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

2015-04-05 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Josh Lim wrote:
In the absence of any meaningful alternative, what should we do then?  
Close down Wikipedia Zero and let the developing world languish in the 
dark?

Technically it would be entirely possible for service providers to offer
access to Wikipedia for free even if the Wikimedia Foundation and the
Wikipedia community objects to that on net neutrality or other grounds.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de

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

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

2015-04-05 Thread Lilburne

On 02/04/2015 02:54, Mike Godwin wrote:

Andreas writes:

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

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

Furthermore, in some circles, I've been considered from time to time
to be someone prominent whose entire career has been dedicated to a
free and open web. If you're suggesting that everyone -- or even
everyone prominent -- who believes in a free and open web very
strongly disagrees with me, then you are misinformed.


No we think that there are relationships between faux advocacy and what 
benefits large
multinational tech corporations to the detriment of everyone else. That 
we do not see
'citizen advocacy' groups speak out against the rape of privacy that 
online web operators
engage in, that they speak mainly of governments who by and large 
out-source the

surveillance to private companies.

For example did the EFF speak out about Google using Apps for 
Education to profile kids?

No totally silent on the vile behavour of its pay master:
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/03/13/26google.h33.html
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2014/04/30/google-stops-data-mining-students-email/



There is an
honest difference of opinion about what the developing world needs
first. And, in my experience, it is only individuals in developed,
industrialized countries with very little direct knowledge about the
infrastructural and access challenges in developing countries who
imagine that zero-rated services are categorically a threat to a free
and open web.


That free and open is bullshit for the entrenchment of the status quo. 
That Government
turned a blind eye to the abuses in the early days, effectively allowing 
monopolies to become

established and that it about time that they reigned the bastards back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/01/modernise_safe_harbour_for_the_tech_oligarch_era_mike_weatherley/



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

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


Yeah we heard that. That despite all the supposed brouhaha
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/05/us-usa-internet-google-idUSKBN0L91E420150205

The FCC came out in favour of - GOOGLE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/13/net_neutrality_rules/

I gather that a recent FTC report is being investigated by a Senate that 
is waking up to the fiddling

that is going on
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/03/senate_to_probe_obamagoogle_lovein/


My friends and colleagues at EFF, Access Now, and elsewhere -- as well
as individual scholars and commentators like Marvin Ammori -- know me,


Those will all be Google shills correct?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/103158031/Google-Shill-List
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/03/10/sopa_copyright_voluntary_agreements_hollywood_lobbyists_are_like_exes_who.html?wpisrc=burger_bar

In effect it is becoming clearer and clearer that the later day robber 
barons, their supporters
and fellow travellers need a clear lessons in citizenship. That the rule 
of law is catching up.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/03/us/califomia-revenge-porn-sentence/index.html



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

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

2015-04-04 Thread rupert THURNER
hi mike,

while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this
email a little harsh, not to call it unfair. net neutrality targets
censorship in some countries, but price to access internet in most
countries, which is antitrust or competition law. You are well known for
free speech advocacy, and beeing libertarian.  Per definition of this you
are one of the last persons on this globe I d seek advise for antitrust law
and net neutrality. But at the same time you d be one of the first persons
I d love to discuss this matter with.

BTW, the U.S. federal communications achievement for this can be judged
according the price the U.S. american clients pay for mobile internet
services and its quality. they can write as many and as lengthy documents
as they want, what they reached up to now is a shame for the country which
created the internet, if what is written by the ITU is true [0]. as i am
not a professional in this business and surely lack global knowledge i
would love to get a different angle on that as well. with a lot of joy i am
looking forward to your article.

my personal impression is that the price is ok when 3 factors are given:
first, at least four competitors in the market having to cover the whole
area, two, net neutrality, and three, appropriate connection to the
internet. i base this assumption from comparing austria and switzerland,
both mountainous, land locked, 8 mio people, switzerland having half he
surface of austria, and three times more expensive mobile data rates.
austria had four competitors (now only three and prices rising),
switzerland three. i cannot judge what happens in asia where indonesia
looks better positioned than philippines, and africa, where eg ghana has 5
competitors, nigeria four [1][2][3] which both look in a better position
than others.

a couple of links:
[0]
http://gizmodo.com/the-price-of-500mb-of-mobile-data-across-the-world-1442047579
[1] e.g. p 100 on
https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/publications/mis2013/MIS2013_without_Annex_4.pdf
[2]
http://technologytimes.ng/again-glo-wins-lead-over-airtel-in-telecoms-market-share-duel/
[3] http://www.nca.org.gh/40/105/Market-Share-Statistics.html

rupert

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Andreas writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The Access Now editorial, in particular, was drafted by someone who
 had not been open to discussing why it doesn't make sense to describe
 Wikipedia Zero as having forged 

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

2015-04-04 Thread Mike Godwin
Rupert Thurner writes:

 while i love irony, and value your opinion a lot, i find the tone of this
 email a little harsh, not to call it unfair.

I'm strangely untroubled by harsh, but I'm glad you don't call it
unfair. I don't think I was unfair. Besides, when someone is as
insignificant as I am, especially in comparison to what the weighty
opinion-makers at what Andreas calls prominent organizations, one
has to speak with a little more bite.

 You are well known for
 free speech advocacy, and beeing libertarian.

I'm not a libertarian, as those who know me personally can attest.
Many things that are well-known are untrue, and this is one of them.
Yes, I'm a *civil libertarian*, and I work with libertarians quite
often (I work with folks of other political views as well), but the
only people who know me to be libertarian are people who don't know
me at all. My politics, to the extent that they can be easily
characterized by people who don't know me personally, might be best
described as reflexively pro-Labour (to someone in the UK) or
social democrat (to someone elsewhere in the EU) or yellow-dog
Democrat (to someone in the American South).

 Per definition of this you
 are one of the last persons on this globe I d seek advise for antitrust law
 and net neutrality.

Perhaps you should reason less per definition and reason more from
actual facts about what my beliefs actually are. You don't actually
seem to know what my politics are. So I imagine you couldn't know that
I happen to think the FCC's Report and Order is pretty good, in
general, and, speaking personally, I'm pleased to see these network
neutrality obligations imposed -- with an express refusal to make
categorical judgments about zero-rated services, including Wikipedia
Zero.

 i cannot judge what happens in asia where indonesia looks better
 positioned than philippines, and africa, where eg ghana has 5 competitors,
 nigeria four [1][2][3] which both look in a better position than others.

Data costs in the Philippines are remarkably high, and penetration to
rural areas (and islands) is low. Indonesia does a little better, not
least because the problem of reaching higher percentages of the
population (at lower cost) is particularly pronounced in Indonesia
(every place in Indonesia is really far from every other place).

As for Africa: it's a big continent (as is Asia, of course). Nigeria
and Ghana are not typical.

Once the folks who preach about net-neutrality-with-no-exceptions get
out to developing countries and do some actual development work with
local NGOs, their notions about network neutrality and development may
change. But I'm perpetually bemused by individuals in developed
countries who imagine that the world is better off if would-be
Wikipedians have to pay extra for the privilege of reading and editing
Wikipedia articles (which is apparently what opponents of Wikipedia
Zero want).


--Mike

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

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

2015-04-03 Thread Jens Best
 quick thoughts,

Jens


2015-04-01 23:47 GMT+02:00 Peter Southwood peter.southw...@telkomsa.net:

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

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

 Dear Gerard,

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

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

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

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

 best regards

 Jens Best

 2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:

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

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

2015-04-02 Thread Anthony Cole
Hi Kourosh!

The Wikimedia Foundation's vision is of a world in which every single
human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Knowledge, not
unreliable assertions. Presently we offer unreliable assertions.

I would be grateful for any support you can offer us in fostering
partnerships that improve the reliability of Wikipedia's articles.

Welcome aboard. It's great to have you here.


Anthony Cole http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthonyhcole


On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten 
 m...@anderswennersten.se
  wrote:

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



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

 ---o0o---

 Reality check 3: 284 Wikipedias

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

 125 in good or excellent health

 ---o0o---

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

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


 [1] https://twitter.com/JaredZimmerman/status/498102860459302912
 [2]

 http://www.dailydot.com/politics/croatian-wikipedia-fascist-takeover-controversy-right-wing/
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Mike Godwin
GerardM writes:

 With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
 have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
 available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
 Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.

 [...]
 My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share
 in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources
 may be important but they are secondary to having the information available
 in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as
 long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your
 point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
 sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not
 accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?

 Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget
 who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
 taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.

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

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

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

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

Best regards,


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

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Mike Godwin
If only my emails were wiki-editable.  Thanks for the correction
regarding my affiliation.

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

The only two possible choices, eh?


--Mike




On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aleksey Bilogur
aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Er, Mike, this is a minor point but your signature seems to indicate that
 you were general counsel for over a millennium---very impressive!

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

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 GerardM writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Aleksey Bilogur
Er, Mike, this is a minor point but your signature seems to indicate that
you were general counsel for over a millennium---very impressive!

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

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 GerardM writes:

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

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

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

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

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

 Best regards,


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

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 

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

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best
Dear Gerard,

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

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

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

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

best regards

Jens Best

2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:

 Hoi,
 With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
 have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
 available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
 Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.

 Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if..
 My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share
 in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources
 may be important but they are secondary to having the information available
 in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as
 long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your
 point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
 sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not
 accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?

 Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget
 who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
 taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
 Thanks,
   GerardM

 On 30 March 2015 at 20:37, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

  The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
  has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
 
  Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users
 who:
 
  - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users
 cannot
  even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
  - Cannot view alternative sources
  - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
 
  At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for
 Wikipedia
  that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
  elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such
 monopolies
  are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
  free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
  *freedom* of information.
 
  The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts
 at
  manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor
 has
  little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
  undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
  unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
  too clearly.
 
  Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information
 in
  developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which
 it
  is not).
 
  To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
  Kazakhstan.
 
  Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government does
  not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia.[2]
 
  The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]
 
  The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that
 the
  Kazakh Wikipedia project is implemented under the auspices of the
  Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim
  Massimov, quoting the head of 

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

2015-04-01 Thread Josh Lim
Hi Jens,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

Josh

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:05 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

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




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

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

---o0o---

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

---o0o---

Would you really argue with that?

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

AccessNow[2] takes the same view:

---o0o---

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

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

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

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

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

---o0o---

Fails to pass the smell test.

Salting the earth.

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

---o0o---

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


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

2015-04-01 Thread Andreas Kolbe
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Anders Wennersten m...@anderswennersten.se
 wrote:

 I can agree on the dilemma you present.

 But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, be
 to close down the projects that is not run compatible with the values
 underlying the idea of a free and open web?.

 I am (still) of the opinion that is is of utmost importance for the
 movement and our brand that we start closing down projects. And not only
 the 20-30 which are hijacked by unserious people but also the 50-100 which
 are not properly managed and infested with vandalism and unserious articles

 Anders



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

---o0o---

Reality check 3: 284 Wikipedias

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

125 in good or excellent health

---o0o---

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

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


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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Kourosh Karimkhany
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 7:22 AM, Tanweer Morshed wiki.tanw...@gmail.com
 wrote:

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

 Tanweer
 Executive member
 Wikimedia Bangladesh


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

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Mike Godwin
Andreas writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Best regards,


--Mike Godwin




On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:02 PM, Andreas Kolbe 

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

2015-04-01 Thread rupert THURNER
On Apr 1, 2015 6:03 PM, Josh Lim jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com wrote:

 Hi Jens,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

 Thanks,

 Josh

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Peter Southwood
OK, you say 'There must be another way to work for the value of free knowledge 
for the people', so what is it?
Peter
(also in the global south)

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

Dear Gerard,

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

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

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

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

best regards

Jens Best

2015-03-31 9:05 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:

 Hoi,
 With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would 
 not have otherwise. It is well established that having information 
 readily available is an important indicator for further development. 
 Not having Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.

 Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if..
 My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to 
 share in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly 
 secondary. Sources may be important but they are secondary to having 
 the information available in the first place. As long as we have 
 sources in full blown Wikipedia, as long as it is WMF that provides 
 the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your point. Yes, ideally we want 
 people to ensure that people know about sources. When sources are just 
 statements of fact and they are in turn not accessible because of cost. What 
 is your point in practical terms?

 Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not 
 forget who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you 
 propose is taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
 Thanks,
   GerardM

 On 30 March 2015 at 20:37, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

  The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption 
  case[1] has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
 
  Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia 
  users
 who:
 
  - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users
 cannot
  even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
  - Cannot view alternative sources
  - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
 
  At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for
 Wikipedia
  that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local 
  elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such
 monopolies
  are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea 
  of a free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* 
  rather than
  *freedom* of information.
 
  The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia 
  attempts
 at
  manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia 
  contributor
 has
  little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain 
  undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far 
  more unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia 
  demonstrated all too clearly.
 
  Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for 
  information
 in
  developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable 
  (which
 it
  is not).
 
  To give another example, I

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

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best
Hi Josh et al.,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015-04-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 15-04-01 03:57 PM, Jens Best wrote:
 For me (and other students) going online wasn't cheap back in the 90s

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

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

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

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

-- Marc


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

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

2015-03-31 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not
have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily
available is an important indicator for further development. Not having
Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.

Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if..
My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share
in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources
may be important but they are secondary to having the information available
in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as
long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your
point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about
sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not
accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?

Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget
who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is
taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 30 March 2015 at 20:37, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
 has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.

 Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:

 - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot
 even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
 - Cannot view alternative sources
 - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)

 At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for Wikipedia
 that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
 elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such monopolies
 are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
 free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
 *freedom* of information.

 The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts at
 manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor has
 little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
 undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
 unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
 too clearly.

 Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information in
 developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which it
 is not).

 To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
 Kazakhstan.

 Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government does
 not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia.[2]

 The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]

 The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that the
 Kazakh Wikipedia project is implemented under the auspices of the
 Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim
 Massimov, quoting the head of WikiBilim and 2011 Wikipedian of the Year,
 who today holds the office of a Deputy Governor in the Kazakh government[4]
 and is the Founding Director of a Brussels-based think tank, the Eurasian
 Council on Foreign Affairs, which is widely considered a PR front of the
 Kazakh government.[5][6][7]

 Is aiding the market dominance and penetration of such a source through
 Wikipedia Zero in line with movement values? Is the type of collaboration
 described on Wikimedia's Outreach page for Kazakhstan?[8] I don't think so.

 I thought we were on the side of those fighting for freedom of speech, not
 the side of those suppressing it.

 It's a concrete example of Wikipedia Zero aiding an oppressive government
 in the control of information -- not at some point in the future, but
 today.

 For a thoughtful examination of the issues surrounding Wikipedia Zero, I'd
 ask everyone to take 5 minutes of their time to listen to the presentation
 Thomas Lohninger gave at the Chaos Communication Congress in December 2014,
 Net Neutrality: Days of Future Past?[9] Time code 37:00 onward.

 I would be glad to see the Wikimedia Foundation rejoin the ranks of those
 fighting for freedom of speech, and a free and open web for all.


 [1]

 http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
 [2] https://archive.today/nyt1z – for the entire discussion three, see
 https://archive.today/V1uG4
 [3] https://archive.today/7kSLO
 [4] http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2730173
 [5]

 http://www.silkroadreporters.com/2015/02/20/jack-straw-slammed-taking-job-kazakhstan/
 [6]

 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/jack-straw-criticised-for-accepting-parttime-job-paid-for-by-kazakhstan-10057426.html
 [7] http://www.equaltimes.org/pr-firms-at-the-service-of-human
 [8] 

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

2015-03-31 Thread Josh Lim
I’m sorry, Andreas, but I cannot in good conscience support your stance calling 
for the closure of Wikipedia Zero, coming from a country that has so far 
benefited from the program not only in terms of the number of new readers that 
we have, but also potentially pave the way for more users as well.

While I understand the risks of the program in countries like Kazakhstan, you 
cannot possibly think that every country where Wikipedia Zero has been deployed 
would go so far as to actively manipulate information to keep readers ignorant. 
 The Philippines prides itself for a strong culture of freedom of speech and we 
have Wikipedia Zero.  I don’t see the Philippine government actively dictating 
the course of the projects’ evolution, so it isn’t fair that we would have to 
suffer from any loss of Wikipedia Zero because of what a totalitarian regime 
can do, when you don’t even materially benefit from the program’s existence.

I’ve become extremely annoyed at the insistence of Wikipedians in developed 
countries that Wikipedia Zero poses no net benefit to the movement, when in 
fact in developing countries it not only has helped bring greater awareness of 
Wikipedia, but also provides a conduit for passive readers to become 
Wikipedians as well.  Having seen this first-hand (Wikipedia mobile pageviews 
in the Philippines jumped, based on what I’ve been told, after Wikipedia Zero 
was rolled out), it is not fair that you’re asking the developing world to 
sacrifice bringing knowledge to people simply because you Wikipedians in the 
United States, Western Europe or wherever have the luxury to actually dictate 
the finer points of net neutrality on your own terms.  We don’t have that 
luxury when we have to pay sky-high data usage charges (and, in the 
Philippines’ case, sky-high data usage charges with onerous data caps!).

I am all for freedom of speech.  I have always advocated for freedom of speech, 
and will continue to fight for it.  But if your problem with Wikipedia Zero is 
that content could be warped to fit a certain state’s agenda, then the problem 
is not on your reader, but on us as a community.  We HAVE to make more users to 
prevent this from happening, and you don’t do that when you shut out a 
potential base of new users because we think that Wikipedia Zero serves to keep 
people ignorant rather than challenges them to think.  I think people, no 
matter where in the world they’re from, are smarter than that.

Seriously, I’m sick and tired of hearing people in the developed world tell us 
in the developing world that Wikipedia Zero brings no net benefit to us.  
Remember that Wikipedia Zero is a platform for distributing content—it doesn’t 
generate content on its own.  If you have problems with the program, then the 
onus is on us as a community to fix it, since all I’ve been hearing from 
detractors of the program is that we’re filtering out content.  Then why don’t 
we try harder to make our content even more inclusive, huh?

*rant over*

Thanks,

Josh

 Wiadomość napisana przez Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com w dniu 31 mar 
 2015, o godz. 02:37:
 
 The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
 has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.
 
 Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:
 
 - Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot
 even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
 - Cannot view alternative sources
 - Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
 
 At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for Wikipedia
 that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
 elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such monopolies
 are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
 free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
 *freedom* of information.
 
 The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts at
 manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor has
 little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
 undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
 unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
 too clearly.
 
 Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information in
 developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which it
 is not).
 
 To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
 Kazakhstan.
 
 Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government does
 not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia.[2]
 
 The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]
 
 The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that the
 Kazakh Wikipedia project is implemented under the auspices of the
 Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister 

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

2015-03-30 Thread Jens Best
Saying that it is a normal term in the USA doesn't contradict the
impression Andreas has.

2015-03-29 14:03 GMT+02:00 Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com:

  I find the term Advancement Department has a somewhat Orwellian ring.
 
 
 It's quite a normal term in the USA. For instance, the Council for
 Advancement and Support of Education is the (global, but US-dominated)
 professional body for university fundraisers.

 Chris
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

2015-03-30 Thread Jens Best
Well,


first of all, welcome Kourosh.

I'm looking forward to see how the reality of this exciting job description
gonna look like. For me this also sounds like a clear move to a more
politically positioned understanding of this aspect of the growing
importance of the Wikimedia-Movment globally. Advancement Department
sounds pretty neutral, but certainly it isn't at all.

When it comes to collaboration with like-minded organizations decisions
surely are also carried by a stronger public postioning of the values of
the movement. Some of the decisions in the past, especially when it comes
to collaborations with commercial internet players maybe need to be openly
and transparently re-evaluated.

If Kourosh is settled in I would like to see a global, transparent and open
discussion about our program Wikipedia Zero which is under global critic
by OpenWeb-NGOs and other worried members of the civil society in the US,
in the Global South and in Europe.

Wikipedia Zero which for me is a straight marketing element of some clever
telecoms to sell their mobile products in developing markets and therefore
infusing an user-experience of data-specific payment habits, needs to be
re-evaluated with a professional look that includes awareness of what
implications strategic partnerships can have on our core values.

The well-meant intentions which carried the Wikipedia Zero programme inside
WMF to the point where it is now maybe were a little starry-eyed. Let's not
forget that a zero-rated Wikipedia which can't connect to the linked
knowledge of the world is just a *Walled Wikipedia *and therefore a
questionable  contribution to our core belief of giving free knowledge to
the people - by the people.

The intensity with which the global fight about net neutrality is lead
because of the commercial interests of the telecoms surely doesn't stop at
the markets of the Global South - therefore Wikimedia movement has to make
perfectly clear which line is walked on this central matter of a free and
open internet.

You see, Kourosh, the challenges are big and I'm looking forward to have an
experienced person overlooking the future developments in this field.


best regards and a good start

Jens Best



2015-03-27 21:13 GMT+01:00 Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org:

 Dear Wikimedians,

 In order to encourage the expansion of knowledge, we’ve been considering
 new ways to support and develop the work you do. Collaboration is an
 essential part of the Wikimedia movement, and today, I’m excited to let you
 know about a new addition at the Wikimedia Foundation that will support our
 collaboration with like-minded organizations.

 For some time now, we’ve planned to hire a Vice President of Strategic
 Partnerships. Today, I am pleased to announce that Kourosh Karimkhany will
 step into this role on March 30, 2015.

 Kourosh will be responsible for crafting a strategy to grow long-term value
 for Wikimedia projects through building meaningful partnerships, projects,
 and relationships on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. He will become
 part of the C-level team and will report to Lisa Gruwell. Kourosh will also
 oversee Wikipedia Zero, which will transition to the partnerships team.

 The Wikimedia community has many fruitful and creative partnerships that
 help support knowledge creation and sharing around the world. The
 partnerships Kourosh will support will will help us better support these
 partnerships and your work, as well as grow strategic initiatives we take
 on at the WMF.

 Kourosh was born in Iran and moved to the U.S. as a child with his family.
 Today, he is an experienced digital media professional with a passion for
 sharing information with the world. He started his career as a technology
 journalist covering Silicon Valley for Bloomberg, Reuters and Wired. He
 switched to the business side of media when he joined Yahoo as senior
 producer of Yahoo News. Later, he led corporate development at Conde Nast
 where he spearheaded the acquisition of Wired.com, Ars Technica and Reddit.
 He also cofounded Food Republic in 2009, which was acquired in 2013. He's
 an active angel investor and startup advisor.

 In light of the expanded scope of the Fundraising team and the revamped
 partnerships team, we’re changing the team's name to better reflect their
 mission. The new name is the Advancement Department.  To learn more about
 the new role, visit the FAQ here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Partnerships_FAQ

 Please join me in welcoming Kourosh as the newest member of the WMF
 leadership team. We have many exciting projects in 2015 and I’m looking
 forward to all the great things we will accomplish as we work together to
 support our mission.

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

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

2015-03-30 Thread Andreas Kolbe
The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.

Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:

- Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot
even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
- Cannot view alternative sources
- Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)

At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for Wikipedia
that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such monopolies
are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
*freedom* of information.

The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts at
manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor has
little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
too clearly.

Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information in
developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which it
is not).

To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
Kazakhstan.

Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government does
not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia.[2]

The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]

The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that the
Kazakh Wikipedia project is implemented under the auspices of the
Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim
Massimov, quoting the head of WikiBilim and 2011 Wikipedian of the Year,
who today holds the office of a Deputy Governor in the Kazakh government[4]
and is the Founding Director of a Brussels-based think tank, the Eurasian
Council on Foreign Affairs, which is widely considered a PR front of the
Kazakh government.[5][6][7]

Is aiding the market dominance and penetration of such a source through
Wikipedia Zero in line with movement values? Is the type of collaboration
described on Wikimedia's Outreach page for Kazakhstan?[8] I don't think so.

I thought we were on the side of those fighting for freedom of speech, not
the side of those suppressing it.

It's a concrete example of Wikipedia Zero aiding an oppressive government
in the control of information -- not at some point in the future, but today.

For a thoughtful examination of the issues surrounding Wikipedia Zero, I'd
ask everyone to take 5 minutes of their time to listen to the presentation
Thomas Lohninger gave at the Chaos Communication Congress in December 2014,
Net Neutrality: Days of Future Past?[9] Time code 37:00 onward.

I would be glad to see the Wikimedia Foundation rejoin the ranks of those
fighting for freedom of speech, and a free and open web for all.


[1]
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
[2] https://archive.today/nyt1z – for the entire discussion three, see
https://archive.today/V1uG4
[3] https://archive.today/7kSLO
[4] http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2730173
[5]
http://www.silkroadreporters.com/2015/02/20/jack-straw-slammed-taking-job-kazakhstan/
[6]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/jack-straw-criticised-for-accepting-parttime-job-paid-for-by-kazakhstan-10057426.html
[7] http://www.equaltimes.org/pr-firms-at-the-service-of-human
[8] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/Kazakhstan
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Education/Countries/Kazakhstan
[9]
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_201412282145_-_net_neutrality_days_of_future_past_-_rejo_zenger_-_thomas_lohninger.html

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Jens Best best.j...@gmail.com wrote:

 Well,


 first of all, welcome Kourosh.

 I'm looking forward to see how the reality of this exciting job description
 gonna look like. For me this also sounds like a clear move to a more
 politically positioned understanding of this aspect of the growing
 importance of the Wikimedia-Movment globally. Advancement Department
 sounds pretty neutral, but certainly it isn't at all.

 When it comes to collaboration with like-minded organizations decisions
 surely are also carried by a stronger public postioning of the values of
 the movement. Some of the decisions in the past, especially when it comes
 to collaborations with commercial internet players maybe need to be openly
 and transparently re-evaluated.

 If Kourosh is settled in I would like to see a global, transparent and open
 discussion about our program Wikipedia Zero which is under global critic
 by OpenWeb-NGOs and other worried members of the civil society in the US,
 in the Global South and 

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

2015-03-30 Thread Anders Wennersten

I can agree on the dilemma you present.

But would not a better solution then the close down on Wikipedia Zero, 
be to close down the projects that is not run compatible with the 
values underlying the idea of a free and open web?.


I am (still) of the opinion that is is of utmost importance for the 
movement and our brand that we start closing down projects. And not only 
the 20-30 which are hijacked by unserious people but also the 50-100 
which are not properly managed and infested with vandalism and unserious 
articles


Anders

Andreas Kolbe skrev den 2015-03-30 20:37:

The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1]
has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero.

Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:

- Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot
even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
- Cannot view alternative sources
- Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)

At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for Wikipedia
that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local
elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such monopolies
are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a
free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than
*freedom* of information.

The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts at
manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor has
little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain
undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more
unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all
too clearly.

Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information in
developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which it
is not).

To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in
Kazakhstan.

Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government does
not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia.[2]

The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3]

The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that the
Kazakh Wikipedia project is implemented under the auspices of the
Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim
Massimov, quoting the head of WikiBilim and 2011 Wikipedian of the Year,
who today holds the office of a Deputy Governor in the Kazakh government[4]
and is the Founding Director of a Brussels-based think tank, the Eurasian
Council on Foreign Affairs, which is widely considered a PR front of the
Kazakh government.[5][6][7]

Is aiding the market dominance and penetration of such a source through
Wikipedia Zero in line with movement values? Is the type of collaboration
described on Wikimedia's Outreach page for Kazakhstan?[8] I don't think so.

I thought we were on the side of those fighting for freedom of speech, not
the side of those suppressing it.

It's a concrete example of Wikipedia Zero aiding an oppressive government
in the control of information -- not at some point in the future, but today.

For a thoughtful examination of the issues surrounding Wikipedia Zero, I'd
ask everyone to take 5 minutes of their time to listen to the presentation
Thomas Lohninger gave at the Chaos Communication Congress in December 2014,
Net Neutrality: Days of Future Past?[9] Time code 37:00 onward.

I would be glad to see the Wikimedia Foundation rejoin the ranks of those
fighting for freedom of speech, and a free and open web for all.


[1]
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html
[2] https://archive.today/nyt1z – for the entire discussion three, see
https://archive.today/V1uG4
[3] https://archive.today/7kSLO
[4] http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2730173
[5]
http://www.silkroadreporters.com/2015/02/20/jack-straw-slammed-taking-job-kazakhstan/
[6]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/jack-straw-criticised-for-accepting-parttime-job-paid-for-by-kazakhstan-10057426.html
[7] http://www.equaltimes.org/pr-firms-at-the-service-of-human
[8] https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Education/Countries/Kazakhstan
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Education/Countries/Kazakhstan
[9]
http://media.ccc.de/browse/congress/2014/31c3_-_6170_-_en_-_saal_g_-_201412282145_-_net_neutrality_days_of_future_past_-_rejo_zenger_-_thomas_lohninger.html

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Jens Best best.j...@gmail.com wrote:


Well,


first of all, welcome Kourosh.

I'm looking forward to see how the reality of this exciting job description
gonna look like. For me this also sounds like a clear move to a more
politically positioned understanding of this aspect of the growing
importance of the Wikimedia-Movment globally. Advancement Department
sounds pretty neutral, but certainly it isn't at all.

When 

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

2015-03-29 Thread Chris Keating
 I find the term Advancement Department has a somewhat Orwellian ring.


It's quite a normal term in the USA. For instance, the Council for
Advancement and Support of Education is the (global, but US-dominated)
professional body for university fundraisers.

Chris
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-28 Thread Andreas Kolbe
I find the term Advancement Department has a somewhat Orwellian ring.

The FAQ mentions that –

The new role is focused on creating value for the Wikimedia movement and on
supporting our ability to fulfil our mission. Value can be understood in
many different ways. We believe that it can be about relationships with
people, relationships with organizations, or in some cases, additional
financial resources.

Would it be possible to translate this into something more accessible? What
sorts of additional financial resources are we talking about, and who
would supply them to whom?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-28 Thread Hasive Nurunnaby
Welcome, Kourosh!

On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 7:59 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:

 I find the term Advancement Department has a somewhat Orwellian ring.

 The FAQ mentions that –

 The new role is focused on creating value for the Wikimedia movement and on
 supporting our ability to fulfil our mission. Value can be understood in
 many different ways. We believe that it can be about relationships with
 people, relationships with organizations, or in some cases, additional
 financial resources.

 Would it be possible to translate this into something more accessible? What
 sorts of additional financial resources are we talking about, and who
 would supply them to whom?
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
*Nurunnaby Chowdhury **Hasive :: **নুরুন্নবী চৌধুরী **হাছিব*
Global User: Hasive http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hasive
​
Administrator | Bengali Wikipedia http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/user:Hasive
Member | GAC Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:PEG/Grant_Advisory_Committee
Member | IEG Committee, Wikimedia Foundation
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/People
Director | Wikimedia Bangladesh Operations Committee
http://www.wikimedia.org.bd
​fb.com/Hasive http://fb.com/itsNCH | @nhasive
http://www.twitter.com/nhasive | Skype: nhasive | www.nhasive.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-28 Thread Shlomi Fish
On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:17:20 +0100
Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com wrote:

 Welcome, Kourosh!
 
 Cristian

Welcome, Kourosh, and good luck!

Regards,

-- Shlomi Fish

-- 
-
Shlomi Fish   http://www.shlomifish.org/
Let’s talk about restores instead of backups - http://is.gd/WatQqu

I am the Little Red Riding Hood of Messiahs. My apocalypse is badder than
yours.
— http://www.shlomifish.org/philosophy/the-eternal-jew/#reception

Please reply to list if it's a mailing list post - http://shlom.in/reply .

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

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

2015-03-27 Thread Lila Tretikov
Dear Wikimedians,

In order to encourage the expansion of knowledge, we’ve been considering
new ways to support and develop the work you do. Collaboration is an
essential part of the Wikimedia movement, and today, I’m excited to let you
know about a new addition at the Wikimedia Foundation that will support our
collaboration with like-minded organizations.

For some time now, we’ve planned to hire a Vice President of Strategic
Partnerships. Today, I am pleased to announce that Kourosh Karimkhany will
step into this role on March 30, 2015.

Kourosh will be responsible for crafting a strategy to grow long-term value
for Wikimedia projects through building meaningful partnerships, projects,
and relationships on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. He will become
part of the C-level team and will report to Lisa Gruwell. Kourosh will also
oversee Wikipedia Zero, which will transition to the partnerships team.

The Wikimedia community has many fruitful and creative partnerships that
help support knowledge creation and sharing around the world. The
partnerships Kourosh will support will will help us better support these
partnerships and your work, as well as grow strategic initiatives we take
on at the WMF.

Kourosh was born in Iran and moved to the U.S. as a child with his family.
Today, he is an experienced digital media professional with a passion for
sharing information with the world. He started his career as a technology
journalist covering Silicon Valley for Bloomberg, Reuters and Wired. He
switched to the business side of media when he joined Yahoo as senior
producer of Yahoo News. Later, he led corporate development at Conde Nast
where he spearheaded the acquisition of Wired.com, Ars Technica and Reddit.
He also cofounded Food Republic in 2009, which was acquired in 2013. He's
an active angel investor and startup advisor.

In light of the expanded scope of the Fundraising team and the revamped
partnerships team, we’re changing the team's name to better reflect their
mission. The new name is the Advancement Department.  To learn more about
the new role, visit the FAQ here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Partnerships_FAQ

Please join me in welcoming Kourosh as the newest member of the WMF
leadership team. We have many exciting projects in 2015 and I’m looking
forward to all the great things we will accomplish as we work together to
support our mission.

Lila
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-27 Thread Sydney Poore
Welcome to the wikimedia movement,  Kourosh. Looking forward to seeing the
partnerships and initiatives that can be grown that support our mission.

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Dear Wikimedians,

 In order to encourage the expansion of knowledge, we’ve been considering
 new ways to support and develop the work you do. Collaboration is an
 essential part of the Wikimedia movement, and today, I’m excited to let you
 know about a new addition at the Wikimedia Foundation that will support our
 collaboration with like-minded organizations.

 For some time now, we’ve planned to hire a Vice President of Strategic
 Partnerships. Today, I am pleased to announce that Kourosh Karimkhany will
 step into this role on March 30, 2015.

 Kourosh will be responsible for crafting a strategy to grow long-term value
 for Wikimedia projects through building meaningful partnerships, projects,
 and relationships on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. He will become
 part of the C-level team and will report to Lisa Gruwell. Kourosh will also
 oversee Wikipedia Zero, which will transition to the partnerships team.

 The Wikimedia community has many fruitful and creative partnerships that
 help support knowledge creation and sharing around the world. The
 partnerships Kourosh will support will will help us better support these
 partnerships and your work, as well as grow strategic initiatives we take
 on at the WMF.

 Kourosh was born in Iran and moved to the U.S. as a child with his family.
 Today, he is an experienced digital media professional with a passion for
 sharing information with the world. He started his career as a technology
 journalist covering Silicon Valley for Bloomberg, Reuters and Wired. He
 switched to the business side of media when he joined Yahoo as senior
 producer of Yahoo News. Later, he led corporate development at Conde Nast
 where he spearheaded the acquisition of Wired.com, Ars Technica and Reddit.
 He also cofounded Food Republic in 2009, which was acquired in 2013. He's
 an active angel investor and startup advisor.

 In light of the expanded scope of the Fundraising team and the revamped
 partnerships team, we’re changing the team's name to better reflect their
 mission. The new name is the Advancement Department.  To learn more about
 the new role, visit the FAQ here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Partnerships_FAQ

 Please join me in welcoming Kourosh as the newest member of the WMF
 leadership team. We have many exciting projects in 2015 and I’m looking
 forward to all the great things we will accomplish as we work together to
 support our mission.

 Lila
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-27 Thread Cristian Consonni
Welcome, Kourosh!

Cristian

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

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

2015-03-27 Thread Lodewijk
Welcome Kourosh.

In Wikimedian spirit, i would like to take the opportunity to ask the silly
question: is the structure of what all titles in Wikimedia mean, described
somewhere? Because to be honest, I'm getting all confused about who ranks
what in the structure of directors, vice presidents, chiefs, heads,
managers and seniors. I was, silly me, always under the impression that a
Vice President was basically just below the ED - on the C-level.

I was looking for this info to be perhaps linked from the staff 
contractors page on wmfwiki, but i don't seem to be able to find it. Could
someone enlighten, and perhaps add it somewhere if not there yet? I recall
having asked this question also a few years back and that a list was made,
but I can't find it any longer...

Thanks!

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Cristian Consonni kikkocrist...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Welcome, Kourosh!

 Cristian

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

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

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

2015-03-27 Thread Jan Ainali
Lodewijk: there is this interactive org chart, but I do not know how
official it is: http://orgcharts.wmflabs.org/#5085aa408fedf26b6801/


*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*

Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se
0729 - 67 29 48


*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens
samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.*
Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se


2015-03-28 0:22 GMT+01:00 Lodewijk lodew...@effeietsanders.org:

 Welcome Kourosh.

 In Wikimedian spirit, i would like to take the opportunity to ask the silly
 question: is the structure of what all titles in Wikimedia mean, described
 somewhere? Because to be honest, I'm getting all confused about who ranks
 what in the structure of directors, vice presidents, chiefs, heads,
 managers and seniors. I was, silly me, always under the impression that a
 Vice President was basically just below the ED - on the C-level.

 I was looking for this info to be perhaps linked from the staff 
 contractors page on wmfwiki, but i don't seem to be able to find it. Could
 someone enlighten, and perhaps add it somewhere if not there yet? I recall
 having asked this question also a few years back and that a list was made,
 but I can't find it any longer...

 Thanks!

 On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Cristian Consonni 
 kikkocrist...@gmail.com
  wrote:

  Welcome, Kourosh!
 
  Cristian
 
  ___
  Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
  https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
  Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
  mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
 
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

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

2015-03-27 Thread MZMcBride
Lodewijk wrote:
In Wikimedian spirit, i would like to take the opportunity to ask the
silly question: is the structure of what all titles in Wikimedia mean,
described somewhere? Because to be honest, I'm getting all confused about
who ranks what in the structure of directors, vice presidents, chiefs,
heads, managers and seniors. I was, silly me, always under the impression
that a Vice President was basically just below the ED - on the C-level.

I was looking for this info to be perhaps linked from the staff 
contractors page on wmfwiki, but i don't seem to be able to find it. Could
someone enlighten, and perhaps add it somewhere if not there yet? I recall
having asked this question also a few years back and that a list was made,
but I can't find it any longer...

Hi.

I think you're talking about an org chart here. The Wikimedia Foundation
used to have one, but they're kind of annoying to maintain and any public
version basically fell apart years ago. Last I saw, it was a tool on Labs,
but it's been through several iterations. The page histories (of the
article and the template) on wikimediafoundation.org will have references
to it if you go back a few years.

Re: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors

The template page includes a table of contents, which is not yet updated
to reflect this new department, but is still really helpful for
understanding the organization's structure nonetheless. Bonus: that page
also auto-expands the sections for faster and easier searching. Viewing
the template page instead of the article is a nice little hack for now.

MZMcBride



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

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

2015-03-27 Thread Samuel Klein
Fantastic news and a great advancement - welcome Kourosh!

SJ

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Lila Tretikov l...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 Dear Wikimedians,

 In order to encourage the expansion of knowledge, we’ve been considering
 new ways to support and develop the work you do. Collaboration is an
 essential part of the Wikimedia movement, and today, I’m excited to let you
 know about a new addition at the Wikimedia Foundation that will support our
 collaboration with like-minded organizations.

 For some time now, we’ve planned to hire a Vice President of Strategic
 Partnerships. Today, I am pleased to announce that Kourosh Karimkhany will
 step into this role on March 30, 2015.

 Kourosh will be responsible for crafting a strategy to grow long-term value
 for Wikimedia projects through building meaningful partnerships, projects,
 and relationships on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. He will become
 part of the C-level team and will report to Lisa Gruwell. Kourosh will also
 oversee Wikipedia Zero, which will transition to the partnerships team.

 The Wikimedia community has many fruitful and creative partnerships that
 help support knowledge creation and sharing around the world. The
 partnerships Kourosh will support will will help us better support these
 partnerships and your work, as well as grow strategic initiatives we take
 on at the WMF.

 Kourosh was born in Iran and moved to the U.S. as a child with his family.
 Today, he is an experienced digital media professional with a passion for
 sharing information with the world. He started his career as a technology
 journalist covering Silicon Valley for Bloomberg, Reuters and Wired. He
 switched to the business side of media when he joined Yahoo as senior
 producer of Yahoo News. Later, he led corporate development at Conde Nast
 where he spearheaded the acquisition of Wired.com, Ars Technica and Reddit.
 He also cofounded Food Republic in 2009, which was acquired in 2013. He's
 an active angel investor and startup advisor.

 In light of the expanded scope of the Fundraising team and the revamped
 partnerships team, we’re changing the team's name to better reflect their
 mission. The new name is the Advancement Department.  To learn more about
 the new role, visit the FAQ here:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Partnerships_FAQ

 Please join me in welcoming Kourosh as the newest member of the WMF
 leadership team. We have many exciting projects in 2015 and I’m looking
 forward to all the great things we will accomplish as we work together to
 support our mission.

 Lila
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe




-- 
Samuel Klein  @metasj   w:user:sj  +1 617 529 4266
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-27 Thread Pine W
Welcome Kourosh. (:

Can you give us some examples of partnerships that you will be developing
or supporting?

It would also be really interesting to hear how your role relates to the
kinds of institutional relationships that other departments have formed
over the years. I'd love to hear an overview sometime of how you hope to
develop these further in ways that are beneficial to the Wikimedia
community.

I hope that we will see you in Berlin!

Regards,

Pine

*This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/






*One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
know.**—Catherine Munro*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

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

2015-03-27 Thread Tonmoy Khan
Welcome Kourosh to the Wikimedia family :)

Cheers

Ali Haidar Khan
FDC Member
Treasurer, Wikimedia Bangladesh
On Mar 28, 2015 6:02 AM, Pine W wiki.p...@gmail.com wrote:

 Welcome Kourosh. (:

 Can you give us some examples of partnerships that you will be developing
 or supporting?

 It would also be really interesting to hear how your role relates to the
 kinds of institutional relationships that other departments have formed
 over the years. I'd love to hear an overview sometime of how you hope to
 develop these further in ways that are beneficial to the Wikimedia
 community.

 I hope that we will see you in Berlin!

 Regards,

 Pine

 *This is an Encyclopedia* https://www.wikipedia.org/






 *One gateway to the wide garden of knowledge, where lies The deep rock of
 our past, in which we must delve The well of our future,The clear water we
 must leave untainted for those who come after us,The fertile earth, in
 which truth may grow in bright places, tended by many hands,And the broad
 fall of sunshine, warming our first steps toward knowing how much we do not
 know.**—Catherine Munro*
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe