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 Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>