Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-27 Thread Gnangarra 
What Net Neutrality is talking about is not creating a payTV format where
you pay for channels(sites)  more you pay the more you can access.
 Wikipedia Zero is different as its focus isnt on accessing the site its
about making that access free from mobile/cell data charges in place where
the primary net connection is via mobile/cell services.

What I'm reading is a conflagration between freely accessing Wikipedia as a
site(or any other site) and getting that data free as in beer.   Its like
driving a car on the road net neutrality is being able to drive on the road
without tolls and WP0 is about fuel economy of the vehicle you drive

On 27 November 2017 at 16:29, Todd Allen  wrote:

> It is rather unfortunate that we went ahead with things like "Wikipedia
> Zero" without objection. It rather undermines our moral authority to demand
> net neutrality, and now that's really needed. Someone could easily say "But
> you support non-neutral schemes when it benefits you!", and not be far
> wrong.
>
> Todd
>
> On Nov 26, 2017 2:49 AM, "Vi to"  wrote:
>
> > I have to rely upon my knowledge of plans in EU, I may be wrong with
> other
> > "rich Countries", if so please make me aware of.
> >
> > Time-based tariffs are in "rich countries" are almost out of business.
> Also
> > data, cheaper data plans currently includes enough data to make surfing
> WMF
> > sites impact very few upon overall consumption. How can you tell "who" is
> > eligible for WP0? By "who" I mean which countries/places, telco users,
> etc.
> > A line between "rich" and "poor" countries is "easy" to draw, others
> > aren't.
> >
> > Making zero-carrier a default for all of the World would make me drop my
> > objections. But we firstly need to find a safe and cheap (in terms of
> > efforts) way to stop abuses, though most of abuses come from Countries
> > where data traffic is really expensive.
> >
> > Finally a question: do we have reports about WP0? I mean, traffic, number
> > of users served, pages delivered, costs?
> >
> > Vito
> >
> > 2017-11-26 4:32 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA
> > who
> > > have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
> > > service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
> > > article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people
> and
> > > that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister
> projects
> > > considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view
> information,
> > it
> > > would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will
> > benefit
> > > from zero rating of information.
> > >
> > > Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that
> > it
> > > was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a
> benefit
> > to
> > > our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia
> content
> > in
> > > this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
> > > Thanks,
> > >   GerardM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7  wrote:
> > >
> > > > The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation
> > has
> > > > been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> > > > Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see
> [2][3]),
> > > I’m
> > > > not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether
> > positively
> > > > or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change
> > by
> > > > expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand,
> > > that’s
> > > > probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote
> > > access
> > > > to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the
> Internet
> > > may
> > > > be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> > > > States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
> > > >
> > > > Mz7
> > > >
> > > > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> > > > 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > > > [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> > > > consideration
> > > > > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the
> Wikimedia
> > > > > Foundation?
> > > > >
> > > > > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >  GerardM
> > > > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-27 Thread Todd Allen 
It is rather unfortunate that we went ahead with things like "Wikipedia
Zero" without objection. It rather undermines our moral authority to demand
net neutrality, and now that's really needed. Someone could easily say "But
you support non-neutral schemes when it benefits you!", and not be far
wrong.

Todd

On Nov 26, 2017 2:49 AM, "Vi to"  wrote:

> I have to rely upon my knowledge of plans in EU, I may be wrong with other
> "rich Countries", if so please make me aware of.
>
> Time-based tariffs are in "rich countries" are almost out of business. Also
> data, cheaper data plans currently includes enough data to make surfing WMF
> sites impact very few upon overall consumption. How can you tell "who" is
> eligible for WP0? By "who" I mean which countries/places, telco users, etc.
> A line between "rich" and "poor" countries is "easy" to draw, others
> aren't.
>
> Making zero-carrier a default for all of the World would make me drop my
> objections. But we firstly need to find a safe and cheap (in terms of
> efforts) way to stop abuses, though most of abuses come from Countries
> where data traffic is really expensive.
>
> Finally a question: do we have reports about WP0? I mean, traffic, number
> of users served, pages delivered, costs?
>
> Vito
>
> 2017-11-26 4:32 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
> > Hoi,
> > While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA
> who
> > have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
> > service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
> > article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and
> > that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister projects
> > considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information,
> it
> > would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will
> benefit
> > from zero rating of information.
> >
> > Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that
> it
> > was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit
> to
> > our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content
> in
> > this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> >
> >
> > On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7  wrote:
> >
> > > The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation
> has
> > > been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> > > Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]),
> > I’m
> > > not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether
> positively
> > > or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change
> by
> > > expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand,
> > that’s
> > > probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote
> > access
> > > to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet
> > may
> > > be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> > > States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
> > >
> > > Mz7
> > >
> > > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> > > 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > > [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > >
> > > --
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
> > >
> > > > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> > gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> > > consideration
> > > > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > > > Foundation?
> > > >
> > > > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service
> in
> > > the
> > > > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/
> mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-26 Thread Vi to 
I have to rely upon my knowledge of plans in EU, I may be wrong with other
"rich Countries", if so please make me aware of.

Time-based tariffs are in "rich countries" are almost out of business. Also
data, cheaper data plans currently includes enough data to make surfing WMF
sites impact very few upon overall consumption. How can you tell "who" is
eligible for WP0? By "who" I mean which countries/places, telco users, etc.
A line between "rich" and "poor" countries is "easy" to draw, others aren't.

Making zero-carrier a default for all of the World would make me drop my
objections. But we firstly need to find a safe and cheap (in terms of
efforts) way to stop abuses, though most of abuses come from Countries
where data traffic is really expensive.

Finally a question: do we have reports about WP0? I mean, traffic, number
of users served, pages delivered, costs?

Vito

2017-11-26 4:32 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA who
> have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia
> service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The
> article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and
> that is no different in the USA.  With Wikipedia and its sister projects
> considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information, it
> would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will benefit
> from zero rating of information.
>
> Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that it
> was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit to
> our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content in
> this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
>
>
> On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7  wrote:
>
> > The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation has
> > been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> > Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]),
> I’m
> > not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether positively
> > or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change by
> > expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand,
> that’s
> > probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote
> access
> > to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet
> may
> > be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> > States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
> >
> > Mz7
> >
> > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> > 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> > [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> >
> > --
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
> >
> > > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hoi,
> > > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> > consideration
> > > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > > Foundation?
> > >
> > > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in
> > the
> > > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality

2017-11-26 Thread Vi to 
In most of the "Western" Countries traffic plans for mobile users cannot be
significantly affected by traffic towards WMF sites. So WP0 should not be
expanded to "the North".

I'm actually puzzled by the possibility for providers to ask fees to WMF in
order to retain a decent quality of service .

Vito

2017-11-26 3:56 GMT+01:00 Mz7 :

> The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation has
> been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the
> Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]), I’m
> not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether positively
> or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change by
> expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand, that’s
> probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote access
> to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet may
> be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United
> States, that’s not really a prioritized issue.
>
> Mz7
>
> [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/
> 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
> [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
>
> --
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7
>
> > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been
> consideration
> > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia
> > Foundation?
> >
> > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service in
> the
> > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Marc A. Pelletier 
On 15-04-01 01:06 PM, Jens Best wrote:
 I will take the time to explain you why [I believe] net neutrality
 is more than you suggest and why [I think] we need to be a
 little bit less starry-eyed [than I believe we are] when
 it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice
 to Wikipedia.
 Also I will add some remarks about why [I think] a little bit
 more humbleness from [those I perceive to be] the we are the
 knowledge of the world-fraction would be appropiated in
 the whole discussion.

It would appear that bits of your message were accidentally elided when
it was sent.  I took the opportunity to restore the bits that were
clearly missing - no doubt you did not intend to express your opinion as
though it was fact nor apply it uniformly to everyone on the mailing list.

-- 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] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best 
Dear James,

your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this moderated.

When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is more
than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
the we are the knowledge of the world-fraction would be appropiated in
the whole discussion.

best regards

Jens

2015-04-01 18:37 GMT+02:00 James Salsman jsals...@gmail.com:

 Jens,

 Why do you say net neutrality has anything to do with price? It's about
 best-effort delivery of packets without censorship or, for example,
 treating packets that say do you want to join our radical fundamentalist
 agnostic cell, the same way as we treat packets that say, do you want to
 subscribe to our newsletter.

 In 1973, the packet switching X.25 systems which resemble today's internet
 more closely than the IMP point-to-point testing at the time had no
 provisions for packet inspection or quality of service adjustments. But
 if you didn't subscribe to a database that you might want to access (which
 may or may not cost money) then you had no access because if there were no
 login credentials then you could tell everyone how to use the database when
 it could only handle on the order of dozens of users at a time. What you
 want in saying that you think zero rating violates net neutrality is the
 MIT open Multics movement, which exists on the internet today in the form
 of free and ad-supported hosting services like Wikia. Net neutrality is
 about no preferred qualities of packet delivery service, because those
 are best handled by adaptive rate coding at the application layer, which is
 what the WMF causes the implementation of when they contract with cell
 carriers to allow access to Wikipedia content for no charge. The fact that
 Wikipedia is civilization's best summary of accumulated knowledge so far is
 the reason why carriers are willing to provide the transmission power to
 their users at no charge in areas where they still ordinarily compete on a
 per-bit fee. That is an economic application design choice that has nothing
 to do with packet delivery choices.

 Similarly, in the 1860s the Hayes printing telegraph ticker tape had no
 restrictions on who could send a transmission or what it's content might
 be, and in cases of congestion, the operator noticing a collision first
 would back off, and the other would re-transmit in an egalitarian
 fashion, but the data you sent would obtain a response in proportion to the
 amount the recipient was being paid.

 Wikipedia Zero is a great program and I hope something like Wikiversity
 Zero assessments will be how hundreds of millions of people learn new facts
 pertinent to their lives and helpful to them in ten years. With adaptive
 instruction coupled to Wikipedia Accuracy Review, I believe that such a
 system will support the transition from creating new articles to
 maintaining existing content. I hope both the WMF and the WEF support this
 effort, because if the WEF was paying for it, it would likely not influence
 the safe harbor provisions protecting the WMF from legal liability due to
 inaccuracies. I am sad when dictatorships use Wikipedia Zero for propaganda
 purposes, but I am not sure how much of a problem that is relative to the
 advantages.

 Best regards,
 James Salsman



___
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] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best 
Hi Nathan and everybody,

Last time I checked my mail (containing my repsonse to Gerard) wasn't
published and as I sent it yesterday morning I'm suprised that it took that
long to arrive.

Also, I would like you to stop your wrong assumptions about off-topic -
As Gerard made a statement to Wikipedia Zero my answer to him isn't surely
off topic. I didn't decide to discuss the pros/cons of WP0 in the
Welcome-Mail to Kourosh.
In my welcoming response I just pointed out to Kourosh that one of his new
responsibilities (highlighted by Lila) is a big problem for the global
community which cares about an open and free web, inculding several NGOs of
the Global South who spoke out clearly against Wikipedia Zero e.g. at the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul (where net neutrality was
a main subject of discussion). As this subject was subsequentially
discussed in the threat my answer to Gerard's input was not off-topic at
all.

Right now I don't feel any open-mindedness towards even the possibilitiy
that The Great WMF could have made a mistake by going to bed with the
telecoms to get zero-rated. As long as there isn't even the slightest
willingness to acknowledge the possibility that WP0 was a mistake it
becomes more and more senseless to talk with official and inofficial
representatives of the WMF-system.

Maybe WMF and with it Wikipedia has to learn the consequences of its
mistakes the hard way. But the ignorance towards facts which was presented
over the last months when it comes to the glorious Wikipedia Zero and the
fact that it is a violation of core principle of the free and open web is
enourmous and without any excuse for an organisation carrying that amount
of responsibility when it comes to stand for an open web which made
Wikipedia possible in the first.

Hopefully with Kourosh the organisation will get somebody who has the
outside-world experience and the professional courage to stop mistakes like
Wikipedia Zero. We'll see. Apart from that I rest my case, all the
recurring participants in the ongoing discussion exchanged their arguments
already. I don't see new faces in the discussion and therefore I'm actually
not interested to repeat my arguments over and over.

Just, because I promised him, two main answer to James:

- Of course net neutrality has a monetary aspect. Read the
definition[1]: …treat
all data on the Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet equally,
not discriminating or *charging differentially* by content, site, platform,
application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. If you
have to pay different prices for different data it is a basic violation of
net neutrality. net neutrality isn't about techy aspects, it is about power
and structural equality in the web.

- Wikipedia Zero can't offer the promised grow because by definition it is
a *Walled Wikipedia*. WP0 will always be just a marketing tool for telecoms
to lure new customers in and train them that different data has different
price tag. Their teachings are: When you wanna leave Wikipedia, wanna
follow the links to really enrich your knowledge by using all the other
free content in the web - you have to pay. So therefore Wikipedia Zero is
not about the free knowledge of the world, it is a Wikipedia which has
chosen the wrong side of the play about a free and open web for the
self-involved purpose of being the one and only source for knowledge.
Welcome to world of first-world-owned telecoms teaching their new Global
South-customers an internet far away from what the internet was supposed
to be.


cheers

Jens

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

PS: @Marc No Marc, no bits of my message were accidentally elided. When I
write in a mailinglist I, of course, express my opinion and my points of
view, but your nit-picking and pseudo-kind cynical remarks additionally
prove how biased the whole discussion is at the moment in the WMF-universe.
Critics are not welcome. Message recieved, continue with your holy mission.
Hail Wikipedia, the mother of all knowledge available to the poor!

2015-04-01 19:20 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:

 Jens - your reply to Gerard on the other thread (where it is surely off
 topic) was published a couple of hours ago.

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Jens Best best.j...@gmail.com wrote:

  Dear James,
 
  your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
  but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
  published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this moderated.
 
  When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
  mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is
 more
  than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
  it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
  Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
  the we are the knowledge of the world-fraction would be

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Nathan 
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc gil...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
 presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
 good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might be
 different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
 constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly normal
 that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be different
 than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the constraints
 change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
 whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if users
 in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think to
 be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own accord.


I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens,
the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any
deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some
who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel
shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this
religious view of net neutrality.

Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist
aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of
European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly
uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better
what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero
is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is),
then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you
misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to
Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was
off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally,
I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread.
___
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] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Gilles Dubuc 
To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might be
different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly normal
that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be different
than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the constraints
change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if users
in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think to
be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own accord.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Jens Best best.j...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Nathan and everybody,

 Last time I checked my mail (containing my repsonse to Gerard) wasn't
 published and as I sent it yesterday morning I'm suprised that it took that
 long to arrive.

 Also, I would like you to stop your wrong assumptions about off-topic -
 As Gerard made a statement to Wikipedia Zero my answer to him isn't surely
 off topic. I didn't decide to discuss the pros/cons of WP0 in the
 Welcome-Mail to Kourosh.
 In my welcoming response I just pointed out to Kourosh that one of his new
 responsibilities (highlighted by Lila) is a big problem for the global
 community which cares about an open and free web, inculding several NGOs of
 the Global South who spoke out clearly against Wikipedia Zero e.g. at the
 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul (where net neutrality was
 a main subject of discussion). As this subject was subsequentially
 discussed in the threat my answer to Gerard's input was not off-topic at
 all.

 Right now I don't feel any open-mindedness towards even the possibilitiy
 that The Great WMF could have made a mistake by going to bed with the
 telecoms to get zero-rated. As long as there isn't even the slightest
 willingness to acknowledge the possibility that WP0 was a mistake it
 becomes more and more senseless to talk with official and inofficial
 representatives of the WMF-system.

 Maybe WMF and with it Wikipedia has to learn the consequences of its
 mistakes the hard way. But the ignorance towards facts which was presented
 over the last months when it comes to the glorious Wikipedia Zero and the
 fact that it is a violation of core principle of the free and open web is
 enourmous and without any excuse for an organisation carrying that amount
 of responsibility when it comes to stand for an open web which made
 Wikipedia possible in the first.

 Hopefully with Kourosh the organisation will get somebody who has the
 outside-world experience and the professional courage to stop mistakes like
 Wikipedia Zero. We'll see. Apart from that I rest my case, all the
 recurring participants in the ongoing discussion exchanged their arguments
 already. I don't see new faces in the discussion and therefore I'm actually
 not interested to repeat my arguments over and over.

 Just, because I promised him, two main answer to James:

 - Of course net neutrality has a monetary aspect. Read the
 definition[1]: …treat
 all data on the Internet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet equally,
 not discriminating or *charging differentially* by content, site, platform,
 application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. If you
 have to pay different prices for different data it is a basic violation of
 net neutrality. net neutrality isn't about techy aspects, it is about power
 and structural equality in the web.

 - Wikipedia Zero can't offer the promised grow because by definition it is
 a *Walled Wikipedia*. WP0 will always be just a marketing tool for telecoms
 to lure new customers in and train them that different data has different
 price tag. Their teachings are: When you wanna leave Wikipedia, wanna
 follow the links to really enrich your knowledge by using all the other
 free content in the web - you have to pay. So therefore Wikipedia Zero is
 not about the free knowledge of the world, it is a Wikipedia which has
 chosen the wrong side of the play about a free and open web for the
 self-involved purpose of being the one and only source for knowledge.
 Welcome to world of first-world-owned telecoms teaching their new Global
 South-customers an internet far away from what the internet was supposed
 to be.


 cheers

 Jens

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

 PS: @Marc No Marc, no bits of my message were accidentally elided. When I
 write in a mailinglist I, of course, express my opinion and my points of
 view, but your nit-picking and pseudo-kind cynical remarks additionally
 prove how biased the whole discussion is at the moment in the WMF-universe.
 Critics are not welcome. Message recieved, continue with your holy mission.
 Hail Wikipedia, the mother of all

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Nathan 
Jens - your reply to Gerard on the other thread (where it is surely off
topic) was published a couple of hours ago.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Jens Best best.j...@gmail.com wrote:

 Dear James,

 your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
 but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
 published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this moderated.

 When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
 mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is more
 than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
 it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
 Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
 the we are the knowledge of the world-fraction would be appropiated in
 the whole discussion.

 best regards

 Jens
___
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] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best 
Dear Nathan et al.

I answered Josh in the other threat but will copy my answer to him again
here below so that anybody interested to continue can do this in the
right threat.

Nathan, I am disgusted by your comparisons. colonialist aspect? little
reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the
supposedly uncivilized. These allegations - presented as comparisons - are
purely insulting.

Oh, and actually it was Lila who introduced WP0 to this threat - otherwise
I wouldn't have taken the chance to hint Kourosh to this field which was
announced to be in his future field of responsibility.

I will not continue discussing with people making insulting comparisons to
violent christian missionaries or similarily offending rhetoric stuff which
in no way helps the discussion.

I - as everybody else in this discussion - are not to be judged by my race.
Believing just because I am white I could only think and behave in
colonistic pattern is an insult and not a contribution to the discussion.

cheers

Jens


2015-04-01 21:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawr...@gmail.com:

 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc gil...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
  presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
  good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might
 be
  different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
  constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly
 normal
  that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be
 different
  than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the
 constraints
  change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
  whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if
 users
  in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think
 to
  be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own
 accord.


 I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens,
 the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any
 deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some
 who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel
 shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this
 religious view of net neutrality.

 Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist
 aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of
 European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly
 uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better
 what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero
 is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is),
 then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.

 And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you
 misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to
 Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was
 off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally,
 I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread.
 ___
 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] Net neutrality: since when has it had anything to do with price?

2015-04-01 Thread Jens Best 
what Josh Lim wrote in the other threat:

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

---

my answer to Josh:

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