Dear Nathan et al.
I answered Josh in the other threat but will copy my answer to him again here below so that anybody interested to continue can do this in the "right" threat.
Nathan, I am disgusted by your comparisons. "colonialist aspect"? "little reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly uncivilized." These allegations - presented as comparisons - are purely insulting.
Oh, and actually it was Lila who introduced WP0 to this threat - otherwise I wouldn't have taken the chance to hint Kourosh to this field which was announced to be in his future field of responsibility.
I will not continue discussing with people making insulting comparisons to violent christian missionaries or similarily offending rhetoric stuff which in no way helps the discussion.
I - as everybody else in this discussion - are not to be judged by my race. Believing just because I am white I could only think and behave in colonistic pattern is an insult and not a contribution to the discussion.
cheers
Jens
2015-04-01 21:16 GMT+02:00 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com:
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Gilles Dubuc gilles@wikimedia.org wrote:
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.
I agree. We've discussed on this list before that for some, including Jens, the principles of net neutrality haven taken on a religious dimension. Any deviation from the absolute principle is attacked as immoral, so that some who expect that Wikimedia is a moral actor (from their perspective) feel shocked and betrayed when it is apparent that Wikimedia doesn't share this religious view of net neutrality.
Josh Lim's e-mail makes it clear that there is a definite colonialist aspect to this absolutist perspective, more than a little reminiscent of European Christian missionaries bringing the Bible to the supposedly uncivilized. Net neutrality activists should not presume to know better what is right and necessary for all parts of the world; if Wikipedia Zero is hailed as useful and needed in areas where it is available (and it is), then we should accept it and even promote it as a moral positive.
And to Jen's complaint about calling WP0 off topic... Perhaps you misunderstood, Jens - I wasn't referring exclusively to your reply to Gerard, but to the clear fact that a discussion about net neutrality was off topic for a thread welcoming a new executive to the WMF. Incidentally, I believe it *was* you who introduced WP0 to the thread. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe