If only my emails were wiki-editable. Thanks for the correction regarding my affiliation.
"Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be would down." The only two possible choices, eh? --Mike On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aleksey Bilogur <aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Er, Mike, this is a minor point but your signature seems to indicate that > you were general counsel for over a millennium---very impressive! > > Personally I think that Zero should be evaluated from an impact perspective. > While it's indisputable that it's strategically aligned with the WMF > mission, if the message isn't reaching the audience is strategic alignment a > good enough argument to keep chugging? The Foundation has taken a lot of > flak for taking stances like that---totally strategically aligned, sure, but > nil for impact. Seems to me that in its current form it's just going to drag > along---Zero either needs a clear procedural rethink or it needs to be would > down. > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:05 AM, Mike Godwin <mnemo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> GerardM writes: >> >> > With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not >> > have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily >> > available is an important indicator for further development. Not having >> > Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it. >> > >> > [...] >> > My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to >> > share >> > in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. >> > Sources >> > may be important but they are secondary to having the information >> > available >> > in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, >> > as >> > long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is >> > your >> > point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about >> > sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn >> > not >> > accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms? >> > >> > Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not >> > forget >> > who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is >> > taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice. >> >> I agree with everything Gerard says here. My mission as a Wikimedian, >> both during my tenure as an employee of the Wikimedia Foundation and >> in my time as a volunteer Wikimedian, has been to get the world's >> knowledge into everybody's hands for free. Wikipedia Zero is so >> consistent with this primary goal that I value it even more highly >> than network neutrality (which I also favor, as a general rule, in >> countries with developed and humanely priced internet services). >> >> It should be noted that the Federal Communications Commission, in its >> recent Report and Order requiring network neutrality for American >> telcos and service providers, expressly refused to draw a categorical >> conclusion whether zero-rated services (including Wikipedia Zero) >> harmed competition. Instead, the Commission said it would make >> case-by-case determinations based on the particular services each >> zero-rated service is providing. If it were shown that Wikipedia Zero >> is suppressing competition from other encyclopedic knowledge bases or >> suppressing sharing of knowledge, that would be something for the >> Commission to consider -- but of course there are no facts that >> support this argument, at least not yet. >> >> I've spent the last two years working on internet-policy issues in >> developing countries, from Myanmar to Cambodia to South Sudan, and my >> personal experience has been that Wikipedia Zero is a profoundly >> important developmental resource in developing countries, where the >> key barrier to Wikipedia access (as a user or contributor) is the data >> caps on the mobile devices that the vast majority of users need to get >> access to the internet. Wikipedia Zero gets us past that barrier in >> these countries. Yes, in an ideal world, perhaps, there might be an >> argument against privileging Wikipedia Zero in this way -- but in an >> ideal world everybody would have free access to Wikipedia already. >> >> To get to an ideal world, we'll need everyone to have access to >> Wikipedia (and to Wikimedia resources generally) -- not just those of >> us in developed countries, but to everyone everywhere. Wikipedia Zero >> is a strategic approach to expanding access for everybody in every >> country. As we do this, we'll be creating incentives for developing >> countries' telcos and internet providers to expand their access and >> facilities in ways that will enable more and more citizens to fully >> participate as users and contributors to Wikipedia. Any other approach >> reminds me of the beginning chess player who looks at a board prior to >> the first move and says "how do I get to checkmate from here?" The >> experienced chess player knows you have to make a number of strategic >> decisions and deployments in advance in order to make eventual victory >> possible. Wikipedia Zero is one strategy that gets us to the end >> result we all want to see. >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> --Mike Godwin >> WMF General Counsel 1007-2010 >> Director of Innovation Policy and General Counsel, The R Street Institute >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> > > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimediaemail@example.com Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>