(This press release is also available online here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_... )
*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
- *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges* - *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*
*Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their mobile phones free of data charges.
The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data charges at m.wikipedia.org.
With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and professional endeavors.
“We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”
“We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”
About Bharti Airtel
Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunications company with operations in 20 countries across Asia and Africa. Headquartered in New Delhi, India, the company ranks amongst the top 4 mobile service providers globally in terms of subscribers. In India, the company's product offerings include 2G, 3G and 4G wireless services, mobile commerce, fixed line services, high speed DSL broadband, IPTV, DTH, enterprise services including national & international long distance services to carriers. In the rest of the geographies, it offers 2G, 3G wireless services and mobile commerce. Bharti Airtel had over 297 million customers across its operations at the end of April 2014. To know more please visit, www.airtel.com
About the Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://wikipediazero.org http://blog.wikimedia.org
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive 500 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, August 2013). Available in 287 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.
Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:
Communications, Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 jwalsh@wikimedia.org
(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line)
_______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
On 05/29/2014 03:21 PM, Tilman Bayer wrote:
*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
Yeay! Grats Zero team for yet another victory bringing Free knowledge to all people!
-- Marc
another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality. and another day where wikimedia foundation helps driving an illegal practice according european and brazilian laws :(
for the ones in the US, read and file here comments for / against net neutrality: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment_search/execute?proceeding=14-28 https://www.fcc.gov/comments
just picked two arbitrary of the 47'000 comments alone in the last 30 days:
colin farell: There is nothing quite like trampling on the common citizen to advanced the interests of large corporations. Killing net neutrality is a horrible idea, that hurts consumer interest. I would like to see the FCC act in the interest of people not massive corporations.
timothy ford: Your website URL is FCC.gov. Do you know why it ends in "Dot" "GOV"? It is because your organization is part of the government of the United States of America. This governing body is made up of our peers that we have voted into office to serve the better good of the public. Your current actions do not reflect what is good for the public, our freedoms, and our rights. Your actions endanger the very nature of the internet. Freedom of speech in the purest kind. Where no voice can be silenced. Where a single voice can grow into a thousand screams for justice and overthrow cruel governments as we have seen in the Arab Spring. You are being brought to your knees by greedy Corporations whose sole purpose is to enrich themselves. You have let yourselves bend to their will. And by doing so ignore your primary objective. SERVE THE PEOPLE. You have failed for the last time. You failed to investigate the claims of illegal wiretapping by the NSA (and by doing so failed to protect our freedoms). You have failed us again by letting greed supersede what is right and just. I hereby call for the complete deconstruction of the FCC. You are incapable of doing, or listening, to the will of the people who not only pay for your checks, but you are under oath to protect. Therefore you serve no purpose. Let me remind you of your original charter which you have clearly forgotten. "regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges"
rupert
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Tilman Bayer tbayer@wikimedia.org wrote:
(This press release is also available online here: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Airtel_Offers_Nigerians_... )
*Airtel Offers Nigerians Free Access to Wikipedia*
- *Customers to Access Multilingual Content Free of Data Charges*
- *Restates Commitment to Educational Development, Youth Empowerment*
*Lagos, Nigeria, Thursday, May 29th, 2014*: Leading telecommunications services provider, Airtel Nigeria, has announced a strategic partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit that operates Wikipedia, to offer their consumers across the country access to Wikipedia through their mobile phones free of data charges.
The initiative, which is first of its kind in Nigeria, is dubbed Wikipedia Zero, and it is aimed at reaching and empowering billions of people around the world whose access to the Internet is primarily through a mobile device. Airtel Nigeria subscribers can access Wikipedia free of data charges at m.wikipedia.org.
With the new partnership, Airtel will help deliver knowledge and information of Wikipedia to 21 million of new users in the West African region. Speaking on the new partnership, Chief Commercial Officer, Airtel Nigeria, Maurice Newa, said the initiative is in line with the company’s corporate vision of becoming Nigeria’s number one Internet Company, saying the new service will help connect Nigerians with relevant knowledge and information that will empower them to succeed in their personal and professional endeavors.
“We are excited with our partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation and we will continue to provide innovative solutions that will uplift Nigerians in line with our brand promise of becoming the most loved brand in the daily lives of Nigerians,” he said. “At Airtel, we are passionate and committed to creating solid educational and youth empowerment platforms that will enrich and transform the lives of telecoms consumers across the country.”
“We commend Airtel Nigeria for taking a leadership role in empowering their society through information access, and we’re thrilled to partner with them,” said Carolynne Schloeder, Head of Mobile Partnerships at the Wikimedia Foundation. “Expanding Wikipedia Zero to the people of Nigeria is a big step forward for free knowledge in Africa.”
About Bharti Airtel
Bharti Airtel Limited is a leading global telecommunications company with operations in 20 countries across Asia and Africa. Headquartered in New Delhi, India, the company ranks amongst the top 4 mobile service providers globally in terms of subscribers. In India, the company's product offerings include 2G, 3G and 4G wireless services, mobile commerce, fixed line services, high speed DSL broadband, IPTV, DTH, enterprise services including national & international long distance services to carriers. In the rest of the geographies, it offers 2G, 3G wireless services and mobile commerce. Bharti Airtel had over 297 million customers across its operations at the end of April 2014. To know more please visit, www.airtel.com
About the Wikimedia Foundation
http://wikimediafoundation.org http://wikipediazero.org http://blog.wikimedia.org
The Wikimedia Foundation is the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. According to comScore Media Metrix, Wikipedia and the other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation receive 500 million unique visitors per month, making them the fifth-most popular web property world-wide (comScore, August 2013). Available in 287 languages, Wikipedia contains more than 29 million articles contributed by a global volunteer community of roughly 80,000 people. Based in San Francisco, California, the Wikimedia Foundation is an audited, 501(c)(3) charity that is funded primarily through donations and grants.
Wikimedia Foundation Press Contact:
Communications, Wikimedia Foundation +1 415-839-6885 ext 6633 jwalsh@wikimedia.org
(To be unsubscribed from this press release distribution list, please reply with 'UNSUBSCRIBE' in the subject line) _______________________________________________ Please note: all replies sent to this mailing list will be immediately directed to Wikimedia-l, the public mailing list of the Wikimedia community. For more information about Wikimedia-l: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l _______________________________________________ WikimediaAnnounce-l mailing list WikimediaAnnounce-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaannounce-l
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
On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating Wikipedia. Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.
What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.
-- Marc
Hi Marc,
zero-rating a special service or a certain website on you mobile contract is a clever way to undermine net neutrality, even when it comes as such a noble service to give free knowledge to the people.
Free knowledge of the leading global encyclopedia is surely connected with a totally different approach as, let's say, a certain music-streaming website which is included zero-rated in a mobile contract, but nethertheless it is way to undermine/break net neutrality. A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
There is already a discussion in the community about the prospective complex of problems with zero-rating as an icebreaker for introducing different price tags on data. It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:02 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating Wikipedia. Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.
What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.
-- Marc
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
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi Marc,
zero-rating a special service or a certain website on you mobile contract is a clever way to undermine net neutrality, even when it comes as such a noble service to give free knowledge to the people.
Free knowledge of the leading global encyclopedia is surely connected with a totally different approach as, let's say, a certain music-streaming website which is included zero-rated in a mobile contract, but nethertheless it is way to undermine/break net neutrality. A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
There is already a discussion in the community about the prospective complex of problems with zero-rating as an icebreaker for introducing different price tags on data. It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
best regards
Jens Best
It would be interesting to hear where the EFF stands on this. I think Wikipedia Zero is a great and awesome initiative, greatly outweighing the possible net neutrality undermining, but I appreciate the concern.
--Martijn
2014-05-29 23:02 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 04:55 PM, rupert THURNER wrote:
another sad day, wikimedia foundation as the vicarious servant of the telecom industry on its way destroying net neutrality.
I would *really* like to hear your reasoning on this, given that there is absolutely nothing that prevents any telco provider from zero-rating Wikipedia. Net neutrality doesn't even enter into it.
What *does* enter into it, however, is that literally /millions/ more people now have free access to Wikipedia that could not before afford it.
-- Marc
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
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some /other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
Hi Marc,
your "arguments" aren't really factual, but rather emotional. But that's fair enough.
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give more open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the people THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" - right now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great and awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting for free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more and more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but where are their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that what will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education organisations don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop of giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving free access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational ressources zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that this is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer to stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net neutrality just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us which seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected enough on its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some /other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
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
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million we pay you a year.
[1] http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give more open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the people THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" - right now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great and awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting for free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more and more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but where are their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that what will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education organisations don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop of giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving free access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational ressources zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that this is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer to stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net neutrality just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us which seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected enough on its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some /other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that zero-rating is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering Wikipedia Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it still needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but in fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well known and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught in a dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more partners which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this could work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million we pay you a year.
[1] http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great and awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting for free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more and more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that what will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop of giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving free access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational ressources zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that this is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer to stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the obviously perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in participating countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because some /other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in Chile is very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is an important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly implemented to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is not yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so we are thinking about what options are available in light of this decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
1. The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full Wikipedia sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
2. While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia, we are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia projects.
3. We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
4. Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make a commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social responsibility.[2] I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia Zero does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1] http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
Hoi, Yana you mentioned that all WMF projects may become under the "zero" flag... is Labs being considered for this as well ? Thanks, GerardM
On 1 June 2014 09:57, Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org wrote:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in Chile is very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is an important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly implemented to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is not yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so we are thinking about what options are available in light of this decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia, we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make a commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social responsibility.[2] I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia Zero does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that zero-rating is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering Wikipedia Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but in fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well known and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more partners which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
/other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
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
Yana, may i suggest that you try at least one time in your life edit a wikipedia article so you experience how much bandwith is consumed to do a proper research of verifyable sources? Or just read an article and try to verify the contents? Yana, there is only one type of internet, please leave it up to the reader what is good and what is bad, and please let the wikipedia zero contracts reflect this.
Rupert Am 01.06.2014 09:57 schrieb "Yana Welinder" ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in Chile is very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is an important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly implemented to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is not yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so we are thinking about what options are available in light of this decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia, we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make a commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social responsibility.[2] I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia Zero does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that zero-rating is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering Wikipedia Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but in fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well known and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more partners which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
/other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Gerard: Labs is not currently considered for zero-rating because it can be misused. But it may be added over time if we figure out how to work around that and there is demand for it.
Rupert: Your comment seems unnecessarily hostile to me, but I'm going to try to assume good faith. I have of course edited Wikipedia articles in my spare time, though I may not do it as much given that I spend most of my time defending the projects legally and creating a safer environment for other editors.
To address your substantive point: that people need full Internet access to do research for Wikipedia articles. I do think there are ways the community could work with editors that have limited access to the Internet rather than dismissing them outright. The fact that people can't afford to pay for full Internet access should not exclude them from contributing to the projects.
Best, Yana
Hi yana,
You are right, there is no hostility in my message. You know that wikimedians are very sensitive to follow existing law (especially copyright), and to provide and ask references all the time :)
@labs Could you please provide a reference why labs can be misused?
@understanding wikimedians needs Would you mind providing a reference for your wikipedia contributions?
@negotiating future wp zero deals What is the basic problem that you are not able to negotiate a "first 300 mb free for wikimedians", unrestricted to contents ?
Rupert Am 01.06.2014 22:06 schrieb "Yana Welinder" ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
Gerard: Labs is not currently considered for zero-rating because it can be misused. But it may be added over time if we figure out how to work around that and there is demand for it.
Rupert: Your comment seems unnecessarily hostile to me, but I'm going to try to assume good faith. I have of course edited Wikipedia articles in my spare time, though I may not do it as much given that I spend most of my time defending the projects legally and creating a safer environment for other editors.
To address your substantive point: that people need full Internet access to do research for Wikipedia articles. I do think there are ways the community could work with editors that have limited access to the Internet rather than dismissing them outright. The fact that people can't afford to pay for full Internet access should not exclude them from contributing to the projects.
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.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 8:45 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com wrote:
Yana, may i suggest that you try at least one time in your life edit a wikipedia article so you experience how much bandwith is consumed to do a proper research of verifyable sources? Or just read an article and try to verify the contents? Yana, there is only one type of internet, please
leave
it up to the reader what is good and what is bad, and please let the wikipedia zero contracts reflect this.
Rupert Am 01.06.2014 09:57 schrieb "Yana Welinder" ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in
Chile
is
very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is
an
important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly
implemented
to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is
not
yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so
we
are thinking about what options are available in light of this
decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full
Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia,
we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia
projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make
a
commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social
responsibility.[2]
I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia
Zero
does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de
wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that
zero-rating
is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering
Wikipedia
Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a
broader
scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but
in
fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well
known
and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are
caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more
partners
which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it
does
not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford
university
stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just"
needs
to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if
we
need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a
wikipedia
contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g.
in
nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5
million
we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best <
jens.best@wikimedia.de>
wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement
as
"zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to
give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to
the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for
free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is
great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have
different
motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for
fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now
more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for
further
development on free knowledge and free education? - And above
that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing
scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of
giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure
that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I
prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal
with
us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
> On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote: > > A noble cause > > doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
> > In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
> perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access
to
> educational resources for free to the world's least economically > fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
> > > It could be the time to start talking > > globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely
noble
> > initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
> > countries/regions. > > So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh,
you
> can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
> /other/ metric has been reached? >
> -- Marc
Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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>
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org <
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wi...
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
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
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/GuidelinesWikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
On 06/04/2014 02:36 AM, rupert THURNER wrote:
@labs Could you please provide a reference why labs can be misused?
The problem with Zero-rating (all of) labs is that there is no constraint on the actual nature of the content that is provided there.
While we /do/ have rules about what is and is not permissible on labs, and most of what is allowed should be okay to zero-rate alongside the projects, it's fairly easy to "cheat" your way around it and construct a workaround to access other services/websites/whatever which is what the telco providers would be concerned about.
That said, I could see a plausible future scenario where a carefully curated /subset/ of labs could be made available from the zero range; but I don't expect making labs in general zero-rated is possible.
-- Marc
A question to Yana et al.:
Is there any reason for the WMF to promote/sign Zero agreements instead of the local chapters/user groups?
I mean, if that ability was subsidized to the chapters we could have a different strategy depending on the country, because: - in some places the benefits of promoting Zero outweighs the risks - in some other places it is just the opposite
By decoupling the decisions from the umbrella organization we would allow different strategies according to different needs, with the focus to converge on net-neutrality on the long term, but not now for everyone, which is not ideal either.
Cheers, Micru
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 9:54 AM, David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
A question to Yana et al.:
Is there any reason for the WMF to promote/sign Zero agreements instead of the local chapters/user groups?
I mean, if that ability was subsidized to the chapters we could have a different strategy depending on the country, because:
- in some places the benefits of promoting Zero outweighs the risks
- in some other places it is just the opposite
By decoupling the decisions from the umbrella organization we would allow different strategies according to different needs, with the focus to converge on net-neutrality on the long term, but not now for everyone, which is not ideal either.
Cheers, Micru
How would an affiliate have the ability to sign any agreements for the delivery of WMF content? The agreements cover access to WMF-owned websites. I can see local affiliates being helpful with translation, advice and communication support etc., but I don't see that this kind of decision can be decoupled from the WMF.
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:59 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
How would an affiliate have the ability to sign any agreements for the delivery of WMF content? The agreements cover access to WMF-owned websites. I can see local affiliates being helpful with translation, advice and communication support etc., but I don't see that this kind of decision can be decoupled from the WMF.
The mechanism would be as follows: 1. the wmf or the local organization handles the first round of talks 2. the local organization formally asks for a temporal exception to the net-neutrality policy for a certain territory 3. the wmf temporally surrogates the capacity to sign the agreement to the local organization, and provides support (translation, advice, etc)
That way we would have: - an umbrella net neutrality policy that all should strive to reach - local exceptions where it makes sense - the wmf being able to advocate for net neutrality - the local population born in disadvantaged places enjoying (temporary) benefits
Of course it would be even better to define the limits of eligibility, that would need some discussion.
Cheers, Micru
Regarding the news from Chile, the QZ article is pretty misleading regarding the decision taken by the Subtel. I've been talking with some people that have been more involved in net neutrality discussions in Chile and they say that the decision doesn't forbid zero-rated programs in general. It just says that the current promotions were illegal, considering certain social networks got preferential access (namely, Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp) over other services, breaking net neutrality and free market rules. The decree says specifically that arbitrary discrimination between services of "similar nature" is forbidden.
Technically, Wikipedia Zero can still be applied in Chile (if mobile providers agree), but there shouldn't be a preferential treatment compared to those platform "of similar nature". Certainly, it would be interesting to know what might be considered as the competition of Wikipedia and the rest of the market (is there a competing website? can we consider all educational resources as competition?). As far as I know, there were some internet pre-paid plans in the past that had several educational websites available for free, including Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if they are still available.
The full decree (in Spanish) is available here: http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa...
2014-06-01 3:57 GMT-04:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in Chile is very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is an important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly implemented to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is not yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so we are thinking about what options are available in light of this decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia, we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make a commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social responsibility.[2] I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia Zero does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that zero-rating is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering Wikipedia Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but in fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well known and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more partners which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5 million we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement as "zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have different motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for further development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote:
A noble cause doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
It could be the time to start talking globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely noble initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh, you can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
/other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
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
I asked to the Chilean Undersecretary of Telecommunications in Twitter, and he confirmed that Wikipedia Zero and the zero-rated programs are not forbidden in Chile. He said that the criteria applied is based on practices of providers. [1]
I'm also happy to read that the WMF thinks that Wikipedia Zero could be applied in our country.
Best,
Marco Correa WMCL Board Member
[1] https://twitter.com/huichalaf/status/473310511711682560
2014-06-01 23:17 GMT-04:00 Osmar Valdebenito b1mbo.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Regarding the news from Chile, the QZ article is pretty misleading regarding the decision taken by the Subtel. I've been talking with some people that have been more involved in net neutrality discussions in Chile and they say that the decision doesn't forbid zero-rated programs in general. It just says that the current promotions were illegal, considering certain social networks got preferential access (namely, Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp) over other services, breaking net neutrality and free market rules. The decree says specifically that arbitrary discrimination between services of "similar nature" is forbidden.
Technically, Wikipedia Zero can still be applied in Chile (if mobile providers agree), but there shouldn't be a preferential treatment compared to those platform "of similar nature". Certainly, it would be interesting to know what might be considered as the competition of Wikipedia and the rest of the market (is there a competing website? can we consider all educational resources as competition?). As far as I know, there were some internet pre-paid plans in the past that had several educational websites available for free, including Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if they are still available.
The full decree (in Spanish) is available here:
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa...
2014-06-01 3:57 GMT-04:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in Chile
is
very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is an important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly
implemented
to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is
not
yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so
we
are thinking about what options are available in light of this decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia,
we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make a commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social
responsibility.[2]
I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia Zero does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de
wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that
zero-rating
is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering
Wikipedia
Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a broader scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but
in
fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well
known
and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more
partners
which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it does not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford university stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just" needs to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if we need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a wikipedia contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g. in nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5
million
we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement
as
"zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to
give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to
the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for
free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is
great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have
different
motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for
fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for
further
development on free knowledge and free education? - And above that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing
scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure
that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I
prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal with
us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote: > A noble cause > doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access to educational resources for free to the world's least economically fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
> It could be the time to start talking > globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely
noble
> initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
> countries/regions.
So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh,
you
can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
/other/ metric has been reached?
-- Marc
-- Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
Hi,
Thanks to Osmar and Marco for getting some more detailed background information on the developments in Chile.
I think that the points Osmar made can lay the groundwork for a path that unite the important principle of net neutrality with the free access to knowledge/education stuff like Wikipedia.
We all should develop this discussion transparently together in a global framework even if I can understand that WMF would like to keep some of its own legal work in this field out of public mailinglists etc.
Not sure if there is a critical discussion about all this developments planned at Wikimania, but I would appreciate if the WMF or interested active volunteers would continue on this discussion in London and/or on Meta.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-06-02 6:08 GMT+02:00 Marco Correa marcorrea.perez@gmail.com:
I asked to the Chilean Undersecretary of Telecommunications in Twitter, and he confirmed that Wikipedia Zero and the zero-rated programs are not forbidden in Chile. He said that the criteria applied is based on practices of providers. [1]
I'm also happy to read that the WMF thinks that Wikipedia Zero could be applied in our country.
Best,
Marco Correa WMCL Board Member
[1] https://twitter.com/huichalaf/status/473310511711682560
2014-06-01 23:17 GMT-04:00 Osmar Valdebenito b1mbo.wikipedia@gmail.com:
Regarding the news from Chile, the QZ article is pretty misleading regarding the decision taken by the Subtel. I've been talking with some people that have been more involved in net neutrality discussions in
Chile
and they say that the decision doesn't forbid zero-rated programs in general. It just says that the current promotions were illegal,
considering
certain social networks got preferential access (namely, Twitter,
and WhatsApp) over other services, breaking net neutrality and free
market
rules. The decree says specifically that arbitrary discrimination between services of "similar nature" is forbidden.
Technically, Wikipedia Zero can still be applied in Chile (if mobile providers agree), but there shouldn't be a preferential treatment
compared
to those platform "of similar nature". Certainly, it would be interesting to know what might be considered as the competition of Wikipedia and the rest of the market (is there a competing website? can we consider all educational resources as competition?). As far as I know, there were some internet pre-paid plans in the past that had several educational websites available for free, including Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if they are
still
available.
The full decree (in Spanish) is available here:
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/transparencia/Perfiles/Transparencia20285/Normativa...
2014-06-01 3:57 GMT-04:00 Yana Welinder ywelinder@wikimedia.org:
As the Quartz article from Jens's email discusses, the decision in
Chile
is
very unfortunate.[1] It's an example of when net neutrality — which is
an
important principle for the free and open internet — is poorly
implemented
to prevent free dissemination of knowledge. Although Wikipedia Zero is
not
yet available in Chile, it is a country of interest for the program, so
we
are thinking about what options are available in light of this
decision.
That said, I would like to clarify a couple of points about the implementation of Wikipedia Zero that were raised in this thread:
- The newer Wikipedia Zero partnerships have provided the full
Wikipedia
sites (m.wikipedia) free of data charges for some time now and we are phasing out the reduced version (zero.wikipedia) from the older partnerships.
- While earlier Wikipedia Zero partnerships only zero-rated Wikipedia,
we
are working on getting carriers to zero-rate all the Wikimedia
projects.
- We are also working on getting editing functions zero-rated, though
there are some technical hurdles for that right now. But, eventually, Wikipedia Zero will not only make knowledge more accessible, but also empower more people in the Global South to contribute to the projects.
- Finally, WMF does *not* pay carriers to zero-rate Wikipedia under
Wikipedia Zero. Carriers zero-rate the sites because they want to make
a
commitment to access to knowledge as a corporate social
responsibility.[2]
I believe this question has already been answered in this thread since Scott raised it earlier, but I just wanted to confirm that Wikipedia
Zero
does not involve payments.
Hope this is helpful!
Best, Yana
[1]
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility
-- 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.
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 5:52 AM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de
wrote:
News from Chile
Chile’s Subsecretaria de Telecomunicaciones just decided that
zero-rating
is a promotion tool which is against net neutrality. Therefore all zero-rated-related marketing deals have to stop at the 1st of June. According to a WMF-list in Chile no provider has been offering
Wikipedia
Zero. Also I'm not sure if this dismissal reflects only on zero-rated offers where payment of money is done by the content provider. So it
still
needs to be checked how/if this decision is influencing our intent to spread Wikipedia Zero.
All in all it shows that we have to improve our arguments in a
broader
scale if we don't want to get caught by promoting Free Knowledge" but
in
fact 'only' pushing the use of a reduced version of one (very well
known
and superb) website which stand exemplary for this idea. We are
caught
in a
dilemma which imho only can be solved when reaching out to more
partners
which stand for Free Knowledge and Free Education. Not sure how this
could
work, but fortunately that never was a reason to stop.
News from Chile:
http://qz.com/215064/when-net-neutrality-backfires-chile-just-killed-free-ac...
http://www.subtel.gob.cl/noticias/138-neutralidad-red/5311-ley-de-neutralida...
Overview Wikipedia Zero:
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-05-30 6:59 GMT+02:00 rupert THURNER rupert.thurner@gmail.com:
participation is another aspect. wp zero allows free reading. it
does
not allow free participation. write emails, search for references, download and adjust code. just as a side note, the oxford
university
stated: until 2012, europe, i.e. 10% of the worlds population, produced 50%+ of wikipedias geotagged contents [1].
imo it is not necessary to terminate wikipedia zero, it "just"
needs
to be negotiated differently: if a telco wants to support our case, give every person 200mb free internet access. unrestricted. or, if
we
need to break some law like now or be in the grey area, we could support additionally a viral model, like: if somebody is a
wikipedia
contributor (as defined in election criteria, or like in ghana, 3 edits per week), give them 2 GB free internet traffic for free, unrestricted.
if the WMF legal department would be able to negotiate _this_ e.g.
in
nigeria or india, i would have _big_ respect for them, and with pleasure say in future: you guys are worth every cent of the 5
million
we pay you a year.
[1]
http://geography.oii.ox.ac.uk/?page=the-geographically-uneven-coverage-of-wi...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 12:43 AM, Jens Best <
jens.best@wikimedia.de>
wrote:
"Giving access to educational resources" isn't the same statement
as
"zero-rating wikipedia" - If the mobile providers are willing to
give
more
open educational ressources (incl. video) a zero-rated access to
the
people
THEN you can say "giving access to educational ressources for
free" -
right
now it 'only' means "giving free access to wikipedia" (which is
great
and
awesome for the wikipedia and the people).
Let's not be naive on the point that mobile providers have
different
motivations for zero-rating services as the movement has for
fighting
for
free knowledge around the globe.
In the beginning it was mainly zero.wikipedia (text-only), now
more
and
more providers giving access to m.wikipedia (some-pictures), but
where
are
their restrictions and what will these restrictions mean for
further
development on free knowledge and free education? - And above
that
what
will be our argument when other free knowledge/free education
organisations
don't get zero-rated? When it becomes clear that the marketing
scoop
of
giving "free wikipedia" wasn't at all meant as the start of
giving
free
access to free knowledge around the world?
I'm all in to make all open knowledge and all open educational
ressources
zero-rated available around the globe - but I'm also quite sure
that
this
is not the deal the mobile providers are looking forward to. I
prefer
to
stay critical and not giving up an important principle like net
neutrality
just because some mobile providers made a nice marketing deal
with
us
which
seemed to serve our own goals in short-term, but isn't reflected
enough
on
its deeper implications on a free web and its liberated use.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-05-29 23:31 GMT+02:00 Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org:
> On 05/29/2014 05:24 PM, Jens Best wrote: > > A noble cause > > doesn't necessarily make breaking an important principle
unproblematic.
> > In my opinion, if the definition of the principle makes the
obviously
> perverse conclusion that a beneficial thing like giving access
to
> educational resources for free to the world's least economically > fortunate people "a bad thing", then the definition is obviously
broken.
> > > It could be the time to start talking > > globally about an in-the-future exit strategy on the surely
noble
> > initiative e.g. when certain milestones are reached in
participating
> > countries/regions. > > So you're telling me that there is a point where we can say "Oh,
you
> can't afford access? Too bad." and it's not a bad thing because
some
> /other/ metric has been reached? >
> -- Marc
Jens Best Präsidium Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. web: http://www.wikimedia.de mail: jens.best http://goog_17221883@wikimedia.de
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>
--
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. _______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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
This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in much greater depth elsewhere: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero
It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which does not appear to have been stated publicly yet.
Some related links: http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/ see especially the first comment, which claims that "You[r] concept of net neutrality is technically, and wildly incorrect. [...] Net neutrality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with access. Especially access for poor users. It has to do with service providers being treated equally and fairly on the *infrastructure* that allows users access to those services." (I don't know if I actually agree with this, but it's an interesting distinction.)
http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/
And the discussion starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-April/000472.htm...
One distinction which has been made in discussions concerns who is paying for what, and who is profiting. Zero-rating a commercial service which pays the telecom for the privilege, might be regulated differently than zero-rating a non-profit service with no money changing hands. (Does WP Zero actually pay any telecom to be zero-rated?) --scott
AIUI, the Wikipedia Zero is mostly (not entirely, but mostly) happening in countries that completely do not have anything like net neutrality, and where Google and Facebook already subsidise access for their bytes. It would be nice if Wikimedia could work to strict neutrality rules in these contexts, but they're not actually that context.
- d.
Interesting takes this, some of us are really learning something from you it.
-Enock.
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:00 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
AIUI, the Wikipedia Zero is mostly (not entirely, but mostly) happening in countries that completely do not have anything like net neutrality, and where Google and Facebook already subsidise access for their bytes. It would be nice if Wikimedia could work to strict neutrality rules in these contexts, but they're not actually that context.
- d.
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
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:43 AM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
This is a fascinating discussion, but one which has been addressed in much greater depth elsewhere: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=net+neutrality+wikipedia+zero
It would indeed be interesting to hear EFF's take on the matter, which does not appear to have been stated publicly yet.
Some related links: http://theumlaut.com/2014/04/30/how-net-neutrality-hurts-the-poor/ see especially the first comment, which claims that "You[r] concept of net neutrality is technically, and wildly incorrect. [...] Net neutrality has *nothing whatsoever* to do with access. Especially access for poor users. It has to do with service providers being treated equally and fairly on the *infrastructure* that allows users access to those services." (I don't know if I actually agree with this, but it's an interesting distinction.)
http://manypossibilities.net/2014/05/net-neutrality-in-africa/
And the discussion starting here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/2014-April/000472.htm...
One distinction which has been made in discussions concerns who is paying for what, and who is profiting.
There are not many ways to make a profit on 'free content' (zero-rated)...
Zero-rating a commercial service which pays the telecom for the privilege, might be regulated differently than zero-rating a non-profit service with no money changing hands. (Does WP Zero actually pay any telecom to be zero-rated?)
So how are the telco's making money from WP Zero?
The main reason for ISPs to zero-rate content is because they want to cache it to lower their interconnect / international traffic costs and free up their outgoing pipes, and ideally keep their cache in sync when their pipes are underutilised (i.e. refreshing mirrors when their customer base is asleep.). The other is because someone with deep pockets turns up and asks please provide this content for free to your customers in order to gain access to their customers and prevent competitors starting up. (i.e. Google and Facebook)
As you say, WMF is not paying these telcos to shove WP down their customers throats. So, is WP Zero a caching mechanism?
If not, the Telcos are making a loss. Why?
The concern wrt Telco's who are now in the ISP market, is they are happy to spend a lot of money to erode the 'Internet' principle of zero termination fees. They would prefer to charge both 'ends' of their pipes - content providers and content consumers - as that is what Telco's are used to doing.
Packaging some content for free, and charging high prices for "the real internet", encourages the practise of agreements between content providers and telco's, which of course creates an internet that favours large content providers and reduces the ability for new competitors to enter the market.
While 'Wikimedia' is a non-profit, and no money changing hands, we should be concerned about the long term effects that this will have on other non-profit free content producers. Do we want our peers in this space to be having to negotiate with telco's around the world in order to distribute their free content?
Along the lines of what what Jens Best is saying, I'll believe the telco's goals are pure when I see them zero-rating Project Gutenberg, and I'll be sceptical of the WMF's goals so long as it is only 'Wikipedia Zero', and not packaging into the 'zero-rated' agreement the sister projects like Wiktionary and Commons especially, but also Wikisource, etc, and ideally these telco's also agree to put the database dumps on their mirrors too, zero-rated.
-- John Vandenberg
On 05/29/2014 09:25 PM, John Mark Vandenberg wrote:
If not, the Telcos are making a loss. Why?
I should expect because they expect the goodwill they earn doing so will turn people into paying customers. Indeed, some of them have been rather explicit in their expectation that as their customers grow up and become more affluent, they'll remember the provider that gave them a hand with free access to Wikipedia.
It *is* good publicity for them.
-- Marc
John Mark Vandenberg, 30/05/2014 03:25:
If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
Does someone know if costs for Wikipedia zero-rating have been big enough for any ISP to make it to a line or footnote in their financial statements?
Nemo
@Federico
For Telcos making a deal with Wikipedia isn't about money, it's about bringing people to use their data-services. The moment you wanna check one of the ressources linked in WP you have to pay for it. (see also example with Twitter/external Links from South Africa)
Therefore coops with WP Zero is covered by the marketing budget of the Telcos. It's the same principle like giving cinemas cheaper rental prices in shopping malls. People coming for the movies, but they will also do some shopping/dining in the center.
Jens
2014-06-02 23:08 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) nemowiki@gmail.com:
John Mark Vandenberg, 30/05/2014 03:25:
If not, the Telcos are making a loss.
Does someone know if costs for Wikipedia zero-rating have been big enough for any ISP to make it to a line or footnote in their financial statements?
Nemo
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
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org