Responding to your last few emails: could you please assume good faith and be constructive? Even in your quote there was a clear big if.

I did not have the chance to see Patricio's full response, but I can live with what I heard. That does not mean that the discussion is over, but given past and current conversations it is unlikely indeed that wikimedia will take the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret it. And personally I'm always happy when we at least consider the nuanced side.

As to Lila's comment, I think this list consists mostly of community members that liaise to their respective communities. It has proven in the past to be a valuable discussion forum and it would be a waste if we would limit ourselves only to the wiki pages.

Best, lodewijk

On Aug 10, 2014 9:08 PM, "Jens Best" <> wrote:

Patrício is quoted as “he said at Wikimania conference“. The journalist who has written the article is known for his accuracy.

Link: - last passage.

Am 10.08.2014 22:01 schrieb "Thomas Lohninger" <>:
Could somebody please post a link/scan of Patricios original statement in question?


On 10.08.2014, at 19:38, Christophe Henner <> wrote:


Patricio comment was more complete than that.

Net neutrality is about fast/slow Lane. WP0 is about a free Lane. Bis argument was pretty sensible.

I'm not sure why we should fear a free  Lane. The worst it does is providing free access, not a better QOS or a filtered/unfiltered access to the Internet.



Le 10 août 2014 18:00, "Anirudh S. Bhati" <> a écrit :

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jens Best <> wrote:
According to the press Patricio Lorente, member of the Foundation's board, said:

"Access to information is a basic human right. If net neutrality is hurting a human right, we have to rethink net neutrality."

Haven't heard such a single-sided, unbalanced and self-righteous statment for a while.

So, people standing for net neutrality are now became enemies of basic human rights in the understanding of the foundation. - Well, if this low level of discussion is reached, I guess it doesn't make sense to discuss the subject with the foundation at all.

Last I checked, "self-righteous" could be used to describe the advocacy of a one-size-fits-all solution implemented in an absolutist fashion without regard to the rights and interests of those who would be most affected by it, i.e. the owners of private property.

You like "net neutrality"?  Go buy your Internet access from a company that promises to adhere to those principles.  Or better yet, raise some money and start your own infra and ISP business.  Don't force others to play by your rules - that would be self-righteous.

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list

Advocacy_Advisors mailing list