On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have a question for all of you here, which is not specific to NN, but is about the evolution of the internet: Do you believe that there should be "public space" on the internet, available to all as the basic right, for no access charge. Things like: government info, medical, social services, 911? Thanks all! Lila
I think that would be great. But how do we make it work in a world where most network infrastructure is owned by corporate entities? We have to work within the paradigm that exists, and we must consider the knock-on effects of our actions (such as promoting zero-rated content, or effectively a free "slow lane" on the net) within this paradigm. But...
Our mission is to provide a public service (a source for knowledge) to as many people as possible; the Wikimedia movement is not dedicated to open source content,
err .. what?
The mission of the WMF is almost solely dedicated to open source content! Or, as written "educational content under a free license or in the public domain". Which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content
or to net neutrality, or universal internet access, or even to freedom or democracy or other extremely positive and necessary goals. Many of these things are crucial or beneficial to the success of our mission, but the movement can't solve every problem or reduce every barrier. We should focus our advocacy efforts on those things which are most tightly linked to our mission. Universal internet access, as an example, is much closer to our core goals than net neutrality.
Universal internet access? I personally don't think the mission extends that far, but I can see how others might read the mission slightly differently and believe it is a core component. In my opinion, WMF spending money on campaigning for universal internet access isnt being a good steward of donor money. It is more efficient and effective to distribute database dumps and CDs to all corners of the world, and let so empowered people push it into other distribution networks.
As Wikimedia's mission is much broader than any specific wiki, I feel that Wikipedia Zero is not able to claim that it is side-stepping the net neutrality issue. If WMF was working with a coalition of internet resources that should be freely available, 'zero-laned', and collaborating on building a system for any telco to participate in, the 'it is not fast/slow lane' argument would be novel, but worth exploring as it more closely aligns with the mission. As it is only creating a zero-rated zone for one wiki, if that becomes the norm online, all other free content platforms suffer, and diversity is reduced.
I recall someone saying on this mailing list that WMF was working with the EFF on a joint statement regarding zero-rating and net-neutrality. Has that been released? Is that still happening? I would be much more comfortable with Wikipedia Zero if the EFF was supportive of zero-rated educational content being designated as as neutral ground in the net neutrality debate. I expect that the EFF's position on a zero-rated Wikipedia will be a large consideration in the minds of many on whether it is 'right'.
-- John Vandenberg