2014-08-03 22:22 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:

We as WMDE have not yet written a formal position on this special subject, but be assured that net neutrality is a very important subject for us.

As a German community member with no affiliation to the German chapter or indeed any other Wikimedia organisation I would like to add that net neutrality is indeed a rather important issue to anyone interested in the politics of the information economy in this country. I presume no one would tolerate a breach of net neutrality anywhere, and it is a bad sign if Wikimedia is associated with something like that in the first place.

However, there is a long-standing discussion on legally constituting libraries as a statutory basic public service in this country. So, the discussion on the introduction of library acts, or a Bibliotheksgesetz, in all German länder as well as on the Federal level would be the right way to address the issue of how to offer free access to information for everyone. I have a hunch that this might hold true for other countries, too. Wikipedia Zero seems to have been designed too much with a U.S. perspective in mind. That's why it is bound to fail in other parts of the world.

Regards, Jürgen.

2014-08-05 2:54 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org:

We tend to go out pontificating on these lists. What would be helpful is solutioning. For net neutrality, how would you reconcile the need for free public access to information with the ideals of net neutrality? This is the library analogy. We believe libraries should exist in this new digital world. Do you advise that they cannot? And if they can, how should we articulate this better?

Go ahead and take a stab at it.

The solution probably is to go and partner with the libraries instead of the ISPs. Leave it to the libraries which ISP they choose. It is up to the libraries to provide access to resources for their users. They select the resources they provide and they mind the technical side behind it all. This is not the WMF's business. You only run the WP website and care about the community.

Regards, Jürgen.

The discussion seems to be over:

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.

Byebye

Jens

2014-08-09 13:09 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk:

Hello everyone. I don't actually have a solution, although I am thinking about it a lot. But for anyone who is in doubt about the potential difficulties that net neutrality faces because of Wikipedia Zero, I recommend they take a look at this blog. It is written from what I consider the "critical friend" perspective and articulates the arguments of Jens and others very clearly.

https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-...

It also reflects my own view pretty well. I hope we can have a calm and reasoned discussion about this issue this evening at the net politics beer.

Thanks and regards,

Stevie

On 5 August 2014 07:08, Juergen Fenn schneeschmelze@googlemail.com wrote:

...

2014-08-05 2:54 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org:

...

We tend to go out pontificating on these lists. What would be helpful is solutioning. For net neutrality, how would you reconcile the need for

free

...

public access to information with the ideals of net neutrality? This is

the

...

library analogy. We believe libraries should exist in this new digital world. Do you advise that they cannot? And if they can, how should we articulate this better?

Go ahead and take a stab at it.

The solution probably is to go and partner with the libraries instead of the ISPs. Leave it to the libraries which ISP they choose. It is up to the libraries to provide access to resources for their users. They select the resources they provide and they mind the technical side behind it all. This is not the WMF's business. You only run the WP website and care about the community.

Regards, Jürgen.

---

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

--

Stevie Benton Head of External Relations Wikimedia UK+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 @StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*

---

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

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.

as expected: first ignoring the rules, then slashing people with other opinions. typical.

If somebody starts arguing the "human rights" are on the side of their own brand marketing it's time to realizes that dialogue is senseless.

Wikipedia Zero is NOT standing for free access to knowledge - it stands for free access to Wikimedia products. Wikipedia Zero isn't about "freeing the knowledge of the world to the people of the world", it is about "freeing the use of Wikipedia to the people of the world". Nice idea, but not possible if you give any thoughts to net neutrality. Same as Facebook Zero is not about "bringing the internet to the people of the world" but bringing "Facebook to the people of the world." It's about brand dominion, not about enlightenment and human rights.

And Wikipedia Zero is a marketing tool for access providers. Human right? Free access to information? Maybe that's what some people dream this is about, but the reality is different.

over and out

Jens

2014-08-10 19:00 GMT+02:00 Anirudh S. Bhati anirudhsbh@gmail.com:

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

"Net neutrality is about fast/slow Lane. WP0 is about a free Lane." - Sounds like straight from the Marketing/PR-Department.

And this oversimplification is also wrong in the underlying "argument" - which obviously should be "WP0 and net neutrality are two totally different things" (<- that was my original bet with what the PR of the Foundation would come up with. Who could have thought of "net neutrality people are against human rights".) It is just brazen how the Foundation dealt with this matter.

2014-08-10 20:38 GMT+02:00 Christophe Henner christophe.henner@gmail.com:

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

On Sunday, August 10, 2014, Amgine amgine@wikimedians.ca wrote:

In its simplest form, providers who offer a free lane must incentivize the non-free lane. The first incentive will be full internet access rather than limited content. The second will almost certainly be faster throughput - which really means the free lane will also be the slow lane of tiered internet service.

This does not follow, and again services such as DNS are perfect examples. It's in any ISP's interest to provide DNS which is both fast and free in order to compete with other ISPs (whether there are a sufficient number of ISPs in various locales to support effective competition is another question, much more worthy of our time, by the way.) The same is true with any zero-rated service. If an ISP offers fast and free WP0, it will have an advantage over competitors relegating it to slow and free.

To whom to I appeal my moderation on this list?

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-M... - 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

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-M...

• 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

Hi Dimi,

I have just subscribed to this list exactly because I was interested in this discussion and the first email I get is this. It's wonderful, thanks for your great summary.

2014-08-12 14:09 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com:

Hello all,

I feel like the discussion has become toxic which is why I decided to try to take a few steps back and try to map the situation at least in part. I've been thinking very long and hard about the whole issue on global, European and Wikimedia levels in the past days. I also spoke to an massive amount of people. Unfortunately I can't say that I've found the magic solution, but maybe some of these thoughts and attempts to find a way forward can help.

[...]

Hugs and lots of WikiLove!

To you, too.

Cristian

Ups, of course it should say "Lila" in the header (damn autocorrect).

2014-08-12 14:53 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:

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

Jens

Hi Dimi,

There is now "strawman argument" and even more no "ad-hominem attack" from my side. Please stop these allegations.

There was in fact a person of the board of the foundation giving us a rare insight on what the foundation really thinks:

"We are a human right, Wikipedia is a human right - therefore we do not have to stick to stupid rules made up for this so-called open web."

and

"If these net neutrality thing is against Us, the Bringer of the Holy Human Right named Wikipedia, than these net neutrality people are on the wrong side - on the side which stands against human rights."

Well, if you ask me, and obviously many others, "assuming good faith" becomes pretty stupid, when spit in the face like this.

So if "productive and friendly" means don't mention the clear bullsh** said publicly by a representative of the foundation, there will be no "productive and friendly" bowing to this sick attitude which covers up ignorance with pseudo-debates while doing anyway what they want.

Net neutrality is bigger than Wikipedia. As long as Wikimedia is ignoring this simple fact and continuing selling Wikipedia Zero to providers around the world there can be no honest debate which even has a whiff of credibility.

So back to the preconditions of a decent debate: Apology for the insult happened at Wikimania & Stopping all efforts pushing WP0 as long there is no decision reached in this very very sensible global matter.

best regards

Jens

2014-08-12 15:12 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:

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!

Dimi

2014-08-12 14:53 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:

...

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

Jens

---

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

Dear Lodewijk,

you confusing cause and effect here.

It was Patricio, a member of the board of the foundation, who basically called everybody who is pro-net neutrality an enemy of human right. Well, THIS is what I call personal and not al all constructive - So, please, sent your critic to the foundation, because they started the whole insulting.

As long as there is no apology for this massive insult of calling people enemies of a human right just becuase they have another opinion on the subject it doesn't make sense to "debate" with the foundation at all.

Patricio is personally silent for days now - obviously he doesn't care when he's insulting people with other opinions. AGF is sometimes obviously mis-used to silence people who just say plainly what has happened - that a boardmember of the foundation gave us a glimpse of how things are really handled. It goes like this: Wikimedia is holy, we are the holy representation of Free Knowledge, without us there is no hope for mankind, therefore being against things we do is like being against human rights themselves. These net neutrality thing has to be change or we will ignore it. Well, this is what I call being NOT "productive and friendly" at all. So don't wonder about the reactions.

Jens

2014-08-12 17:20 GMT+02:00 L.Gelauff lgelauff@gmail.com:

Dear Jens,

I'm afraid your contributions do come across as angry and personal. It is OK to have those emotions, but I don't think they are quite constructive to the discussion. Calling someone's opinion 'bullshit' and agressively stating that 'an honest debate is not possible' (paraphrased) simply because someone gives their opinion in answer to a public question seems uncalled for to me.

I will not go into your analyses of emails - I agree with Dimi that that is poisonous to the actual topic, but I do have a very practical request: please don't use quotation marks when you're paraphrasing. It is confusing.

Several of the statements you qualified as obvious or clear, are very non-obvious to me. Maybe you're better placed in this discussion than I am, maybe I don't quite get the gist of the discussions.

Stating that someone should apologize for their opinion is in my book by the way not the best way to a decent debate. As for stopping all activities of Wikipedia Zero, I happily refer you to the page "Wikipedia:The wrong version" which probably has a German equivalent.

I sincerely hope we can have a more focused discussion on the topic rather than everything surrounding it. Dimi's suggestions seem interesting and require at least on my side further thought.

Best, Lodewijk

2014-08-12 17:07 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:

Hi Dimi,

...

There is now "strawman argument" and even more no "ad-hominem attack" from my side. Please stop these allegations.

There was in fact a person of the board of the foundation giving us a rare insight on what the foundation really thinks:

"We are a human right, Wikipedia is a human right - therefore we do not have to stick to stupid rules made up for this so-called open web."

and

"If these net neutrality thing is against Us, the Bringer of the Holy Human Right named Wikipedia, than these net neutrality people are on the wrong side - on the side which stands against human rights."

Well, if you ask me, and obviously many others, "assuming good faith" becomes pretty stupid, when spit in the face like this.

So if "productive and friendly" means don't mention the clear bullsh** said publicly by a representative of the foundation, there will be no "productive and friendly" bowing to this sick attitude which covers up ignorance with pseudo-debates while doing anyway what they want.

Net neutrality is bigger than Wikipedia. As long as Wikimedia is ignoring this simple fact and continuing selling Wikipedia Zero to providers around the world there can be no honest debate which even has a whiff of credibility.

So back to the preconditions of a decent debate: Apology for the insult happened at Wikimania & Stopping all efforts pushing WP0 as long there is no decision reached in this very very sensible global matter.

best regards

Jens

2014-08-12 15:12 GMT+02:00 Dimitar Parvanov Dimitrov < dimitar.parvanov.dimitrov@gmail.com>:

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!

Dimi

2014-08-12 14:53 GMT+02:00 Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de:

...

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

Jens

---

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 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

---

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

Hi Nathan,

tell this Patricio who initially insulted net neutrality activists by calling their opinions as being against a human right. If that is called “assuming good faith“ or “maintaining a degree of collegiality“, well, then indeed we have a big problem.

Jens Am 12.08.2014 18:14 schrieb "Nathan" nawrich@gmail.com:

This might be a good point for the list moderator (someone from Legal?) to step in to help maintain a constructive atmosphere on this list. We can and should discuss, debate and disagree while maintaining a degree of collegiality.

---

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

Dear all,

Sorry for jumping into this very interesting discussion rather late. Also, I regret not having been able to come to yesterday's net politics bear. Although I agree with Jens that zero-rated services are incompatible with net neutrality it seems that this discussion is indeed over. :-(

This is why I think we should focus on how to communicate those two positions (pro Wikipedia Zero + pro net neutrality) in the framework of Brussels advocacy. It seems that Google, Facebook and the like are doing this quite successfully (http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/07/15/why-google-facebook-the-i...) and it might even be that many decision makers even won't care too much about an exception to net neutrality for Wikipedia or other useful services. After all:

- It does give access to less connected countries/societies to some parts of the Internet; - It can increase online participation; and - It can foster knowledge sharing among the people concerned.

I guess the bottom line could be that net neutrality is no ideology (=zero-rating is okay), but should protect consumers and content providers from having to pay ISPs in order to be accessible at all or at an acceptable speed (=bad for Wikimedia and other content providers).

In terms of advocacy it's a slippery slope and if I could, I would have advised to EITHER promote Wikipedia Zero OR defend net neutrality.

Any thoughts welcome.

Jan

Am 10.08.2014 um 18:32 schrieb Jens Best:

The discussion seems to be over:

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.

Byebye

Jens

2014-08-09 13:09 GMT+02:00 Stevie Benton <stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk mailto:stevie.benton@wikimedia.org.uk>:

Hello everyone. I don't actually have a solution, although I am
thinking about it a lot. But for anyone who is in doubt about the
potential difficulties that net neutrality faces because of
Wikipedia Zero, I recommend they take a look at this blog. It is
written from what I consider the "critical friend" perspective and
articulates the arguments of Jens and others very clearly. 

https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open

It also reflects my own view pretty well. I hope we can have a
calm and reasoned discussion about this issue this evening at the
net politics beer.

Thanks and regards,

Stevie


On 5 August 2014 07:08, Juergen Fenn
<schneeschmelze@googlemail.com
<mailto:schneeschmelze@googlemail.com>> wrote:

    2014-08-05 2:54 GMT+02:00 Lila Tretikov <lila@wikimedia.org
    <mailto:lila@wikimedia.org>>:
    > We tend to go out pontificating on these lists. What would
    be helpful is
    > solutioning. For net neutrality, how would you reconcile the
    need for free
    > public access to information with the ideals of net
    neutrality? This is the
    > library analogy. We believe libraries should exist in this
    new digital
    > world. Do you advise that they cannot? And if they can, how
    should we
    > articulate this better?
    >
    > Go ahead and take a stab at it.

    The solution probably is to go and partner with the libraries
    instead
    of the ISPs. Leave it to the libraries which ISP they choose.
    It is up
    to the libraries to provide access to resources for their
    users. They
    select the resources they provide and they mind the technical side
    behind it all. This is not the WMF's business. You only run the WP
    website and care about the community.

    Regards,
    Jürgen.

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




-- 

Stevie Benton
Head of External Relations
Wikimedia UK
+44 (0) 20 7065 0993 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%2020%207065%200993> / +44 (0) 7803 505 173 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29%207803%20505%20173>
@StevieBenton

Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in
England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity
No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64
Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is
the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia
projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate
Wikipedia, amongst other projects).

*Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal
control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.*




_______________________________________________
Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
Advocacy_Advisors@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto: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 http://www.wikimedia.de/ mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de http://@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

Hi Eric

I re-watched it, too. I'm on road now, so I will answer later in detail why it is still insulting and why the misleading and plain wrong use of “slow/fast lane“ and an ellegibly “wider concept of net neutrality“ is - unconsciously or consciously - misleading.

Jens Am 12.08.2014 19:30 schrieb "Erik Moeller" erik@wikimedia.org:

On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 6:32 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."

Dear Jens,

This is not what Patricio said. Thanks to him for linking to the relevant segment of the video. Here is a full transcript:

"In the last couple of weeks, it's [sic] been some debate about Wikipedia Zero and whether it conflicts with the concept of net neutrality .. and .. my opinion is that net neutrality refers specifically or mostly to the fact that some services or some .. certain companies are trying to pay to use what is called the fast lane, lanes of the Internet. If there are fast lanes, there are also slow lanes, and that's not the Internet we want, we completely reject that possibility. In this sense, we completely support the concept of net neutrality. But when going to Wikipedia Zero, we are not going .. we are not talking about fast or slow, we are talking about people who is outside the road(?) at all .. so what we are trying, is to give them access to a basic human right, which is access to information and knowledge. And .. I know some people don't agree with this opinion because they have a wider notion of net neutrality. And, I'm sorry, but my opinion is quite different. If our concept of net neutrality prevents us to secure human rights then we should revise the concept of net neutrality."

This makes it clear that:

• Patricio's opinion as expressed was clearly nuanced, and explicitly

acknowledged that reasonable people can disagree on the matter. In turn I have a hard time seeing how a reasonable person would be offended by how it was stated. If you're going mostly off the heise.de report, though, please make sure you read the full statement above or watch the video Patricio linked to.

• The heise.de news article misquoted Patricio, since in context it is

clear that he strongly supported a basic principle of net neutrality, but not necessarily an expanded notion that may conflict with right-to-knowledge objectives. The words "our concept of" are pretty important to the meaning of what he said and were omitted in translation, alongside the full context of his statement.

Sincerely, 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

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Lila Tretikov lila@wikimedia.org wrote:

... 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?

Yes, and that is already implemented, again by ISPs who always provide DNS (name resolution) services at no charge, when they zero-rate anything at all.

The last two of my messages on this topic have been moderated and dropped silently, and there has been no response from the moderator about them or whether they were or were not on topic. How do I appeal my moderation?

Hi All,

(that text below became a little long, but I promise it's full of real facts, thoughts, surprises and insights. So, thank you for reading when you have the time)

Let me get some things straight first which show what is really going on:

- for months there was a passionate, friendly, cooperatively and information-based discussion about the problem "Wikipedia Zero and Net Neutrality". The arguments were made clear, everybody had the chance to learn some new facts about the matters at hand.

- foundation is saying that they have "talks", but they can't disclosure really what's going on and don't want to put everything on a public mailinglist. Well, little bit of "not how we do it", but understandable because the massive conflict at the horizont with many digital activists, their organisations and the puzzled public on the one hand and the fact that just stopping Wikipedia Zero isn't a real option on the other hand, makes the whole thing a little bit "delicate".

- foundation is saying that they working on something, like a text or a draft of a text or something like that. Everybody is waiting for this, months-long waiting. While waiting more critical articles about the conflict are published around the globe, some of them reflecting the facts of the story quite good.

- foundation is publishing a press release, written by Erik, which does not really explain how the actual conflict can be solved, but giving us some heartful stories, some thoughts about how the world and the laws in it should be. All things you can't hardly disagree with, but nothing that really shows a path out of the dilemma at hand.

- on a board Q&A at the Wikimania in London, the board of Trustees is asked about its opinion towards "Wikipedia Zero vs. Net Neutrality". The question goes to the whole board. One person of the board, Patricio Lorente, answers with mainly two information to what net neurality is (in his opinion, but nobody from the board is adding anything). The basic two aspects of net neutrality when it comes to Wikipedia Zero are according to Patricio:

1. Net neutrality is "especially" or "mostly" about slow vs. fast lane (meaning slow and fast transport of data). This fast lane/slow lane thing is rejected by the board. As Wikipedia Zero is about zero lane it obviously isn't touched by a problem of net neutrality.

2. What the foundation wants to do is to give the people the basic human right of access to knowledge and information, but some people don't except this(!), because they have what he calls a "wider" understanding of net neutrality. Patricio now gets a little bit more passionate and says that a concept of net neutrality that stands against human rightS must be revised.

Let's stop the listing of what happened so far and let's have a closer look to what was said by Patricio publicly at Wikimania (and was applauded by a few of the board, JImmy Wales not on stage at that moment). But first let's read what Wikipedia is saying about Net neutrality:

"Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication."

So the basic concept of net neutrality isn't about "fast lane vs. slow lane" (this was one aspect of net neutrality discussion in the US this year, because of an questionable decision of the FCC). Net Neutrality is about treating all data equally. So, zero-rating one, but not the other can be a problem. And it is a problem.

How can net neutrality be violated: net neutrality and its possible endangering appear on "horizontal" and on a "vertical" levels.

Horizontally means that e.g. one music platform is zero-rated by a provider and another isn't. First this looks like a typical competition thing on the markets of music plattforms and access providers. But what is really happening: The data-traffic of one music plattform is for free, the others is going through the normal datatraffic-tariff the user has and if that is exhausted there is no more music from there. This is a violation of treating "all data equally" and its done inside the horizontal level of "music data". This principle protects innovation by providing a level playing field on a very basic important level online.

Vertically means that an access provider is stopping all data-traffic which it recognizes as e.g. VoIP-data (done by many providers in many countries). So, a vertical violation of net neutrality e.g. blocking a total kind of data. - short intermission for a tipp on secure VoIP which therefore can also not be recognized as VoIP-data;) -> get Signal for iPhone or RedPhone for Android for free, it's an open source secure VoIP based on OpenWhisper, end of intermission -

One other example to show how important and at the same time contested net neutrality is in this days: In the question of how TV-Streams or TVonDemand is handled by many countries and providers you can perfectly observe how the net neutrality principle is eluded by making law that just decide that TV-data which actually isn't different to best effort delivery of data becomes an own class of data in the eyes of some providers and lawmakers - sure, because it prevents to change the old TV-system (but change is coming anyway…Netflix…HBO online).

So treating data equally is a highly important principle of the free and open web, because it guarantees that "the web" stays "the web" and not becomes something like you can see if you follow the link to the pic here -> http://muncievoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/net-neutrality.jpg

And lets not get fooled - the access providers love Wikipedia Zero also because it offers such a beautiful combination of irresistible marketing facts: the 5th/6th biggest website of the world, known by practically anybody, mostly using text meaning low low datatraffic, it's pure (seen from outside ;), and itself is doing marketing with terms like "human right for knowledge" or "free knowledge". It's a marketers dream.

A dream that would burst if a real coalition on Free Knowledge would knock on the doors of the providers. Let's imagine Wikipedia and two of the most well-known free online video lectures, Harvard and Stanford, would form a "Free Knowledge Coalition Union" (FKCU). Well, maybe that would be a little bit to much zero-rated Free Knowledge Zero Video-Data-Traffic for many of the providers. But who knows…

Back to Net neutrality and Wikipedia Zero and the world of Patricio and obviously some of the board:

So, No! No, the "normal" net neutrality is not only about "fast lane vs. slow lane" and there is no ominous "wider" understanding of it and people who care about the important principle aren't against human rightS just because they stand for this principle. It's just that purely because somebody has good intentions when violating net neutrality this does not automatically mean that there has to be non-discussable exception of "all data is treated equally".

So, on the "factual" bases it is pretty easy to show that the opinion presented at Wikimania is just plain wrong. So, why bother?

Well, because after all this months of passionate, friendly, cooperatively and information-based discussion about the problem "Wikipedia Zero and Net Neutrality" the only thing some of the board of trustees presenting is an incorrect understanding of net neutrality and the astonishing reveal that net neutrality is against human rightS (which logically implicates that all the people willingly standing for net neutrality basically are against human rightS, too).

Actually and I have to say this quite loud and clear: That is dis-appointing. And for me personally after months of serious discussions a pure public insult. For me the foundation is saying - in a nice factual statement - that they really wanna give a s*** about the whole debate. I'm not judging the person who made this statement, somebody obviously had to take the shot, and Patricio took it.

But I'm asking myself (and I'm not the only one) on which bases the foundation is expecting from the net neutrality experts and the digital activists to be taken seriously on this matter. Why should somebody who for years tries to bring together the short and long term perspectives of giving more free information and knowledge to more people and also fights and respect the many other important aspects of a free and open web - Why should such a person trying to even talk about ways out of the dilemma when the foundation isn't even acknowledging that it right now continuously violates net neutrality and so becoming a willingly partner of access providers and other lobbyists who wants to get rid of one of the basic principles of the web? Really, that was the wrong signal, guys.

And as of right now I don't know how to have a serious debate which feels anything like it could have an open outcome. Also, the continuation of pushing Wikipedia Zero while there is a debate about if this is a violation of a basic principle of the web or not just feels disrespectful. I have right now no closing sentence that gives the whole thing a new positive twist, sorry.

best regards

Jens Best

PS: as for Lilas remarks: I liked the library analogy, well, being active in lobbying for the digital access of cultural heritage that doesn't really wonder. But even more I liked the question of public space online, another field in which I'm actively giving my best shaping the public and intellectual debate about. Pouring in the debate at hand reflections on about what public space could and should mean in the digital age doesn't solve the violation of the principle of treating all data equally, but it brings a common even societal level to the debate. and that is good. It is not about fibercables, data traffic, bottlenecks and all that techbubbling anymore, but more about the question what kind of basic social agreements will an enlightened digitalized society have when it comes to one of its main ressources - information and the thing we call knowledge. This could be a way of having something which is now weirdly called Wikipedia Zero transforming and melting into something much bigger than not only WP0, but the whole Wikimedia is.

It's tempting to form some inspiring thought clouds around that and break them down or let them rain down into many practical fields of life as it could be. And we should do that. Totally. But right now net neutrality is a principle which needs to be intact because it is attacked everyday by powerful economic and governmental forces around the world. Where we should stand on this subject right now, which side we choose right now, shouldn't be such a big question.

2014-08-12 23:35 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Lila Tretikov lila@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? Thanks all! Lila

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 source content, or to net neutrality, or universal internet access, or even 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.

---

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

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:28 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

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 source content,

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 public domain". Which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

I should have written open source software, true. But again, I think these are great goals that are secondary for us, and we use them as tools in achieving the primary goal. My point is that Wikimedia is not an advocacy organization on behalf of net neutrality or many of these other worthy goals, and we don't need to be out on the frontlines here or zealous in our adherence to principles secondary to our actual mission.

That doesn't mean we should actively harm efforts that we generally agree with, but I haven't seen much evidence that WP0 is actually being used to undercut net neutrality. If that's happening, and the concern isn't purely theoretical, I'd like to read about it and would appreciate any links.

Le Thu, 14 Aug 2014 14:45:10 +0200, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com a écrit:

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 2:28 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:35 AM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

...

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 source content,

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 public domain". Which links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_content

I should have written open source software, true.

That makes more sense! Thanks for clarifying.

...

But again, I think these are great goals that are secondary for us, and we use them as tools in achieving the primary goal. My point is that Wikimedia is not an advocacy organization on behalf of net neutrality or many of these other worthy goals, and we don't need to be out on the frontlines here or zealous in our adherence to principles secondary to our actual mission.

That doesn't mean we should actively harm efforts that we generally agree with, but I haven't seen much evidence that WP0 is actually being used to undercut net neutrality. If that's happening, and the concern isn't purely theoretical, I'd like to read about it and would appreciate any links.

The PR put out by WMF and Facebook about their respective Zero programs is remarkably similar. Unfortunately, whether good intentioned or not, Wikipedia Zero is muddying the water.

That may not be a problem if the EFF endorse the 'zero lane' and believe that it doesnt detract from their overall message. But if the EFF doesnt publicly agree with the WMF's 'zero lane' and work it into their strategy, or worse publicly rejects the WMF's position, expect to see a large cohort of donors sending money EFF's way instead of WMF's way, and that cohort of donor is unlikely to return, _ever_ .

-- John Vandenberg

I have not been vocal about this issue, but before this thread die, I would like to humbly say I’m really sad about this story of WP0.

Sad because the WMF and Wikimedia have a really great track of actions and successes in the fields of mass surveillance, copyright reform, promotion of public domain, help in defeating SOPA/PIPA, etc., and, although WP0 is by itself a great project, it is objectively against the net neutrality in the common sense (*) and it will make more difficult for our allies in this field to sustain a true net neutrality and all the linked stakes… if our allies want to stay our allies.

I really hope that WMF will return back about WP0, that Wikimedia as a whole will stay friend with its long-term allies, and that NN-respectful projects like offline Wikipedia or free access to Wikipedia in public spaces (as it was discussed in this thread) will become more supported. I guess we can find creative ideas to disseminate Wikipedia (and its sources? and the editing?) together with respecting the NN.

(*) one could argue WP0 is a "positive net non-neutrality" as I heard, but it is really a fallacy to sustain it is a net neutrality, because at the end the ISP have to check each IP packet to check if it is from/to Wikipedia or not, which is one of the criteria of net neutrality in the common sense (**)

(**) I quote en.wp for [[net neutrality]] (oldid=621921148) : "principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, and modes of communication." ; see also the definition by Benjamin Bayard in France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutralité_du_réseau?oldid=104975889#D.C3.A9finition.

~ Seb35

Hi,

2014-08-14 8:28 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:

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'.

I know about this article[1] by the EFF which ends with this statement: «Whilst we appreciate the intent behind efforts such as Wikipedia Zero, ultimately zero rated services are a dangerous compromise.»[1]

I am very torn with the question in general I would like to take a pragmatic approach based on what Dimi said above: yes, it is a discrimination, we recognize that but we shouldn't sit on our thumbs: we will continue to seek agreements with carriers to provide Wikipedia Zero and if a net neutrality law comes along ok, we will be happy for what we have gained also in this case, but I don't think that going back with the project on the pure basis of a net neutrality law that may, in the end, not even exist looks too naïve for my taste.

C

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/net-neutrality-and-global-digital-divi...