Hi all,
I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prot...
Best, Yana
Well,
my first repsonse to Erics text:
a lot of words, a lot of "believing in this & that", some emotional storytelling - but nothing on the simple fact that any zero-rating is a clear violation of net neutrality.
So, is this supposed to be the opening of a discussion? For me this text doesn't sound like that any discussion with an open result is possible or even welcomed.
This text is in clear contradiction to the recent statement of EFF. So is the Foundation willingly trying to violate one of the basic principles of an open web just to be part of the Facebook Zero, Google Zero, Coke Zero - Group? Is the foundation really that naive to not see that this way it becomes part of the marketing machine of access providers to deteriorate user habits?
So, as a net neutrality advocate somebody has to ask him-/herself if he/she really wants to participate in a discussion which result is already determined. What is EFF saying to this clear violation of net neutrality by WMF?
best regards
Jens Best
2014-08-02 0:48 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prot...
Best, Yana
-- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6867 @yanatweets https://twitter.com/yanatweets
NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
We're meeting with EFF after Wikimania to discuss how we can develop a common policy on this topic.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Well,
my first repsonse to Erics text:
a lot of words, a lot of "believing in this & that", some emotional storytelling - but nothing on the simple fact that any zero-rating is a clear violation of net neutrality.
So, is this supposed to be the opening of a discussion? For me this text doesn't sound like that any discussion with an open result is possible or even welcomed.
This text is in clear contradiction to the recent statement of EFF. So is the Foundation willingly trying to violate one of the basic principles of an open web just to be part of the Facebook Zero, Google Zero, Coke Zero - Group? Is the foundation really that naive to not see that this way it becomes part of the marketing machine of access providers to deteriorate user habits?
So, as a net neutrality advocate somebody has to ask him-/herself if he/she really wants to participate in a discussion which result is already determined. What is EFF saying to this clear violation of net neutrality by WMF?
best regards
Jens Best
2014-08-02 0:48 GMT+02:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Hi all,
I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prot...
Best, Yana
-- Yana Welinder Legal Counsel Wikimedia Foundation 415.839.6885 ext. 6867 @yanatweets https://twitter.com/yanatweets
NOTICE: As an attorney for the Wikimedia Foundation, for legal/ethical reasons I cannot give legal advice to, or serve as a lawyer for, community members, volunteers, or staff members in their personal capacity. For more on what this means, please see our legal disclaimer https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Legal_Disclaimer.
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 http://goog_17221883@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.
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
On Aug 1, 2014, at 15:48, Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to follow up on the discussion on Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality on this list. We just posted a discussion on this topic: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-prot...
Best, Yana
Argh, what a marketing moment weakened! Yana, here is my active voice ruler; please whack Eric with it for me. Clearly xe isn't writing for wikinews often enough. (side note: is there a PR/Marketing review cycle for such blog entries?)
I'm fairly sure WMF has already been swatted a bit about the (not) net neutrality issue. This is one of the issues with the Chilean discussion as well. The entire Wikipedia Zero initiative is, in fact, tailored to get a major NGO to work against net neutrality. Look at the partners. Facebook? really, Facebook? Facebook actually using the *same language*, Facebook Zero? I understand the goal, but imo the cost to WMF's brand and goodwill has been ENORMOUS and is growing.
Unfortunately I expect the Advocacy Advisory opinions regarding this topic are too little, too late, and viewed as irrelevant.
Amgine
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
Yana, here is my active voice ruler; please whack Eric with it for me.
I'm on the list now so feel free to whack to your heart's content :)
(side note: is there a PR/Marketing review cycle for such blog entries?)
The post was drafted and reviewed in partnership with Yana, Katherine Maher (Chief Communications Officer) and Carolynne Schloeder (Director of Mobile Partnerships, head of the program).
Look at the partners. Facebook? really, Facebook?
Facebook is not a Wikipedia Zero partner. Their internet.org initiative is independent from the Wikipedia Zero program -- it provides access to Wikipedia among other sites, but this is not done under any agreement with us.
I don't think the discussion is well served by painting any initiative with a broad brush. Their initiative seems overall well-intended, but it suffers from a lack of transparency as to its operating principles, including questions that are especially relevant (privacy of user data, access to competitors like Twitter, etc.). We'll not directly participate in a program like internet.org unless such questions can be answered satisfactorily.
As for discussions on the list, it would not be a useful discussion for this list whether the program should exist at all - we've made that decision. Like any program it will continually be evaluated in terms of its impact, but this list is not the place to do so. What is useful, however, is for us to talk about how we communicate about it, and how to best evolve the operating principles of the program in a manner consistent with net neutrality policy objectives.
This is why the post gave significant emphasis to the current draft of operating principles: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
We hope those operating principles can serve as a useful starting point for the kinds of discussions that people on this list have with policymakers. If you have immediate reactions to these principles and how we've communicated them here, I would very much love to hear them. I'm paying attention and have read the archives.
Specifically, I believe the operating principles of "no exchange of payment" and "no bundles" are very important ones that we should emphasize in any policy-related discussions.
Erik
Hi all,
Unfortunately some of our worse fears are becoming reality. Truth is, Wikimedia, due to its innner conflict in this case has always been too weak and vulnerable to have an active position on a red hot issue like net neutrality. We're torn between the awareness that we thrive only because of an equal internet and the logical wish to spread our awesome projects.
The problem is that we don't have an actual - political or legal - solution. So we're just saying that our project is great (which it is) and that it should be allowed (which I don't argue with). But when we put out a fuzzy message paired with an incoherent argumentation and at the same time don't control the narrative, we're turning Wikipedia into a handy tool for others. If we don't define it, others will, but in a way that helps their agenda. Large multinational companies will of course start using this for their own needs. There's now tens of lobbyists in Brussels, Geneva and, I imagine, DC going around talking to decision-makers telling them that net neutrality will kill projects like Wikipedia (fullstop of explanation). Very few people will really look into the fine details and distinguish Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero. The former has de-facto become an argument for the latter.
There a lots of lessons to be learned here. Another "don't go there-flag" for me is the current "right to be forgotten" discussion in Europe, where Wikipedia is being used as a tool for another organisation's political agenda. [1] Again because we're using very simplistic arguments for a very complex issue with no coordination whatsoever.
Anyway, have a great start of the week tomorrow, let's enjoy Wikimania and be productive!
Can't wait to see a lot of you there!
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/25/right-to-be-forgotten-goog...
2014-08-02 6:56 GMT+02:00 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
Yana, here is my active voice ruler; please whack Eric with it for me.
I'm on the list now so feel free to whack to your heart's content :)
(side note: is there a PR/Marketing review cycle for such blog entries?)
The post was drafted and reviewed in partnership with Yana, Katherine Maher (Chief Communications Officer) and Carolynne Schloeder (Director of Mobile Partnerships, head of the program).
Look at the partners. Facebook? really, Facebook?
Facebook is not a Wikipedia Zero partner. Their internet.org initiative is independent from the Wikipedia Zero program -- it provides access to Wikipedia among other sites, but this is not done under any agreement with us.
I don't think the discussion is well served by painting any initiative with a broad brush. Their initiative seems overall well-intended, but it suffers from a lack of transparency as to its operating principles, including questions that are especially relevant (privacy of user data, access to competitors like Twitter, etc.). We'll not directly participate in a program like internet.org unless such questions can be answered satisfactorily.
As for discussions on the list, it would not be a useful discussion for this list whether the program should exist at all - we've made that decision. Like any program it will continually be evaluated in terms of its impact, but this list is not the place to do so. What is useful, however, is for us to talk about how we communicate about it, and how to best evolve the operating principles of the program in a manner consistent with net neutrality policy objectives.
This is why the post gave significant emphasis to the current draft of operating principles: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
We hope those operating principles can serve as a useful starting point for the kinds of discussions that people on this list have with policymakers. If you have immediate reactions to these principles and how we've communicated them here, I would very much love to hear them. I'm paying attention and have read the archives.
Specifically, I believe the operating principles of "no exchange of payment" and "no bundles" are very important ones that we should emphasize in any policy-related discussions.
Erik
Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
Hi Dimi,
I want to reiterate Erik’s point that the blog post and Operating Principles are just the starting point for this discussion. We will continue developing legal and policy solutions with Wikimedia community, EFF, CDT, and other advocacy groups at the Internet Governance Forum: http://sched.co/1kiflDN
Best, Yana
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 12:17 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Unfortunately some of our worse fears are becoming reality. Truth is, Wikimedia, due to its innner conflict in this case has always been too weak and vulnerable to have an active position on a red hot issue like net neutrality. We're torn between the awareness that we thrive only because of an equal internet and the logical wish to spread our awesome projects.
The problem is that we don't have an actual - political or legal - solution. So we're just saying that our project is great (which it is) and that it should be allowed (which I don't argue with). But when we put out a fuzzy message paired with an incoherent argumentation and at the same time don't control the narrative, we're turning Wikipedia into a handy tool for others. If we don't define it, others will, but in a way that helps their agenda. Large multinational companies will of course start using this for their own needs. There's now tens of lobbyists in Brussels, Geneva and, I imagine, DC going around talking to decision-makers telling them that net neutrality will kill projects like Wikipedia (fullstop of explanation). Very few people will really look into the fine details and distinguish Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero. The former has de-facto become an argument for the latter.
There a lots of lessons to be learned here. Another "don't go there-flag" for me is the current "right to be forgotten" discussion in Europe, where Wikipedia is being used as a tool for another organisation's political agenda. [1] Again because we're using very simplistic arguments for a very complex issue with no coordination whatsoever.
Anyway, have a great start of the week tomorrow, let's enjoy Wikimania and be productive!
Can't wait to see a lot of you there!
Cheers, Dimi
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jul/25/right-to-be-forgotten-goog...
2014-08-02 6:56 GMT+02:00 Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:
Yana, here is my active voice ruler; please whack Eric with it for me.
I'm on the list now so feel free to whack to your heart's content :)
(side note: is there a PR/Marketing review cycle for such blog entries?)
The post was drafted and reviewed in partnership with Yana, Katherine Maher (Chief Communications Officer) and Carolynne Schloeder (Director of Mobile Partnerships, head of the program).
Look at the partners. Facebook? really, Facebook?
Facebook is not a Wikipedia Zero partner. Their internet.org initiative is independent from the Wikipedia Zero program -- it provides access to Wikipedia among other sites, but this is not done under any agreement with us.
I don't think the discussion is well served by painting any initiative with a broad brush. Their initiative seems overall well-intended, but it suffers from a lack of transparency as to its operating principles, including questions that are especially relevant (privacy of user data, access to competitors like Twitter, etc.). We'll not directly participate in a program like internet.org unless such questions can be answered satisfactorily.
As for discussions on the list, it would not be a useful discussion for this list whether the program should exist at all - we've made that decision. Like any program it will continually be evaluated in terms of its impact, but this list is not the place to do so. What is useful, however, is for us to talk about how we communicate about it, and how to best evolve the operating principles of the program in a manner consistent with net neutrality policy objectives.
This is why the post gave significant emphasis to the current draft of operating principles: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Operating_Principles
We hope those operating principles can serve as a useful starting point for the kinds of discussions that people on this list have with policymakers. If you have immediate reactions to these principles and how we've communicated them here, I would very much love to hear them. I'm paying attention and have read the archives.
Specifically, I believe the operating principles of "no exchange of payment" and "no bundles" are very important ones that we should emphasize in any policy-related discussions.
Erik
Erik Möller VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation
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
What is the definition of net neutrality that we supposedly can't support? Including natural language reference access at no charge is essentially identical, for the purposes of such a definition, to including name resolution services at no cost.
Happy to help.
On 08/03/2014 03:17 PM, Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov wrote:
Unfortunately some of our worse fears are becoming reality. Truth is, Wikimedia, due to its innner conflict in this case has always been too weak and vulnerable to have an active position on a red hot issue like net neutrality. We're torn between the awareness that we thrive only because of an equal internet and the logical wish to spread our awesome projects.
This is quite a telling paragraph. And I think it's at the heart of the discussion.
If your choice is between an open and equal internet and a successful Wikipedia, you must chose an open and equal internet.
After only a short 20 years with the internet as we know it, the greatest risk is balkanisation. Please do not be so caught up in Wikipedia's awesomeness (it is indeed awesome!) as to not see the long term needs of humanity. With Facebook it's really easy to see that they want Facebook Zero for world domination. You're admitting here that this too is the reason that Wikipedia Zero should exist.
Wikipedia has been hugely successful because of the conditions of an open internet. Closing that down, violating net neutrality, creating precedent for select free services means that there can never be another brave invention like Wikipedia.
-Mallory
publicpolicy@lists.wikimedia.org