Dear James,

your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated answer,
but as I can't see my answering mail  to Gerard's input from yesterday
published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this "moderated".

When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is more
than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed when
it comes to the reasons why telecoms are behaving sooo nice to Wikipedia.
Also I will add some remarks about why a little bit more humbleness from
the "we are the knowledge of the world"-fraction would be appropiated in
the whole discussion.

best regards


2015-04-01 18:37 GMT+02:00 James Salsman <>:

> Jens,
> Why do you say net neutrality has anything to do with price? It's about
> best-effort delivery of packets without censorship or, for example,
> treating packets that say "do you want to join our radical fundamentalist
> agnostic cell," the same way as we treat packets that say, "do you want to
> subscribe to our newsletter."
> In 1973, the packet switching X.25 systems which resemble today's internet
> more closely than the IMP point-to-point testing at the time had no
> provisions for packet inspection or "quality of service" adjustments. But
> if you didn't subscribe to a database that you might want to access (which
> may or may not cost money) then you had no access because if there were no
> login credentials then you could tell everyone how to use the database when
> it could only handle on the order of dozens of users at a time. What you
> want in saying that you think zero rating violates net neutrality is the
> MIT open Multics movement, which exists on the internet today in the form
> of free and ad-supported hosting services like Wikia. Net neutrality is
> about no preferred qualities of packet delivery service, because those
> are best handled by adaptive rate coding at the application layer, which is
> what the WMF causes the implementation of when they contract with cell
> carriers to allow access to Wikipedia content for no charge. The fact that
> Wikipedia is civilization's best summary of accumulated knowledge so far is
> the reason why carriers are willing to provide the transmission power to
> their users at no charge in areas where they still ordinarily compete on a
> per-bit fee. That is an economic application design choice that has nothing
> to do with packet delivery choices.
> Similarly, in the 1860s the Hayes printing telegraph ticker tape had no
> restrictions on who could send a transmission or what it's content might
> be, and in cases of congestion, the operator noticing a collision first
> would back off, and the other would re-transmit in an egalitarian
> fashion, but the data you sent would obtain a response in proportion to the
> amount the recipient was being paid.
> Wikipedia Zero is a great program and I hope something like Wikiversity
> Zero assessments will be how hundreds of millions of people learn new facts
> pertinent to their lives and helpful to them in ten years. With adaptive
> instruction coupled to Wikipedia Accuracy Review, I believe that such a
> system will support the transition from creating new articles to
> maintaining existing content. I hope both the WMF and the WEF support this
> effort, because if the WEF was paying for it, it would likely not influence
> the safe harbor provisions protecting the WMF from legal liability due to
> inaccuracies. I am sad when dictatorships use Wikipedia Zero for propaganda
> purposes, but I am not sure how much of a problem that is relative to the
> advantages.
> Best regards,
> James Salsman
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to