> Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries'
> laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about
> Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all
> of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law.
>
> It cannot reasona
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoeg
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER
wrote:
> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoe
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:05 AM, George Herbert
wrote:
> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
>> The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
>> prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
>> public's best interest.
>
>
>
>
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" :
> Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> paragraph 3:
>
> "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> toepassingen die v
Unless WMF signed a contract of exclusivity with all major ISPs for
Wikipedia to be the only "information" website to be distributed for free
on their mobile networks, then I don't think there is an act of unfair
competition from the part of WMF, nothing refrains others actors to set up
the same th
This is a huge question and problem, however:
Andreas:
> The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
> prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
> public's best interest.
If you view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred n
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
>
> Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
> become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
> many water and natural gas line
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:17 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> Andreas:
>
> > The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> > brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> >
Andreas:
> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.
Is this not our organizaitonal goal bei
Wikimedia movement and the WMF are not advocates for net neutrality,
but for free access to knowledge for everybody. Sure we want to
respect legal, moral and ethical standards while doing so, but the
only arguments I`ve read here where Wikipedia Zero could be at the
inverse of those standards is be
I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
---o
Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 13:32:
Exactly. Neither is Wikipedia Zero an ISP, which is why the analogy does
work. :)
Sure, but ISP conducting Wikipedia Zero programs are. :) WMF is just
facilitating the activities being speculated about as potentially
illegal in some countries, I don't think
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> 2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo)
>
> > Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
> >
> > That's like saying
> >> "printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
> >> violation of net neutrality
2013/8/27 Federico Leva (Nemo)
> Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
>
> That's like saying
>> "printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
>> violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the
>> Web
>> and gave it to them too".
>>
>
> This analogy d
Denny Vrandečić, 27/08/2013 11:39:
That's like saying
"printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web
and gave it to them too".
This analogy doesn't work very well because the "we" here is most lik
If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP
would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they
access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality.
But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We
are talking abo
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
wrote:
> Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
> as far as I can se
It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
become a local monopoly of sorts. Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from? how many
road networks?) but are g
On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland wrote:
>
> > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> >>> netherlands, swiss, or
On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland wrote:
> 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
>> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote:
>>>
>>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>>> countries where the law is le
2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra :
> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote:
>>
>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
>> countries where the law is less developed? "
>>
>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to resp
On 26/08/2013 18:14, Martijn Hoekstra wrote:
I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at least
sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we believe
that having a walled garden vari
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" wrote:
>
> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> countries where the law is less developed? "
>
> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
> ever
"And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
countries where the law is less developed? "
As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries in
every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current
Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
paragraph 3:
"Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
"Offere
To the best of my knowledge, every jurisdiction that has legislated on net
neutrality has concentrated on preventing ISPs from blocking, degrading or
charging extra for particular services; not one of them has a problem with
providers giving away certain data for free.
S
On 26 Aug 2013 04:51, "rup
There is a crucial difference: Wikipedia Zero is not a general way to
provide access to the Internet for free, it provides access to parts of
Wikipedia for free through partnering carriers. Wikipedia Zero is not in
violation of net neutrality in the first place, as Wikipedia Zero is not an
internet
It's fine (and necessary) to hold ourselves to our own ethical standards,
but if we start trying to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal
in any country, we would run in to a lot of problems awfully fast. Trying
to avoid activity that might be perceived as illegal somewhere in the worl
29 matches
Mail list logo
