Dear Jens,

Please keep in mind the following things are also pre-conditions for having an open debate:

Assuming good faith
No ad-hominem attacks
No strawman arguments (misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack)

Thank you for helping to keep this list productive and friendly!


2014-08-12 14:53 GMT+02:00 Jens Best <>:
Hi Dimi, Hi Lili, Hi Yana, Hi all,

Dimi, thanks for listing some factual thoughts on the subject. But there are times for factual debate and there are times to get some things straight first to make a factual debate possible to start.

What has to be made straight first:

- The foundation has to issue an letter of excuse for this incomprehensible assault of Patricio against net neutrality activists. Practically calling them enemies of human rights is unacceptable and destroys any common ground to discuss further on.

- As insulting as the statement of Patricio was, it gave us a glimpse to see the real face of the foundation. It became clear that all this is right now a fake-debate.

The foundation isn't willing to have this debate as open outcoming as it should be - this means be willing to stop WP0 because it is a clear violation of net neutrality. Patricio's statement made it clear what ways the foundation is willing to "argue" for keeping their marketing campaign called Wikipedia Zero running.

Therefore does a debate about that subject makes NO sense as long there is now a clear signal of the foundation that they take the discussion seriously. Words are not enough anymore - all efforts pushing Wikipedia Zero forward and violating net neutrality even more and wider must verifiable stop before any statement/proposal of part of the foundation can be taken seriously.

As long these two reasonable preconditions are not met, any talk about taking net neutrality seriously AND finding a way to share Wikimedia's part of the Free Knowldege of the world to more people is senseless.

best regards


Advocacy_Advisors mailing list