Thank you, Lodewijk,

for giving us another example of fine subtle manipulation. Let's have a closer look to your mail:



1. "the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret it"

Describing people who have a clear positive position on protecting net neutrality indirectly as "absolutistic" is a rhetoric trick which intents to make a reasonable position look like an extremist or absolute position. This then tries to create the impression that WM is taking a "balanced" position instead. This isn't true - WM is taking a position which is a clear violation of net neutrality.

2. "Patricio's full response, but I can live with what I heard"

Well, that's nice for you, Loewijk, but that's not an objective argument for or against anything. Let's repeat the quintessence of what Patricio said here: Free Knowledge is a human right, Wikimedia is selling the Wikipedia as "Free Knowledge", therefore, if somebody has anything against Wikipedia (Zero) he or she is an enemy of a basic human right. - Well, this sounds pretty much as a very hostile absolutist position to me.

So let's make this clear another time: Wikipedia is NOT Free Knowledge, it is a brand which works with the claim that it is "Free Knowledge". In other context (e.g. education) the same people always remind the public that WP is just one possible gateway to knowledge and that if you really want to be informed it is important that you not only use one encyclopedia but more sources. More sources are available online, but they are not zero-rated. And here the whole "argument" of Pro-WP0 collapses. The remaining fact: Wikipedia Zero is the free use of the Wikipedia as a website, but you can't use any external links to sources or further knowledge, because then zero-rated is over. Therefore WP0 is marketing which has to stand up against all senseful rules which exist to protect a free and open web.

3. "when we at least consider the nuanced side"

Yeah, let's be nuanced, let's be balanced, let's not make a stand for such a stupid argument all the rest of the digital civil rights movement people are making. We are the Free Knowledge people, we stand for a clear and unbreakable human right - the right to read the Wikipedia, ah, sorry the right to access free knowledge. This is were we aren't balanced, we have to protect our brand and therefore everybody against our project WP0, which we will do whatever you say anyway, is an enemy of the human rights. - I like this "nuanced" argument, too, Ludewijk.

4. "please assume good faith and be constructive" (my favorite "argument")

This part of your email implicit that people who take a clear point against WP0 have no "good faith" and more importantly aren't "constructive". Apart from the fact that using a basic paradigm of the movement against people who just have another standpoint in a factual discussion is already manipulative. But why should somebody have "good faith" when he/she is called wrongly an enemy of human rights by a member of the board of the Foundation? Why should he/she expect a "constructive" debate when for months all the clear and reasonable arguments against violating net neutrality with WP0 are ignored? WP0 which by the way is far from successful in its aim when you look at the numbers is a violation of net neutrality and still the Foundation is pushing this project - it is not on hold at all. This is a clear sign to everybody "assuming good faith" and who wants to be "constructive" that the matter at hand is and will be ignored by the people in power.

------

As long as Wikimedia thinks it is the queen of Free Knowledge or even better the digital incarnation of Free Knowledge there will be ignorance for other equally important aspects of a digital civil, free and open internet. Net neutrality will be ignored by the guards and priests of this brand-oriented endeavour which thinks it could expliot the sublime meaning of Free Knowledge for its brand marketing. (see, Ludewijk, you wanted inconspicuously reduce the discussion to rhetoric trickery? Well, here we go.)


best regards

Jens


2014-08-11 12:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk@effeietsanders.org>:

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" <jens.best@wikimedia.de> wrote:

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

Link: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Wikimania-Die-Wikipedia-als-soziale-Maschine-2289614.html - last passage.

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

Best,
Thomas

On 10.08.2014, at 19:38, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

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.

N'est,

Christophe

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

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jens Best <jens.best@wikimedia.de> 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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors

_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors


_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors


_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors




--
--
Jens Best
Präsidium
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
web: http://www.wikimedia.de
mail: jens.best@wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. 
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts
Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig
anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin,
Steuernummer 27/681/51985.