To me Josh's point in the other thread settles this argument. I can't
presume to know better than the people this service is made for what is
good for them. People in other cultures have values as well. They might be
different than ours, but more importantly, they have to be pitted against
constraints that are completely different than ours. It's perfectly normal
that the result of the moral equation people have to solve can be different
than ours. It's also logical for it to evolve over time, as the constraints
change. Let people in the countries where Wikipedia Zero operates decide
whether it fits their vision of the movement or not. I'm sure that if users
in a given country find it contrary to their beliefs or what they think to
be the movement's values, they'll campaign against it on their own accord.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:34 PM, Jens Best <best.jens(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Nathan and everybody,
Last time I checked my mail (containing my repsonse to Gerard) wasn't
published and as I sent it yesterday morning I'm suprised that it took that
long to "arrive".
Also, I would like you to stop your wrong assumptions about "off-topic" -
As Gerard made a statement to Wikipedia Zero my answer to him isn't "surely
off topic". I didn't decide to discuss the pros/cons of WP0 in the
Welcome-Mail to Kourosh.
In my welcoming response I just pointed out to Kourosh that one of his new
responsibilities (highlighted by Lila) is a big problem for the global
community which cares about an open and free web, inculding several NGOs of
the Global South who spoke out clearly against Wikipedia Zero e.g. at the
Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2014 in Istanbul (where net neutrality was
a main subject of discussion). As this subject was subsequentially
discussed in the threat my answer to Gerard's input was not off-topic at
Right now I don't feel any open-mindedness towards even the possibilitiy
that The Great WMF could have made a mistake by going to bed with the
telecoms to get zero-rated. As long as there isn't even the slightest
willingness to acknowledge the possibility that WP0 was a mistake it
becomes more and more senseless to talk with official and inofficial
representatives of the WMF-system.
Maybe WMF and with it Wikipedia has to learn the consequences of its
mistakes the hard way. But the ignorance towards facts which was presented
over the last months when it comes to the glorious Wikipedia Zero and the
fact that it is a violation of core principle of the free and open web is
enourmous and without any excuse for an organisation carrying that amount
of responsibility when it comes to stand for an open web which made
Wikipedia possible in the first.
Hopefully with Kourosh the organisation will get somebody who has the
outside-world experience and the professional courage to stop mistakes like
Wikipedia Zero. We'll see. Apart from that I rest my case, all the
recurring participants in the ongoing discussion exchanged their arguments
already. I don't see new faces in the discussion and therefore I'm actually
not interested to repeat my arguments over and over.
Just, because I promised him, two main answer to James:
- Of course net neutrality has a monetary aspect. Read the
all data on the Internet <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> equally,
not discriminating or *charging differentially* by content, site, platform,
application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication". If you
have to pay different prices for different data it is a basic violation of
net neutrality. net neutrality isn't about techy aspects, it is about power
and structural equality in the web.
- Wikipedia Zero can't offer the promised grow because by definition it is
a *Walled Wikipedia*. WP0 will always be just a marketing tool for telecoms
to lure new customers in and train them that different data has different
price tag. Their teachings are: "When you wanna leave Wikipedia, wanna
follow the links to really enrich your knowledge by using all the other
free content in the web - you have to pay." So therefore Wikipedia Zero is
not about the free knowledge of the world, it is a Wikipedia which has
chosen the wrong side of the play about a free and open web for the
self-involved purpose of being the one and only source for knowledge.
Welcome to world of first-world-owned telecoms teaching their new Global
South-customers an "internet" far away from what the internet was supposed
PS: @Marc No Marc, no "bits of my message were accidentally elided". When I
write in a mailinglist I, of course, express my opinion and my points of
view, but your nit-picking and pseudo-kind cynical remarks additionally
prove how biased the whole discussion is at the moment in the WMF-universe.
Critics are not welcome. Message recieved, continue with your holy mission.
Hail Wikipedia, the mother of all knowledge available to the poor!
2015-04-01 19:20 GMT+02:00 Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com>om>:
Jens - your reply to Gerard on the other thread
(where it is surely off
topic) was published a couple of hours ago.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Jens Best <best.jens(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear James,
> your praising of WP0 surely deserves or even needs an appropiated
but as I
can't see my answering mail to Gerard's input from yesterday
published in this mailinglist so I will wait until this "moderated".
When I see that my email with the answer to Gerard is published in the
mailinglist I will take the time to explain you why net neutrality is
> than you suggest and why we need to be a little bit less starry-eyed
> it comes to the reasons why telecoms are
behaving sooo nice to
> Also I will add some remarks about why a
little bit more humbleness
> the "we are the knowledge of the
world"-fraction would be appropiated
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: