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