Dear Nathan et al.

I answered Josh in the other threat but will copy my answer to him again
here below so that anybody interested to continue can do this in the
"right" threat.

Nathan, I am disgusted by your comparisons. "colonialist aspect"? "little
reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the
supposedly uncivilized." These allegations - presented as comparisons - are
purely insulting.

Oh, and actually it was Lila who introduced WP0 to this threat - otherwise
I wouldn't have taken the chance to hint Kourosh to this field which was
announced to be in his future field of responsibility.

I will not continue discussing with people making insulting comparisons to
violent christian missionaries or similarily offending rhetoric stuff which
in no way helps the discussion.

I - as everybody else in this discussion - are not to be judged by my race.
Believing just because I am white I could only think and behave in
colonistic pattern is an insult and not a contribution to the discussion.



2015-04-01 21:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan <>:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc <> wrote:
> > To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
> > presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
> > good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might
> be
> > different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
> > constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly
> normal
> > that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be
> different
> > than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the
> constraints
> > change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
> > whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if
> users
> > in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think
> to
> > be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own
> accord.
> I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens,
> the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any
> deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some
> who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel
> shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this
> religious view of net neutrality.
> Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist
> aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of
> European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly
> uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better
> what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero
> is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is),
> then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.
> And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you
> misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to
> Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was
> off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally,
> I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe:,
> <>
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:

Reply via email to