It is rather unfortunate that we went ahead with things like "Wikipedia Zero" without objection. It rather undermines our moral authority to demand net neutrality, and now that's really needed. Someone could easily say "But you support non-neutral schemes when it benefits you!", and not be far wrong.
Todd On Nov 26, 2017 2:49 AM, "Vi to" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have to rely upon my knowledge of plans in EU, I may be wrong with other > "rich Countries", if so please make me aware of. > > Time-based tariffs are in "rich countries" are almost out of business. Also > data, cheaper data plans currently includes enough data to make surfing WMF > sites impact very few upon overall consumption. How can you tell "who" is > eligible for WP0? By "who" I mean which countries/places, telco users, etc. > A line between "rich" and "poor" countries is "easy" to draw, others > aren't. > > Making zero-carrier a default for all of the World would make me drop my > objections. But we firstly need to find a safe and cheap (in terms of > efforts) way to stop abuses, though most of abuses come from Countries > where data traffic is really expensive. > > Finally a question: do we have reports about WP0? I mean, traffic, number > of users served, pages delivered, costs? > > Vito > > 2017-11-26 4:32 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > > > Hoi, > > While the USA is considered a developed country, the people in the USA > who > > have least to spend are probably as deserving of zero rated Wikimedia > > service as many of the people who do get Wikipedia Zero elsewhere. The > > article indicates that our mission is to bring information to people and > > that is no different in the USA. With Wikipedia and its sister projects > > considered as a way to bring quality, neutral point of view information, > it > > would even serve as a means to combat the misinformation that will > benefit > > from zero rating of information. > > > > Zero rating is bad in so many ways but your argument does only say that > it > > was originally intended for developed countries. When there is a benefit > to > > our readers I only see upsides in promoting the use of Wikimedia content > in > > this way and no reason not to have Wikimedia Zero in the USA. > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 26 November 2017 at 03:56, Mz7 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The relationship between net neutrality and the Wikimedia Foundation > has > > > been described as “complicated” – see [1]. Considering the that the > > > Wikimedia Foundation has a zero-rating program of its own (see [2][3]), > > I’m > > > not exactly sure how much this would affect Wikimedia, whether > positively > > > or negatively. On the one hand, we could take advantage of the change > by > > > expanding Wikipedia Zero into the United States. On the other hand, > > that’s > > > probably not a good idea because the program is designed to promote > > access > > > to free knowledge in developing countries, where access to the Internet > > may > > > be prohibitively expensive. In a developed country such as the United > > > States, that’s not really a prioritized issue. > > > > > > Mz7 > > > > > > [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/ > > > 11/25/wikipedias-complicated-relationship-with-net-neutrality/ > > > [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero > > > [3] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero > > > > > > -- > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mz7 > > > > > > > On Nov 24, 2017, at 5:06 AM, Gerard Meijssen < > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > With the demise of net neutrality in the USA, have their been > > > consideration > > > > for the impact it may have for the services provided by the Wikimedia > > > > Foundation? > > > > > > > > We are reliant on servers in the USA, as the quality of the service > in > > > the > > > > USA is no longer a given, what are the risks? > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/ > mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: [email protected] > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > > wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ > wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
