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 “zero rating” plans, because
  accessing these services doesn’t cause users to hit the data caps
  applied by the carriers, and in many cases the plans don’t require
  the user to sign up for mobile data at all.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles

  Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold as part of a bundle. Access to the
  Wikimedia sites through Wikipedia Zero cannot be sold through limited
  service bundles.

It seems pretty clear to me that users of Wikipedia Zero must pay a
non-trivial amount for mobile data above and beyond normal telephony
services, even if they only access zero-rated services, otherwise it
is a limited service bundle which we are lead to believe is forbidden.

(It is also possible the intent of the requirement above is that it is
entirely okay to sell Wikipedia Zero through limited service bundles
so long as an operator does not offer even more limited services; in
that case the phrasing is grossly misleading.)

I assume the Foundation closely monitors offerings of operators it has
made an agreement with to ensure access to Wikipedia Zero is never sold
as part of a limited service bundle. Could the relevant records please
be released?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
D-10243 Berlin · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
 Available for hire in Berlin (early 2015)  · http://www.websitedev.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] 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 wikipedia zero's effect on the internet in
the long term? There are clearly going to be both positive and
negative effects. Denying either is silly. What can we do to
strengthen the positive effects, and how do we mitigate the
negative?

At what thresholds would wikipedia zero be stopped in some
country and at what thresholds promoted? Are there
documents/analysis online?

sincerely,
Kim

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:07:02PM +0100, Kim Bruning wrote:
 
 Washington post article
   
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/
 
 sincerely,
   Kim
 
 ___
 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

-- 
[Non-pgp mail clients may show pgp-signature as attachment]
gpg (www.gnupg.org) Fingerprint for key  FEF9DD72
5ED6 E215 73EE AD84 E03A  01C5 94AC 7B0E FEF9 DD72

___
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] 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.

THIS is a great punchline, a good next big target which could put Wikimedia
in the middle of a stronger and broader global movement. Free Public
Knowledge is also great when you think of the goals of Wikidata -
structured data connected to empower knowledge enabler and facilitators of
Free Education around the world with good data and informations. Free
Public Knowledge is putting the beacon named Wikipedia in front of a great
campaign which would reach out far beyond being the greatest encyclopedia
ever.

It is clear by now that imho it would also help to make something better
out of the flaw which Wikipedia Zero is right now when it comes to net
neutrality. (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.) It would be good for WMF to admit that with the best intentions a
mistake was made which scale wasn't really thought through before.

Wikipedia Zero is still primarily a marketing stunt for mobile providers
(e.g. Orange) which build up on the great trust in the name Wikipedia.
Data is data, no user is thinking in terms like good cause data and pure
commercial data - and this kind of familiarization with data on different
rates (incl. zero rate) is what the mobile providers count on. I consider
activists for other aspects of a free and open web partners in crime and
not some other unrelated guys whose cause I'm willing to trade cheap when
it fits the selfish interests of my brand.

But, as mentioned, there is no sense in looking the stable door after the
horse has bolted - so let's think forward by reflecting activity-oriented
on putting Wikimedia in the middle of a broader movement for all Free
Public Knowledge and reduce ill-concieved partnerships with commercial
players on the way.

best regards

Jens Best

PS: Eric, gimme a moment (aka another later mail) to write about draft of
the definition of Free Public Knowledge (especially from the point of view
of our movement).

@GerardM
I don't wanna narrow your joy about WP0, but the thing with saving
lifes/protecting against ebola is that in neither[1] of the countries (Liberia,
Sierra Leone and Guinea) mentioned by James Heilman Wikipedia Zero is
active. So there is no proof that it wins laurels for that.

[1] according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships

2014-12-09 8:25 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com:

 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 lives.
 Thanks,
GerardM

 On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

  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 of a broader
  coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
  started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
  who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
  thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
  knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
  advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
 
  I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
  Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
  role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
  available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
  absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
  but it should count for something.
 
  Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
  of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
  to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
  a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
  society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
  domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
  further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
  heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
  consistent with our mission, as well.
 
  I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
  free knowledge to 

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, Jens, for you to declare my honest expression of my opinion
regarding network neutrality to be rhetorical trickery. (It's
actually a reflection of discussions I had with my colleagues at the
Internet Governance Forum in Istanbul earlier this year.)

I frankly don't see why you need to understand my beliefs regarding
network neutrality as cheap rhetorical maneuver when in fact there
has always been variation among net-neutrality activists as to what
network neutrality might mean. I've been writing about the subject
for eight years now, and my writing on the issue is publicly
available. In general, a cheap maneuver is one that takes little
investment, and I've clearly invested more than most people. As for
trickery, it hardly seems to me to be a trick when I'm not
concealing anything.

I want to suggest that if your first impulse is to criticize my
motives rather than to Assume Good Faith, you may want to consider
that I get nothing personally out of (a) advocating Wikipedia Zero, an
initiative that post-dates my tenure as WMF staff, or (b) talking
about network neutrality in a way that recognizes the particular
issues that mobile platform providers invoke.

As I pointed have pointed out, we *already* qualify network neutrality
with exceptions. These exceptions have not been ones you've noticed
before now, as far as i know. Should Wikipedia Zero be an exception? I
think so, for the reasons I've stated, as well as for the general
proposition that people in developing nations need unfettered access
to Wikipedia content now, and should not have to wait until the
Promised Land of generally unmetered access to mobile platforms is
created (which may not occur in our lifetimes).

It would be good for WMF to admit that with the best intentions a
 mistake was made which scale wasn't really thought through before.

It would be better if one didn't begin with the assumption that no one
at WMF thought hard about these issues before Wikipedia Zero was
launched. And still better, in terms of effective persuasion, if you
didn't begin by assuming bad faith (e.g., rhetorical trickery on the
part of those who disagree with you. After all, I don't assume bad
faith on your part.
.


--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] 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
 with net neutrality
 Message-ID:
 CAEg6ZHmwuejO-F3t+1aAMuBpk98FvEBskRyw4sE2QCJGqo8=m...@mail.gmail.com
 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

 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 of a broader
 coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
 started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
 who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
 thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
 knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
 advocating for free access to Wikipedia.

 I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
 Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
 role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
 available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
 absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
 but it should count for something.

 Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
 of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
 to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
 a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
 society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
 domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
 further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
 heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
 consistent with our mission, as well.

 I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
 free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
 apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
 organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
 building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
 serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
 off.

 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. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
 equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
 better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.

 Erik

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
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] 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, fundamentally, an absolutist view.


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 population, it means 
everything is equally expensive and unafordable.


If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the 
desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the 
world then it *is* an absolutist stance.


-- 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] 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 population, it means
 everything is equally expensive and unafordable.


You may well have nailed the two-liner of why Wikipedia Zero is a good idea.


 If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the
 desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the world
 then it *is* an absolutist stance.


Rather, not *our* absolutism.


- d.

___
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] 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, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
telecommunications company. So much for we'll never run advertising, eh.

I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
available in developing countries (which we somehow make more pejorative
by using the term Global South)? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
bedfellows, to be sure.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 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 can't understand
how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.

I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.


--Mike



On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 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, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
 page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
 telecommunications company. So much for we'll never run advertising, eh.

 I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
 thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
 wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
 available in developing countries (which we somehow make more pejorative
 by using the term Global South)? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
 in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

 Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
 they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
 Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
 interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
 bedfellows, to be sure.

 MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 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 banner ads, so I can't understand
how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.

I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.

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.

Like you, I'm a Wikimedian, so my focus is naturally on the intersection
between issues and Wikimedia. I wish PBS and NPR and other fine
organizations did not have those awful sponsored interruptions. Other
sites and forums have other needs and other priorities, but perhaps we can
stick to focusing on Wikipedia Zero in this thread? :-)

I found Phoebe's summary of the fundraising banners thread supremely
useful. I'm hoping that someone can create a similar summary for Meta-Wiki
about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality (there are blog posts on
blog.wikimedia.org to maybe pull from too).

My personal view at the moment still somewhat strongly leans toward it's
complicated, which I think, as David suggested, we may simply want
to embrace as a perfectly cromulent answer. But I do take issue, perhaps
not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
of Wikimedia's values.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 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 NPR, you should publish it.

But I do take issue, perhaps
 not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such
 as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I
 think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part
 of Wikimedia's values.

I take issue with being accused of language subversion and
manipulation. I invite you here not to accuse me of it any further.


--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] 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 network model, where distribution costs must be
paid by someone before the content is put onto the network.  NPR/radio
might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants
spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content
can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over
physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering
advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying
extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.

It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was
a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free
access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and
Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it
was added to the contracts with these organisations.

Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around
our current position.  Two that concern me are..

Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top
of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia
content to be sent freely across their network to the reader?  In
Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother)
enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their
content.  I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement
appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens.  If
a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but
inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia
Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content
freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?

Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and
Distributed Proofreaders, to be less freely accessible than Wikipedia,
because telcos only consider 'Wikipedia' as a viable loss leader, and
these other free content projects dont have the human resources needed
to establish contracts with telcos?  Wikipedia has been built on the
back of these other free content projects, with millions of volunteers
who scanned/photographed/transcribed free content which has been
imported into Wikipedia and sister projects.  *If* we help erode net
neutrality, and telcos turn the Internet into a TV model, it may not
prevent Wikipedia being distributed as the telcos might be happy to
use Wikipedia as a loss leader, but it will strangle the vibrant free
content marketplace of which we have been a thought leader, and helped
Wikipedia become what it is today.  Wikimedia is not an island.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com 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 banner ads, so I can't understand
 how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he
 does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship
 announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.

 I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments
 haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.


 --Mike



 On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
 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, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
 page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
 telecommunications company. So much for we'll never run advertising, eh.

 I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
 thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
 wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
 available in developing countries (which we somehow make more pejorative
 by using the term Global South)? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
 in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

 

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 analysis.* It is, instead, specifically addressed to the specific
complaint about interpreting banners as advertising. (Drilling down
even further: I don't see the banners on Wikipedia at all. So
necessarily the banners cannot be annoying to me.)

Since much of what you write is based on the misunderstanding that I
was using PBS as a pro-Wikipedia-Zero argument, I'm passing over the
misunderstanding without comment.

The larger issue: do we care more about Wikipedia's mission or more
about preserving some absolutist application of net neutrality? I
think Wikipedia's mission is more important, and you may disagree,
which is fine.

As I said in the piece, I care about both. But I also know that an
absolutely rigorous application of net neutrality--you know, the kind
of invariant principle that hobbyists who never to try to fund
anything themselves are prone to cook up--would require that emergency
phone calls (think 911 in the USA or 999 in the UK, for example) be
charged to the user.

Do you think emergency communications should be charged to the user by
the bit, John? If not, how do you justify that departure from
absolutist net-neutrality principles? And if you're not an absolutist
about net neutrality, then why can't you allow for the possibility
that access to Wikipedia may do more to help citizens of the
developing world than absolutist net neutrality will help them?

If you are comfortable condemning the developing world to charging
Wikipedia users for information by the bit for the indefinite future,
then by all means insist on network neutrality without exceptions.
(And certainly make sure that you enable all users to turn off
expensive emergency communications!)

But I seem to recall something about Wikipedia's providing the world's
information to everyone for free. The developing world needs to be
able to do this via mobile providers, whose business model is to
charge by the bit (or by the data plan).  I don't recall elevating net
neutrality as a principle above Wikipedia's mission.


--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] 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 of a broader
coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
advocating for free access to Wikipedia.

I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
but it should count for something.

Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
consistent with our mission, as well.

I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
off.

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. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.

Erik

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

___
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] 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 lives.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 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 of a broader
 coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero
 started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people
 who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are
 thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free
 knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily
 advocating for free access to Wikipedia.

 I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free
 Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some
 role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely
 available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an
 absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions),
 but it should count for something.

 Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition
 of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied
 to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is
 a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if
 society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public
 domain information should be available free of charge, this creates
 further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our
 heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely
 consistent with our mission, as well.

 I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring
 free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not
 apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the
 organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking,
 building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could
 serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it
 off.

 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. I couldn't think of a better 21st century
 equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a
 better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.

 Erik

 --
 Erik Möller
 VP of Product  Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation

 ___
 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] 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
competition and justify higher prices is helping to bridge the digital
divide. I do not find it fair that people in financially less favored
countries have to pay more per gigabyte traffic in USD than people in rich
countries. This gets even worse if one compares percentage of income spent
for a gigabyte.

The only well balanced answer out of Wmf I saw up to now clearly showing
the conflict this offering is in is the excellent WOP statement from gale.

it is easy to design a solution which is compliant to net neutrality: if a
person is reading wikipedia 200 MB traffic are free, any content. I d
consider it a fundamental failure of the wmf legal department, especially
yana, that they are not capable or willing to negotiate such contracts.

Rupert
On Dec 1, 2014 4:14 PM, Mike Godwin mnemo...@gmail.com wrote:

 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 here. I don't see any sense in which
 Wikipedia Zero is contradicting other opinions or resulting in
 resources that bite the dust. Wikipedia Zero is not rivalrous in any
 economic sense that I'm aware of.

  This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
  things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
  neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
  nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
  views, not more people consume one view.

 So, you'd rather have users pay by the bit for Wikipedia on their
 mobile devices? This does not serve Wikipedia or its users in the
 developing world. The chart I use here shows you what the cost of
 broadband access is in the developing world, which relies primarily on
 mobile platforms.

 https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141201000351-209165-wikipedia-zero-will-serve-net-neutrality

  And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
  needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

 But you haven't said what those severe doubts are. Having spent the
 last couple of years working on access projects in the developing
 world, I haven't encountered an alternative model that doesn't result
 in higher prices for subscribers. As the chart I reproduce indicates,
 in some places in the developing world, the annual cost of broadband
 access exceeds the average per capita income. I do not see how it
 serves Wikipedia's mission to require individual users to pay so much
 for Wikipedia access.


 --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
___
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] 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 Tim Landscheidt t...@tim-landscheidt.de w dniu 1 
 gru 2014, o godz. 09:05:
 
 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 helpful to the advancement of
 network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
 other zero-rated services may pose.
 
 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.
 
 This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
 things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
 neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
 nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
 views, not more people consume one view.

As far as I know, Wikipedia tries to synthesize several points of view so that 
we have a neutral approach to a particular topic, not favoring one view over 
the other.  In addition, the fact that you can edit through Wikipedia Zero 
allows for alternative voices to be heard.  I find it hard to believe that 
Wikipedia Zero stifles NPOV, if you’re hinting at people being forced” to 
consume only one point of view, when even Wikipedia doesn’t aspire to do that.

 And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
 needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

I don’t know about where you’re in, but I can tell you that in the developing 
world, Wikipedia’s been very helpful in helping us spread the word about the 
projects.

In the Philippines, Wikipedia readership jumped when Wikipedia Zero was rolled 
out.  That’s more readers, and hopefully more editors.  We have a good 
relationship with the Philippines’ largest telecommunications company as a 
result, and they’ve been very supportive of our efforts to bring knowledge to 
more Filipinos.  And you say that that doesn’t contribute to sustainable 
development”?

I think it’s profoundly important in this discussion that we need to avoid 
generalizing the world as if everyone’s in Europe or the United States.  Yes, 
net neutrality is important.  Yes, I support net neutrality and believe that 
ISPs shouldn’t discriminate against content providers.  But if it means 
bringing more information to more people, I’m willing to sacrifice that for a 
while because I think that Filipinos being given access to free information is 
more valuable — and more important — than what I believe in vis-à-vis net 
neutrality.  I hope everyone else here who doesn’t support Wikipedia Zero 
because of that will actually see the good that it has done for the developing 
world, and that the rest of us find great use for this program.

Regards,

Josh

JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science
Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines

jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshua...@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582
Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor
http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
___
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] 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 knowledge are, for
example.


 If an ISP wanted to make *all* online free-knowledge resources exempt
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting proposal.
It's the differential pricing between different sources of knowledge that I
find more troubling: why should a user pay more to access the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's already attempting to
shape, via differential pricing, where online users get their information.

I agree that we should coordinate with the participants of the broader free
knowledge and free software movement and include their sites while
negotiating with mobile carries.

In the meantime this is what we have. Some corporations find that it's
clever PR idea not to charge for oxygen. That's not fully useful, but it's
quite essential. The next target is nitrogen, then we should take care of
other gases to make air completely free.

Counting the tendency initiated by WMF, net neutrality should move to
exclusively commercial or market terrain. I agree with that, but it's not
about us. Free content is common good and we are fortunate that mobile
providers will be soon forced to recognize that. (First it's about clever
PR, then it becomes the norm.)
___
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] 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 it's probably not
going to be the last time either. I think that Wikipedia Zero is a great
and valuable project that does the right thing. I also agree it violates
net neutrality for any reasonable definition of net neutrality, and there
is a number of very good objections to the practice. It would be great if
we were confident enough of this project to come out and say yes, this
violates net neutrality and here are the reasons why we think it's a good
thing in this case. It would make a far stronger case than the well,
actually, ... rule lawyer, question evasion, goalposts moving, talking
around the issue ... and that's why it has nothing to do with net
neutrality!

Wikipedia Zero is a great project that does amazingly good stuff for many
people who need it most. That's an awesome reason to violate net
neutrality, even when it has real dangers and drawbacks. When we start to
deny the dangers and drawbacks, all discussion becomes muddled, and stains
the zero project with dishonesty.

--Martijn
___
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] 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 and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.),
and an ops team with a desire for independence.

-- Tim Starling


___
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] 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

On 1 December 2014 at 10:38, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:

 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 and prompt removal (revision deletion etc.),
 and an ops team with a desire for independence.

 -- Tim Starling


 ___
 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] 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?».

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/a-super-simple-way-to-understand-the-net-neutrality-debate.html

Tim Starling, 01/12/2014 05:21:

But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment.


I doubt the worldwide internet backbone is (significantly) more complex 
or expensive than the electricity grid.



What you are
saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.


Opinions on this vary. Historically, for instance, electricity grids 
have been rather fragmented and have been unified only with strong 
regulations or nationalisations. Only now regulators are seriously 
taking care of supranational grids. Certainly we don't want to go 
backwards, because it usually takes decades to progress.


Nemo

___
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] 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 here. I don't see any sense in which
Wikipedia Zero is contradicting other opinions or resulting in
resources that bite the dust. Wikipedia Zero is not rivalrous in any
economic sense that I'm aware of.

 This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
 things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
 neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
 nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
 views, not more people consume one view.

So, you'd rather have users pay by the bit for Wikipedia on their
mobile devices? This does not serve Wikipedia or its users in the
developing world. The chart I use here shows you what the cost of
broadband access is in the developing world, which relies primarily on
mobile platforms.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141201000351-209165-wikipedia-zero-will-serve-net-neutrality

 And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
 needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

But you haven't said what those severe doubts are. Having spent the
last couple of years working on access projects in the developing
world, I haven't encountered an alternative model that doesn't result
in higher prices for subscribers. As the chart I reproduce indicates,
in some places in the developing world, the annual cost of broadband
access exceeds the average per capita income. I do not see how it
serves Wikipedia's mission to require individual users to pay so much
for Wikipedia access.


--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] 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.  /We/ don't care that Wikipedia is as expensive to use as
 Facebook because the cost to either is marginally neglectable.


This makes me wonder if yep, we sure do violate it, and here's
precisely why might be a good answer. Though I'd rather not hand
Comcast any more sticks. (Compare the FSF's use of copyright
assignment and the typical commercial user of copyright assignment.)

I note a vague similarity to Erik's essay on why -NC is harmful: that
the idea of enforcing noncommerciality is pretty much a first world
affectation and doesn't really do the job people using it want it to.


- d.

___
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] 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 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 neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
 service provider market has thrived and innovated without it.
 Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a consumer
 bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.
 http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245



While I genuinely support the idealism of the net-neutrality debate, and it
makes sense in certain jurisdictional contexts (notably the USA), I am
won-over by the arguments that have been made here about how WikipediaZero
is non-rivalrous. As Marc P. put it earlier:

 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.
 And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
 view.


When looking at the practical reality of a high-school in a poorer district
of South Africa specifically asking for greater access to WP from their
local telecom company[1], it's hard to remain stuck on purely-principled
debates. That is a *real world* group of of people that is *specifically*
asked for easer access to Wikipedia - *of course *we should support that.

This is *not *to discount the importance of principles - and a lot of good
ones have been mentioned here - but I'm not going to argue against a
school-group in a poorer country wanting free-access to the sum of human
knowledge on their mobile phones because of a political fight in richer
countries about heavy-data usage on high-speed broadband.

-Liam

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j-ktiYTTds
___
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] 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 neutrality is an honourable aspiration, but the Australian internet
  service provider market has thrived and innovated without it.
  Discriminatory pricing in the form of unmetered content is more a
 consumer
  bonus than an imposition of someone else’s choice.
 
 http://theconversation.com/australias-net-neutrality-lesson-for-the-us-22245
 


Thanks for the interesting link. While the article acknowledges that the
lack of net neutrality has favored certain Australian content providers at
the expense of others, it sounds like the most pernicious effects are
mitigated by the fact that at least part of the ISP infrastructure is
treated as a public utility that must permit competitors.

One more example of how an absolutist and global approach to net neutrality
fails to account for local nuance.
___
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] 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 cannot afford to access
information to get basic access to knowledge and participate in the
creation of knowledge. It’s widely understood that barriers like poverty
and limited internet connectivity are two major blockers preventing people
around the world from full access to knowledge, and there are a number of
groups working to address these issues as part of the broader Access to
Knowledge (A2K) movement.

Wikipedia Zero is a powerful tool for accessing knowledge, but it is not
the solution to the whole problem. It’s one tool in a toolbox. Real change
needs to address issues such as cost barriers, literacy, and access to
infrastructure. That’s why we’re also developing a more coordinated effort
within a broader A2K coalition to collectively address the systemic
challenges.

While Wikipedia Zero serves broader A2K objectives, we are mindful that
zero-rating can be a challenging issue for net neutrality advocacy. In
response, we’ve developed ten operating principles
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
to make sure that the initiative remains a free knowledge base with
operations that are transparent to users.[1] They are intended to deter
Wikipedia Zero from being used to introduce other zero-rating initiatives
that don't follow the operating principles. We developed these principles
after extensive consultation with net neutrality advocates about their
concerns regarding commercial zero-rating arrangements, and believe they
are strong and useful guidance for advocates to distinguish free access to
Wikipedia from other zero-rating programs.

We’ll continue working with policymakers on net neutrality and welcome your
constructive suggestions in this regard. We believe the vision of Wikimedia
— the sum of all knowledge, available to all — and the values of an open
internet are entirely consistent and in the global public interest. We’re
also learning from your comments and welcome more input on how the
Wikimedia community can support the A2K movement.

Best,
Yana

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles

-- 
Yana Welinder
Senior Legal Counsel
Wikimedia Foundation
415.839.6885 ext. 6867
@yanatweets https://twitter.com/yanatweets

NOTICE:  As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical
reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community
members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. In other
words, IANYL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL. For more on what this
means, please see our legal disclaimer
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.
___
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] 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 excellent non-engineering things the
foundation has done). 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 information.

My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

- Ryan Lane


___
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] 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 information.


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 certain 
favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.


-Mark


___
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] 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. Wikipedia Zero is an
 amazing program (and is one of the only excellent non-engineering things the
 foundation has done). 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 information.

 My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
 foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
 (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
 department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

i find this article very good. and also gale gives a quite balanced
and reasonable statement. ryan, the sentence from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality is:
... should treat all data on the Internet equally...
if you could elaborate a little how paying for one source, and not
paying for another is equal?

rupert

___
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] 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 calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
It has a MediaWiki extension
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ZeroBanner and custom back-end
(Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.

To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. Only excellent seems a bit rough.

My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
(and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.

This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong. :-)  Gayle's title is Chief
Talent and Culture Officer and the Director of Human Resources is someone
else who reports to her; cf.
https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors#HR. I agree
that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
another thread.)

I'll let others respond on the basic point here about whether Wikipedia
Zero is violating net neutrality. I personally agree with Gayle that it's
complicated. :-)  I think it's difficult to argue that Wikipedia Zero is
not, at least in the strictest sense, a violation of net neutrality.

MZMcBride



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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] 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 violates it) is
by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.

Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.

One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
clearly wrong.

What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
-- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
advantage they cannot get as well.

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.

And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).

So yeah, this is probably not net neutrality as it is generally
defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
inadequate.

-- 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] 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 arguably not an equitable proposition in practice, because
Wikimedia is *rather heavyweight* as online charities go. If we ask
for something, it carries weight.

That said, zero-priced mobile data is something the world could do
with more of. If we can push that as a good thing,


- d.

___
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] 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 of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.

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). Why? Well, they all know,
that they are selling dump pipes and the dump pipe-Business (incl.
mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
It's an established brand with maximum of positive karma, run by the
people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of data.

Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.


best regards

Jens Best

2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org:

 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 violates it) is
 by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.

 Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
 of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
 conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.

 One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
 to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
 slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
 giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
 clearly wrong.

 What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
 welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
 of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
 their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
 -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
 hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
 advantage they cannot get as well.

 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.

 And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
 view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
 stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
 no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
 us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
 another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
 where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).

 So yeah, this is probably not net neutrality as it is generally
 defined - but I would argue it means that the definition itself is
 inadequate.

 -- Marc


 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/guidelineswikimedi...@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] 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 other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.

Anything that says Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
differently than data from another source is a violation of net
neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
treatment is never accepted.

Todd

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:

 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 of a free and open web are to be acknowledged by Websites with
 good causes the same way they are to be respected by Websites with more
 commercial causes. Wikipedia Zero is a brand product, in its last
 consequence it belongs to the WMF, it is not public good.

 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). Why? Well, they all know,
 that they are selling dump pipes and the dump pipe-Business (incl.
 mobile) needs to develop new way of making money out of it.
 So therefore, they have to establish a world where different data can be
 treated differently (money-wise) - and here Wikipedia comes in well-handy.
 It's an established brand with maximum of positive karma, run by the
 people, for the people - it's a wet dream for every marketing executive of
 any provider. Using Wikipedia Zero isn't primarily for making a different
 against the competition, but to get people used to unequal handling of
 data.

 Therefore Wikipedia Zero, apart from all the good intentions it was started
 with, was to reconsidered. Net neutrality is under attack globally. Every
 country where net neutrality will be already diminished in an early state
 of broad (mobile) use is lost for a really free and open web. This
 shouldn't be something supported by the movement. Of course, we have to
 think about good and practical ideas how to spread free knowledge, but we
 shouldn't put our cause in collision with a much more deeper principle of a
 web where the rules of the market aren't superior to everything.


 best regards

 Jens Best

 2014-11-30 18:14 GMT+01:00 Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org:

  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 violates it) is
  by and large overly simplistic and unrealistic.
 
  Factors that should be taken into account but aren't include the nature
  of the preferential treatment, its exclusivity (or lack thereof),
  conflict of interest, and competitive landscape.
 
  One would be hard pressed to argue that giving non-exclusive free access
  to a public good to a population in need is harmful (beyond slippery
  slope arguments), just as it would be clear that a media conglomerate
  giving exclusive free access from an ISP they own to their media is
  clearly wrong.
 
  What makes Wikipedia Zero clearly okay, IMO, is that *any* provider is
  welcome to approach us and set it up; and we require nor demand any sort
  of exclusivity.  Whether they chose to do so is obviously driven by
  their business objectives (publicity, competitive advantage, and so on)
  -- but their business decision affects them and only them.  They cannot
  hinder their competition from doing so or not as they will, nor gain an
  advantage they cannot get as well.
 
  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.
 
  And, finally, it's also neutral from a conflict-of-interest point of
  view.  The Wikimedia Foundation (and movement, for that matter) has no
  stake in the competitive landscape of telco providers, and and they have
  no interest in Free online encyclopedias.  They gain nothing by favoring
  us over other educational resources, and we favor no provider over
  another (albeit our immediate efforts do seem directed mostly at those
  where the population would benefit the most - which is reasonable).
 
  So yeah, this is probably not net neutrality as it is generally
  defined - but I would argue it means that 

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 certain 
 favored uses. Most things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done 
 with #2 or vice-versa; it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and 
 administrative difference. In either case, applied to data, it's varying 
 pricing packet pricing based on whether the source of the packets is 
 favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this case, Wikipedia is favored), 
 which is precisely what net neutrality wishes to prohibit.
 


While a fine and principled view this is, its strict nature harms those
we're most interested in reaching.

We really need to consider what we're after when talking about net
neutrality. Offering free access to services to subscribers who don't have
data plans (most likely because they can't afford them) is a much different
thing than tiered levels of access for people who are paying for data.
Assuming there's no conflict of interest from the telecoms themselves this
is not actively harmful.

Note that for your points, neither 1 nor 2 is true, since there's no
standard rate.

- Ryan


___
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] 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 non-engineering things
 the foundation has done). [...]
 
 I think calling Wikipedia Zero non-engineeering is kind of bizarre,
 possibly just wrong. Wikipedia Zero spans both development and operations.
 It has a MediaWiki extension
 https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ZeroBanner and custom back-end
 (Web server) configuration to support it. And of course ZeroBanner is just
 the latest extension, it's had others, while parts of Wikipedia Zero's
 infrastructure have been integrated (yay!) with other extensions.
 
 To be clear, I'm not attacking Wikipedia Zero or the resources it's using,
 I kind of like the idea, but it's definitely an engineering project. In
 addition to engineering resources, Wikipedia Zero requires administrative
 overhead for partnership negotiation and management, which is probably not
 unique to the Wikipedia Zero team. Only excellent seems a bit rough.
 

It was a project created and lead by the business development folks and was
given some engineering resources to make it happen. It's been incredibly
successful and has a real and important impact. Even taking engineering
projects into consideration, this is one of Wikimedia's most impacting
projects from the point of view of the mission.

 My biggest wonder here is: why in the world is the HR director for the
 foundation speaking with the press about this on behalf of the foundation
 (and the movement)? This seems like the kind of thing the communications
 department, or the ED (or DD) should be doing.
 
 This isn't arguably wrong, just plain wrong.   Gayle's title is Chief
 Talent and Culture Officer and the Director of Human Resources is someone
 else who reports to her; cf.
 https://www.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Staff_and_contractors#HR. I agree
 that for a media outlet such the Washington Post, having a C-level person
 speak is best... and that's what happened here. (Now whether the Wikimedia
 Foundation should be large enough to require a Chief Talent and Culture
 Officer position is a separate question that can hopefully be addressed in
 another thread.)
 

http://siliconvalleyjobtitlegenerator.tumblr.com/

Sorry, I used director instead of chief. That doesn't change the fact that
her role is to lead HR. If you look at the staff page, you'll see this is in
the case and from a practical point of view, she does HR stuff.

Having any C level respond to the press is a bad approach, especially with a
subject this touchy. This is the entire reason for having a
communications/brand department.

- Ryan


___
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] 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 dumb, not
 favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
 not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
 
 Anything that says Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
 differently than data from another source is a violation of net
 neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
 definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
 treatment is never accepted.

But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.

The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
they are the same price?

Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.

Wikipedia is naturally slow and expensive for many ISPs, because we
don't use a big CDN. If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
users.

-- Tim Starling


___
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] 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).
  
  Exactly this. Net neutrality means that the pipes are totally dumb, not
  favoring -any- service over any other in any way. Not Netflix, not Youtube,
  not Amazon, and not Wikimedia.
  
  Anything that says Data from this source will be (treated|priced)
  differently than data from another source is a violation of net
  neutrality. Period. That does not mean the definition is inadequate. The
  definition is there to ensure the pipe -stays dumb-, and that preferential
  treatment is never accepted.
 
 But the pipes are fundamentally not dumb -- there is a complex
 arrangement of transit prices and peering, and the companies that
 built transoceanic links want to recoup their investment. What you are
 saying is that you want the ISPs to provide the necessary
 cross-subsidies so that the pipes will appear to be dumb, to the end user.
 
 The question for any regulated cross-subsidy should be: what is its
 social benefit? If certain telcos are allowed to choose, it will be
 cheaper to access Wikipedia than cheezburger.com. Is that appropriate?
 What social benefits will it provide if we regulate to ensure that
 they are the same price?
 
 Vertical integration between content providers and ISPs is probably
 harmful to competition. The obvious way to deal with that is to split
 those companies. But even in a competitive marketplace, from a cost
 perspective, it totally makes sense that certain content providers
 will continue to be cheaper and/or faster, just because of geography.
 
 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?

 If ISPs sold services on a cost-plus basis, you
 would expect websites delivered via CDN to be cheaper than websites
 that are located at a single site, geographically distant from their
 users.
 
 -- Tim Starling
 
 
 ___
 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


--
svetlana

___
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] 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.

The fact that the net neutrality concept has been written from the
perspective of the dominant ideology, which adherents are not capable to
comprehend that there is something outside of the market, proves just the
point that those responsible for the definition should educate themselves a
bit and try again.
On Nov 30, 2014 12:05 PM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:

 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 information.


 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 certain favored uses. Most
 things done with #1 could be reconfigured to be done with #2 or vice-versa;
 it ends up as mainly a rhetorical and administrative difference. In either
 case, applied to data, it's varying pricing packet pricing based on whether
 the source of the packets is favored or disfavored by the ISP (in this
 case, Wikipedia is favored), which is precisely what net neutrality wishes
 to prohibit.

 -Mark


 ___
 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] 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 helpful to the advancement of
 network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
 other zero-rated services may pose.

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.

This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all
things information is why I am a strong proponent of net
neutrality.  The ease with which information can be shared
nowadays should be used so that more people provide their
views, not more people consume one view.

And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
needs from the perspective of sustainable development.

Tim


___
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] 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* online free-knowledge resources exempt 
from per-MB data charges, that would be a much more interesting 
proposal. It's the differential pricing between different sources of 
knowledge that I find more troubling: why should a user pay more to 
access the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy than Wikipedia? That's 
already attempting to shape, via differential pricing, where online 
users get their information.


-Mark


___
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