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>

Reply via email to