On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Lila Tretikov <lila(a)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?
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
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
Which links to
or to net neutrality, or universal internet access, or
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
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
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'.