Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2015-01-08 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Kim Bruning wrote: Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also articles praising us? :-) https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868 Quoting, Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp and Wikipedia become “the Internet” for the users of mobile data supported by

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2015-01-07 Thread Kim Bruning
Found another article calling out Wikipedia. Are there also articles praising us? :-) https://medium.com/backchannel/less-than-zero-199bcb05a868 I do think that wikipedia zero is useful in the short term. I'm a bit worried about the long term though. Question: How do you predict

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-09 Thread Jens Best
Hi Eric, your last line expresses a direction which would enhance the spirit of the movement in an appropiate way. Let me repeat it: Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-09 Thread Mike Godwin
Jens writes: (I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery, Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net neutrality repeatedly absolutist. This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't fit you.) I suppose at this point I could declare that its rhetorical trickery,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-09 Thread Mike Godwin
+1 I agree entirely with every word of Erik's response here. --Mike Message: 2 Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2014 22:28:37 -0800 From: Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-09 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 14-12-09 08:45 AM, Jens Best wrote: when calling the usual and established understanding of net neutrality repeatedly absolutist. Except that it is. At its heart, net neutrality demands that there be no QoS or pricing difference to 'net access depending on the endpoint. That is,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-09 Thread David Gerard
On 9 December 2014 at 20:35, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many first-worlders because we equate that as everything is equally inexpensive to level the playing field. Except that for the vast majority of the world's

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread MZMcBride
Mike Godwin wrote: Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us. I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread Mike Godwin
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see. I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread MZMcBride
Mike Godwin wrote: If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see. I don't actually see the Wikipedia

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread Mike Godwin
MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote: I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR. And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them. If you have an alternative funding plan for

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread John Mark Vandenberg
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet descending to a TV

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread Mike Godwin
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ... Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread Erik Moeller
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote: Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public Free Knowledge. Hey Jens, I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-08 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly important to have Wikipedia zero. They are. There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero. It effectively saves

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-04 Thread rupert THURNER
Hi mike, That pipes are dumb is fundamental for having cheap Internet access. Most contracts for Wikipedia zero are done with telcos which either want to catch up in getting more reach in the population, or those which have a higher price for data. Not allowing them to use wikipedia to influence

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-02 Thread Josh Lim
A developing country perspective is missing in this conversation, so I’m going to fill in the gap since I find it odd that we’re talking about developing” countries, when everyone who’s been participating in this discussion so far has been from developed countries. Wiadomość napisana przez

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Milos Rancic
On Dec 1, 2014 8:26 AM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote: On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong to the corpus of common good. Like air and free

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Martijn Hoekstra
On Nov 26, 2014 11:21 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote: Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ sincerely, Kim This is obviously not the first time this comes up, and

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Tim Starling
On 01/12/14 15:24, svetlana wrote: Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we don't use a big CDN. Why don't we? Is it one of the expensive for us, cheap for users things? That may be part of it. Also, we have unusual technical requirements for freshness of content

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Gerard Meijssen
Hoi, We do have the experience needed. We have servers in Amsterdam and, it is something we can repeat. When the desires of our ops team negatively affect the performance of our users, they have to reconsider what they are thinking. Imho that is not an acceptable argument. Thanks, GerardM

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Federico Leva (Nemo)
This comparison is quite useful and got rather popular: «For all the arcana in telecommunications law, there is a really simple way of thinking of the debate over net neutrality: Is access to the Internet more like access to electricity, or more like cable television service?».

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Mike Godwin
Tim Landscheidt writes: I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust. I'm not following your reasoning

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread David Gerard
On 1 December 2014 at 14:45, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: Net neutrality as currently defined is an alluring concept because - as Westerners - we percieve its putative effect as make everything uniformly inexpensive to level the playing field for users and content providers.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Liam Wyatt
I'm finding this highly principled conversation fascinating to read - I'm genuinely learning a lot about the different arguments (both philosophical and practical) used to support or critique Wikipedia Zero. What a diverse and highly informed group of people this list contains! :-) From my

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Nathan
On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Liam Wyatt liamwy...@gmail.com wrote: From my Australian perspective, it's interesting because we've never had 'net neutrality' in the way that it is described in the US and, with appropriate competition and regulation this is not been a problem. e.g.: Net

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-12-01 Thread Yana Welinder
Hi all, As Gayle mentioned in her email, the article in the Washington Post did not represent an official position on net neutrality from the Wikimedia Foundation, or how we understand Wikipedia Zero. I wanted to provide some background that does. Wikipedia Zero is designed to empower people who

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Ryan Lane
Kim Bruning kim@... writes: Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Mark
On 11/30/14, 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane wrote: Providing free access to Wikipedia doesn't violate the concept of net neutrality. Access to Wikimedia is being subsidized by the mobile companies. Access to other sources of information isn't being slowed. There's no extra charge to access other sources of

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread rupert THURNER
On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Ryan Lane rlan...@gmail.com wrote: Kim Bruning kim@... writes: Washington post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ The response to this is embarrassing and lacking.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread MZMcBride
Ryan Lane wrote: Kim Bruning kim@... writes (roughly): Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the foundation has done). [...] I think

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Marc A. Pelletier
On 11/30/2014 11:08 AM, MZMcBride wrote: I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality. That's perfectly true, but because the traditional definition of net neutrality (and, by extension, the definition of what

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread David Gerard
On 30 November 2014 at 17:14, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote: So it's clearly neutral in the equally available sense of the term. And it remains neutral in the competition sense of the term since they are welcome to zero-rate any other service they wish alongside ours. This is

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Jens Best
2-3 short remarks to your arguments, Marc: First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes overly simplistic and unrealistic and inadequate the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;) Principles

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Todd Allen
Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not favoring -any- service over any

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Ryan Lane
Mark delirium@... writes: I don't see a distinction here, unless you're extremely naive about economics. Discriminatory pricing in any market can be done in two ways: 1. have a standard rate and add a surcharge to certain disfavored uses; or 2. have a standard rate and give a discount to

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Ryan Lane
MZMcBride z at mzmcbride.com writes: Ryan Lane wrote: Kim Bruning kim at ... writes (roughly): Washington post article: http://wapo.st/1zUXNXj The response to this is embarrassing and lacking. Wikipedia Zero is an amazing program (and is one of the only excellent

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Tim Starling
On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote: Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality). Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread svetlana
On Mon, 1 Dec 2014, at 15:21, Tim Starling wrote: On 01/12/14 06:10, Todd Allen wrote: Second, well, of course all providers are happy to use Wikipedia (Zero) as a door opener to get the customer used to different treatment of data (which is a clear violation of net neutrality).

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Milos Rancic
I don't see economics here, unless you are extremely naive about reality. There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example.

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Tim Landscheidt
Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote: [...] Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually

Re: [Wikimedia-l] WaPo Wikipedia's 'complicated; relationship with net neutrality

2014-11-30 Thread Mark
On 12/1/14, 7:11 AM, Milos Rancic wrote: There are some items -- abused or not for marketing purposes of the entities used for achieving interests of their shareholders -- which belong to the corpus of common good. Like air and free knowledge are, for example. If an ISP wanted to make *all*