *Q: Is there money involved?*
> >
> > A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> > paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying
> Orange.
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> >
> > I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> > content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
> >
> > The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> > brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> > information market place.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> > george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > > >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries
> > in
> > > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state
> > by
> > > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> > > >>> abstain from any
> > > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After
> that,
> > > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> > > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> > > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to
> ISP,
> > > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> > > >>> ethical and moral standards.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> JP Beland
> > > >>> aka Amqui
> > > >>
> > > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at
> > least
> > > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> > > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> > > believe
> > > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> > > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position
> for
> > a
> > > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is,
> but
> > > the
> > > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Martijn
> > > >
> > > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in
> > > 

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

[George Herbert]

Andreas:

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


Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
>
> A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
> leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> with the mission.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
> advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
> revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
>
> I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
> as part of the advertising deal.
>
> At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Is there money involved?*
>
> A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
>
> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
> >
> > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> > >>>
> > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries
> in
> > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state
> by
> > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> > >>> abstain from any
> > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> > >>>
> > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> > >>>
> > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> > >>> ethical and moral standards.
> > >>>
> > >>> JP Beland
> > >>> aka Amqui
> > >>
> > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at
> least
> > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> > believe
> > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for
> a
> > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
> > the
> > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> > >>
> > >> -Martijn
> > >
> > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> > >
> > > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> > > closer to our vision.
> > >
> > > JP Béland
> > > aka Amqui
> >
> >
> > I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
> > here.
> >
> > It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from
> > advantaging their own bundled servi

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

[JP Béland]

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

JP Béland
aka Amqui


2013/8/27, Andreas Kolbe :
> I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
>
> A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
> leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> with the mission.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
> advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
> revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
>
> I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
> as part of the advertising deal.
>
> At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Is there money involved?*
>
> A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
>
> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
>>
>> > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
>> >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>> >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>> >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
>> >>>
>> >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
>> >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
>> >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
>> >>> abstain from any
>> >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
>> >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
>> >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
>> >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
>> >>>
>> >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
>> >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
>> >>>
>> >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
>> >>> ethical and moral standards.
>> >>>
>> >>> JP Beland
>> >>> aka Amqui
>> >>
>> >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
>> >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
>> >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
>> believe
>> >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
>> >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
>> >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
>> the
>> >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
>> >>
>> >> -Martijn
>> >
>> > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
>> > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
>> > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
>> >
>> > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
>> > question we have t

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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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

---o0o---

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

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

---o0o---


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

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

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

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

---o0o---

*Q: Is there money involved?*

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

---o0o---


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

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

Andreas


On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
george.herb...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
>
> > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> >>>
> >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
> >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
> >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> >>> abstain from any
> >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> >>>
> >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> >>> ethical and moral standards.
> >>>
> >>> JP Beland
> >>> aka Amqui
> >>
> >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
> >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> believe
> >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
> >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
> the
> >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> >>
> >> -Martijn
> >
> > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> >
> > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> > closer to our vision.
> >
> > JP Béland
> > aka Amqui
>
>
> I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
> here.
>
> It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from
> advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent
> services via tariff structure.
>
> What competitors for Wikipedia exist?
>
> And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in
> some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their
> or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?
>
>
> Sent from Kangphone
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
__

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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 13:32:

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


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


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


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> 2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>
> > Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
> >
> >  That's like saying
> >> "printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
> >> violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the
> >> Web
> >> and gave it to them too".
> >>
> >
> > This analogy doesn't work very well because the "we" here is most likely
> > not an ISP and it's only ISP being subject to net neutrality.
> >
> > Nemo
> >
>
> Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does
> work. :)
>
> Denny
>

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

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



> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Denny Vrandečić]

2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo) 

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

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

Denny
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:

That's like saying
"printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web
and gave it to them too".


This analogy doesn't work very well because the "we" here is most likely 
not an ISP and it's only ISP being subject to net neutrality.


Nemo

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Denny Vrandečić]

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

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

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

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




2013/8/27 Robert Rohde 

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
>  wrote:
> 
> > Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> > relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> > isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing
> this,
> > as far as I can see.
> >
> 
> >
> > If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> > issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> > not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
>
> I'm willing to play devil's advocate here.  Personally, I don't see
> Wikipedia Zero as bad or a serious threat to net neutrality, but I can
> certainly understand the argument that free access to Wikipedia might
> disadvantage other content providers and discourage people from paying
> for mobile internet.
>
> To give a timely (if rather American) example, the Video Music Awards
> were last night.  If I wanted to know what happened, I could visit the
> VMA site, or many news sites, or Wikipedia which was updated in near
> real time.  In the framework of Wikipedia Zero, getting the info from
> Wikipedia is free which would rationally discourage traffic to other
> news sites or VMA's own site.
>
> The same argument can be made for other reference websites (e.g.
> About.com, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  If they cost money to
> visit and we don't, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to
> getting traffic.
>
> Free information is incredibly powerful, and I think we all agree that
> it is generally a Good Thing.  This is doubly true in many of the poor
> nations where Wikipedia Zero partnerships have been formed, as poverty
> can make data charges seem prohibitive.  However, the presence of free
> information is also disruptive to for-profit information providers.
> For example, we all know how the internet has impacted newspaper
> sales, or how the internet (and sites like Wikipedia) ultimately led
> Encyclopedia Britannica to close their print operation.  Free
> information is powerful, and sometimes that power will disrupt or
> destroy for-profit information providers.
>
> Consider for a moment, how the story might sound if we changed the
> names a bit.  Suppose National Monopoly Telecom partnered with Google
> to bring Maps and News to poor people with no data charges?  Is that
> just as good?  What if they had ads on the pages which were presented
> without data charges?  What if it were Microsoft instead of Google?
> Etc.  The end users get a free service, and presumably that service is
> useful, and quite possibly most users will be glad they have it.
> Still, it is true that Wikipedia Zero and similar programs do cause
> some content to have a privileged place in the marketplace over other
> content, and that will drive traffic to the free option and reduce
> traffic to competitors.  Depending on your point of view, maybe that's
> not a big deal, but if you are a hardcore advocate of net neutrality
> then one might well argue that ISPs should treat all content equally
> and not have different rates for equivalent amounts of data coming
> from different sources.  It is well-formed criticism of the Wikipedia
> Zero project.  Personally, I don't think the principle of net
> neutrality should be so rigidly adhered to as to discourage the broad
> dissemination of knowledge among people who have historically lacked
> access to it, but I suppose some people might disagree.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Frei

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

[Robert Rohde]

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
 wrote:

> Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
> as far as I can see.
>

>
> If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.

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

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

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

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

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

-Robert Rohde

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George Herbert]

It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.

Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
become a local monopoly of sorts.  Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from?  how many
road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the
monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets.

With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses
their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their
preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email
service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media service,
and issues of the like.

Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
as far as I can see.

One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate),
functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit somehow
and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the
particular law in question might come into play.

However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality
seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner.  Your
interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or
morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial legalistic
issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+
countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for
Commons, that I can see).

If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.



On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
martijnhoeks...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" <
> george.herb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
> >
> > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> > >>>
> > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries
> in
> > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state
> by
> > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> > >>> abstain from any
> > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> > >>>
> > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> > >>>
> > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> > >>> ethical and moral standards.
> > >>>
> > >>> JP Beland
> > >>> aka Amqui
> > >>
> > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at
> least
> > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> believe
> > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for
> a
> > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
> the
> > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> > >>
> > >> -Martijn
> > >
> > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> > >
> > > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> > > closer to our vision.
> > >
> > > JP Béland
> > > aka Amqui
> >
> >
> > I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
> here.
> >
> > It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from
> advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent
> services via tariff structure.
> >
> > What competitors for Wikipedia exist?
> >
> > And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in
> some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their
> or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?
>
> We get a wider readership, at least in the short term. Why else would we

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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" 
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:
>
> > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> >>>
> >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
> >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
> >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> >>> abstain from any
> >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> >>>
> >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> >>>
> >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> >>> ethical and moral standards.
> >>>
> >>> JP Beland
> >>> aka Amqui
> >>
> >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
> >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
believe
> >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
> >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
the
> >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> >>
> >> -Martijn
> >
> > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> >
> > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> > closer to our vision.
> >
> > JP Béland
> > aka Amqui
>
>
> I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
here.
>
> It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from
advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent
services via tariff structure.
>
> What competitors for Wikipedia exist?
>
> And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in
some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their
or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?

We get a wider readership, at least in the short term. Why else would we be
doing this? Or was the question rhetorical, as the answer was rather
obvious to me. If it was, I don't understand the point you were trying to
make with it.

>
>
> Sent from Kangphone
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[George William Herbert]

On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland  wrote:

> 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
>> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
>>> 
>>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>>> countries where the law is less developed? "
>>> 
>>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
>>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
>>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
>>> abstain from any
>>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
>>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
>>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
>>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
>>> 
>>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
>>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
>>> 
>>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
>>> ethical and moral standards.
>>> 
>>> JP Beland
>>> aka Amqui
>> 
>> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
>> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
>> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
>> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
>> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
>> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the
>> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
>> 
>> -Martijn
> 
> "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> 
> I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> closer to our vision.
> 
> JP Béland
> aka Amqui


I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used here.

It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from 
advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent services 
via tariff structure.

What competitors for Wikipedia exist?

And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in some 
way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to their or our 
benefit?  What benefit do we get?


Sent from Kangphone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[JP Béland]

2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
>>
>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>> countries where the law is less developed? "
>>
>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
>> abstain from any
>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
>>
>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
>>
>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
>> ethical and moral standards.
>>
>> JP Beland
>> aka Amqui
>>
>>
>
> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the
> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
>
> -Martijn

"Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
(http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)

I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
closer to our vision.

JP Béland
aka Amqui

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Katie Chan]

On 26/08/2013 18:14, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:





I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the
opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.

-Martijn



Wikipedia Zero seeks to increase (free) access to one of our project. If 
we don't think that's a good idea, what the heck are we doing running 
the project in the first place?


KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the 
author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the 
author is associated with or employed by.



Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Martijn Hoekstra]

On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland"  wrote:
>
> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> countries where the law is less developed? "
>
> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> abstain from any
> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> more morally wrong in my opinion.
>
> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
>
> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> ethical and moral standards.
>
> JP Beland
> aka Amqui
>
>

I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for a
paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but the
opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.

-Martijn

> 2013/8/26, Andre Engels :
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
> >
> >> To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on
net
> >> neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking,
degrading or
> >> charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem
with
> >> providers giving away certain data for free.
> >>
> >> S
> >> On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rupert THURNER" 
wrote:
> >>
> >> > hi,
> >> >
> >> > most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> >> > look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> >> > engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in
rare
> >> > cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> >> > the mailing list:
> >> >
> >> > is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> >> > neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> >> > netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> >> > countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> >> > foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> >> > activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
> >> >
> >> > just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> >> > Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> >> > the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially
by
> >> > user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> >> > equipment, and modes of communication.
> >> >
> >> > [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
> >> >
> >> > rupert.
> >> >
> >> > ___
> >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
> >> > 
> >> ___
> >> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> >> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> >> 
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wi

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

[JP Béland]

"And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed? "

As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state by
the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
abstain from any
activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
more morally wrong in my opinion.

That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.

But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
ethical and moral standards.

JP Beland
aka Amqui


2013/8/26, Andre Engels :
> Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> paragraph 3:
>
> "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
>
> "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
> access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
> or used via these services."
>
> If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net
>> neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or
>> charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with
>> providers giving away certain data for free.
>>
>> S
>> On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:
>>
>> > hi,
>> >
>> > most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
>> > look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
>> > engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
>> > cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
>> > the mailing list:
>> >
>> > is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
>> > neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>> > netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>> > countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
>> > foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
>> > activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
>> >
>> > just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
>> > Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
>> > the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
>> > user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
>> > equipment, and modes of communication.
>> >
>> > [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>> >
>> > rupert.
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> > 
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list
>> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>> 
>>
>
>
>
> --
> André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Andre Engels]

Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:

"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."

"Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
or used via these services."

If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.



On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:

> To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net
> neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or
> charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with
> providers giving away certain data for free.
>
> S
> On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> > look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> > engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
> > cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> > the mailing list:
> >
> > is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> > neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> > foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> > activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
> >
> > just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> > Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> > the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
> > user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> > equipment, and modes of communication.
> >
> > [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
> >
> > rupert.
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Stephen Bain]

To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net
neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or
charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with
providers giving away certain data for free.

S
On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rupert THURNER"  wrote:

> hi,
>
> most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
> cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> the mailing list:
>
> is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
>
> just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
> user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> equipment, and modes of communication.
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>
> rupert.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Denny Vrandečić]

There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to
provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of
Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in
violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an
internet service provider and thus it cannot violate net neutrality.

I cannot see how Wikipedia Zero can violate any net neutrality laws in any
countries, as they simply do not apply in this case.

Having said that, I wonder what even the motivation is in trying to suggest
to close programs that provide easier and affordable access to the contents
of Wikimedia sites to a wider population.

The usual disclaimers apply, IANAL, etc.

Cheers,
Denny




2013/8/25 rupert THURNER 

> hi,
>
> most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
> cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> the mailing list:
>
> is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
>
> just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
> user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> equipment, and modes of communication.
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>
> rupert.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 




-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[Kevin Gorman]

It's fine (and necessary) to hold ourselves to our own ethical standards,
but if we start trying to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal
in any country, we would run in to a lot of problems awfully fast.  Trying
to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal somewhere in the world
would result in Wikipedia being quite thoroughly censored and rather
useless.  I like Wikipedia Zero and don't see a problem with it, but if we
do want to have a debate about whether or not it's a morally acceptable
project, it should at least be framed as 'does this project violate the
Wikimedia movement's principles?' and not 'does this project violate the
law in any country in the world?'


Kevin Gorman


On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:50 AM, rupert THURNER
wrote:

> hi,
>
> most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
> look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
> engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
> cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
> the mailing list:
>
> is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
> neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
> foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?
>
> just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
> Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
> the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
> user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
> equipment, and modes of communication.
>
> [1]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>
> rupert.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

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

[rupert THURNER]

hi,

most people know some advantage of wikipedia zero and everybody can
look up the advantages by just typing wikipedia zero into some search
engine. as i am not sure about the answer and anyway get asked in rare
cases what i think of wp:zero i guess it should be best answered on
the mailing list:

is wikipedia zero illegal in some countries because it violates net
neutrality? and if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed? or should wikimedia
foundation apply a higher moral standard and just abstain from any
activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere?

just for the ones not so sure about net neutrality [1]:
Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on
the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by
user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached
equipment, and modes of communication.

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

rupert.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,