Jens Best writes:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
Jens, rather than argue with you point by point, let me outline what my own views are.
First, I'm a long-standing supporter of the Wikipedia mission to make the world's information available for free to everyone. Second, I'm a longstanding supporter of network neutrality. Third, I have no organizational interest in favoring Wikipedia, although I consider myself a Wikipedian.
I do not believe the Wikimedia mission--providing the world's information to everyone for free--has any necessary connection to network neutrality, even though I favor the latter very much. In short, I'm entirely willing to modify my secondary goal (net neutrality) if it advances my primary goal as a Wikipedian (free knowledge for everyone). Conversely, I'm not willing to modify my free-knowledge goal at all if it conflicts with an absolutist model of network neutrality.
Here's what we know about internet access in the developing world (which Wikipedia Zero is designed to serve): it relies primarily on mobile platforms, and mobile smartphones typically are saddled with data caps. Data caps discourage users from using Wikipedia as extensively as we in the developed world use it. Furthermore, they certainly discourage contributions from the developing world for the same reason. Sidestepping those costs for would-be Wikipedians and Wikipedia users is something very closely aligned with the long-standing mission of the project.
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us. Instead, we have to communicate why Wikipedia Zero is not like what commercial interests are doing.
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable policy in the developing world.
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that other zero-rated services may pose.
--Mike Godwin
On 30 November 2014 at 23:30, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view. And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable policy in the developing world.
Do we have numbers showing this happening? If so, that's a powerful story we could use.
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that other zero-rated services may pose.
It's pretty clearly for the greater glory of free knowledge.
I wonder if we can get other free content along for the ride, get that zero-rated too.
- d.
Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that other zero-rated services may pose.
I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all things information is why I am a strong proponent of net neutrality. The ease with which information can be shared nowadays should be used so that more people provide their views, not more people consume one view.
And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
Tim
Tim Landscheidt, 01/12/2014 02:05:
Wikipedia Zero favours solely Wikipedia (und sister projects)
Sister projects? Since when? Ah, I see they are in the new template agreement: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero_Template_Agreement It would be nice to know what percentage of Wikipedia Zero customers can actually enjoy all Wikimedia projects.
David Gerard, 01/12/2014 00:34:
I wonder if we can get other free content along for the ride, get that zero-rated too.
Even sister projects took years to include. http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/57260/focus=57274
Nemo
A developing country perspective is missing in this conversation, so I’m going to fill in the gap since I find it odd that we’re talking about "developing” countries, when everyone who’s been participating in this discussion so far has been from developed countries.
Wiadomość napisana przez Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de w dniu 1 gru 2014, o godz. 09:05:
Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that other zero-rated services may pose.
I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all things information is why I am a strong proponent of net neutrality. The ease with which information can be shared nowadays should be used so that more people provide their views, not more people consume one view.
As far as I know, Wikipedia tries to synthesize several points of view so that we have a neutral approach to a particular topic, not favoring one view over the other. In addition, the fact that you can edit through Wikipedia Zero allows for alternative voices to be heard. I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia Zero stifles NPOV, if you’re hinting at people being "forced” to consume only one point of view, when even Wikipedia doesn’t aspire to do that.
And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
I don’t know about where you’re in, but I can tell you that in the developing world, Wikipedia’s been very helpful in helping us spread the word about the projects.
In the Philippines, Wikipedia readership jumped when Wikipedia Zero was rolled out. That’s more readers, and hopefully more editors. We have a good relationship with the Philippines’ largest telecommunications company as a result, and they’ve been very supportive of our efforts to bring knowledge to more Filipinos. And you say that that doesn’t contribute to "sustainable development”?
I think it’s profoundly important in this discussion that we need to avoid generalizing the world as if everyone’s in Europe or the United States. Yes, net neutrality is important. Yes, I support net neutrality and believe that ISPs shouldn’t discriminate against content providers. But if it means bringing more information to more people, I’m willing to sacrifice that for a while because I think that Filipinos being given access to free information is more valuable — and more important — than what I believe in vis-à-vis net neutrality. I hope everyone else here who doesn’t support Wikipedia Zero because of that will actually see the good that it has done for the developing world, and that the rest of us find great use for this program.
Regards,
Josh
JAMES JOSHUA G. LIM Bachelor of Arts in Political Science Class of 2013, Ateneo de Manila University Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com mailto:jamesjoshualim@yahoo.com | +63 (915) 321-7582 Facebook/Twitter: akiestar | Wikimedia: Sky Harbor http://about.me/josh.lim http://about.me/josh.lim
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument: they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that! Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.
MZMcBride
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument: they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that! Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.
MZMcBride
Mike Godwin wrote:
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR. And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
Like you, I'm a Wikimedian, so my focus is naturally on the intersection between issues and Wikimedia. I wish PBS and NPR and other fine organizations did not have those awful sponsored interruptions. Other sites and forums have other needs and other priorities, but perhaps we can stick to focusing on Wikipedia Zero in this thread? :-)
I found Phoebe's summary of the fundraising banners thread supremely useful. I'm hoping that someone can create a similar summary for Meta-Wiki about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality (there are blog posts on blog.wikimedia.org to maybe pull from too).
My personal view at the moment still somewhat strongly leans toward "it's complicated," which I think, as David suggested, we may simply want to embrace as a perfectly cromulent answer. But I do take issue, perhaps not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part of Wikimedia's values.
MZMcBride
MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR. And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
If you have an alternative funding plan for NPR, you should publish it.
But I do take issue, perhaps not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part of Wikimedia's values.
I take issue with being accused of "language subversion and manipulation." I invite you here not to accuse me of it any further.
--Mike
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be paid by someone before the content is put onto the network. NPR/radio might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.
It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it was added to the contracts with these organisations.
Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around our current position. Two that concern me are..
Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia content to be sent freely across their network to the reader? In Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother) enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their content. I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens. If a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?
Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders, to be less freely accessible than Wikipedia, because telcos only consider 'Wikipedia' as a viable loss leader, and these other free content projects dont have the human resources needed to establish contracts with telcos? Wikipedia has been built on the back of these other free content projects, with millions of volunteers who scanned/photographed/transcribed free content which has been imported into Wikipedia and sister projects. *If* we help erode net neutrality, and telcos turn the Internet into a TV model, it may not prevent Wikipedia being distributed as the telcos might be happy to use Wikipedia as a loss leader, but it will strangle the vibrant free content marketplace of which we have been a thought leader, and helped Wikipedia become what it is today. Wikimedia is not an island.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument: they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that! Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.
MZMcBride
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:56 PM, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument ...
Nor was it offered as a pro-Wikipedia Zero argument! It is instead an argument intended *specifically to underscore inconsistent standards of analysis.* It is, instead, specifically addressed to the specific complaint about interpreting banners as advertising. (Drilling down even further: I don't see the banners on Wikipedia at all. So necessarily the banners cannot be annoying to me.)
Since much of what you write is based on the misunderstanding that I was using PBS as a pro-Wikipedia-Zero argument, I'm passing over the misunderstanding without comment.
The larger issue: do we care more about Wikipedia's mission or more about preserving some absolutist application of net neutrality? I think Wikipedia's mission is more important, and you may disagree, which is fine.
As I said in the piece, I care about both. But I also know that an absolutely rigorous application of net neutrality--you know, the kind of invariant principle that hobbyists who never to try to fund anything themselves are prone to cook up--would require that emergency phone calls (think 911 in the USA or 999 in the UK, for example) be charged to the user.
Do you think emergency communications should be charged to the user by the bit, John? If not, how do you justify that departure from absolutist net-neutrality principles? And if you're not an absolutist about net neutrality, then why can't you allow for the possibility that access to Wikipedia may do more to help citizens of the developing world than absolutist net neutrality will help them?
If you are comfortable condemning the developing world to charging Wikipedia users for information by the bit for the indefinite future, then by all means insist on network neutrality without exceptions. (And certainly make sure that you enable all users to turn off expensive emergency communications!)
But I seem to recall something about Wikipedia's providing the world's information to everyone for free. The developing world needs to be able to do this via mobile providers, whose business model is to charge by the bit (or by the data plan). I don't recall elevating net neutrality as a principle above Wikipedia's mission.
--Mike
Hi Mike,
sorry for the delay of my answer and thanks to all for the discussion which is trying to look forward instead of just talking about the mistakes and hopes surrounding Wikipedia Zero in the past. I would like to follow your example, Mike, and not going point by point through your arguments but trying to break new ground for future solutions of the actual problem.
John Vandenberg gave us a nice picture by saying that Wikimedia isn’t an island in the world of free content projects. It's more one of the mountains in the landscape of Free Knowledge and public content online. I think going in this direction can create a solution which re-unites the varying positions.
Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public Free Knowledge.
Therefore the WP0-initiative proved that the future of the web should include zero-rating when the word „access“ is taken in a classical understanding of free publicness. Public like streets and libraries. Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.
A Telecom provider which would then argue that a video library with lots of free educational videos isn't the same thing as Wikipedia clearly isn't sharing the views of the movement and obviously was led by different interests than us. A Telecom which isn't ready to take its responsibility for a society serious maybe wasn't a good partner in the beginning. Such access providers shouldn’t be partners of us in the future when Wikipedia is leading a global initiative to give as many as possible Public Free Knowledge (text, foto, video, graphics, data, visualizations) to the people. This would be a leap forward, especially for the Global South.
An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering with us. Also only selecting a few non-data-extensive education stuff to zero-rate apart from Wikipedia isn't really a clear statement but more of a fig leaf.
It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free knowledge.
I have some thoughts about how the range of Public Free Knowledge could be defined nationally and globally, but I would like to hear your thoughts on my layout so far first.
best regards
Jens Best
2014-12-09 4:56 GMT+01:00, John Mark Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com:
Comparisons to PBS/TV are not a useful pro-Wikipedia Zero argument, as the TV network model is itself a convincing argument effectively used by the pro-net-neutrality people as a worst case outcome of eroding net neutrality - most people agree we need to avoid the Internet descending to a TV network model, where distribution costs must be paid by someone before the content is put onto the network. NPR/radio might be a better comparison, but again there the government grants spectrum licenses, and it still differs from 'the Internet' as content can't be pulled adhoc by the listener; the content is pushed over physically limited resources (and adding channels requires engineering advances / spectrum reorganisation, which is not as simple as laying extra cables), and someone else decides what is pushed out, and when.
It seems Wikipedia Zero has 'sponsorship statements' because that was a requirement imposed by these telcos in exchange for getting free access to their networks to distributing Wikipedia Zero content and Wikimedia Foundation decided it is an acceptable requirement, so it was added to the contracts with these organisations.
Many worry that there are a few slippery slopes and conundrums around our current position. Two that concern me are..
Do we want all ISPs/telco's putting a 'sponsorship statement' on top of Wikipedia content, as their requirement for allowing Wikipedia content to be sent freely across their network to the reader? In Australia, some high bandwidth content creators (e.g. Big Brother) enter into agreements with telcos to allow unrated access to their content. I am curious whether that type of sponsorship statement appear on every single website page, or just on the entry screens. If a telco provides Wikipedia content freely to their customers, but inserts a sponsorship statement like Wikipedia Zero, will Wikimedia Foundation take them to court...for distributing Wikipedia content freely without Wikimedia Foundation's blessing?
Do we want other free content providers, such as Project Gutenberg and Distributed Proofreaders, to be less freely accessible than Wikipedia, because telcos only consider 'Wikipedia' as a viable loss leader, and these other free content projects dont have the human resources needed to establish contracts with telcos? Wikipedia has been built on the back of these other free content projects, with millions of volunteers who scanned/photographed/transcribed free content which has been imported into Wikipedia and sister projects. *If* we help erode net neutrality, and telcos turn the Internet into a TV model, it may not prevent Wikipedia being distributed as the telcos might be happy to use Wikipedia as a loss leader, but it will strangle the vibrant free content marketplace of which we have been a thought leader, and helped Wikipedia become what it is today. Wikimedia is not an island.
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:23 AM, Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument: they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that! Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.
MZMcBride
-- John Vandenberg
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 writes:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Common access to streets and to public libraries are a cornerstone for a free society therefore Telecoms which agreed on giving Wikipedia zero-rated status should be welcoming by add more free content (like e.g. the video-libraries of great universities) to their offer.
I agree. But I think it is not part of the mission of Wikipedia to try to compel telecom companies to do this with regard to resources we don't produce. Not even Creative Commons tries to do that, so far as I know.
An access provider (e.g. Orange) which only shows interest in our brand product Wikipedia most probably isn’t really interested in giving Free Knowledge to the people and therefore shouldn’t partnering with us.
Why do we need to inspect their motives if the result is that more people have more access to the free knowledge and other resources we provide? Especially if the alternative--refusing to partner with them--will likely result in citizens in the developing world having less access than you and I do, perhaps for the rest of this century?
It should be the focus of the well-paid people at the WMF to change the approach on contract-making according to the Public Free Knowledge approach and so proving that Wikipedia isn’t just a mountain which doesn’t care about its surrounding but a powerful player who is interested not only in its own brand, but in the global access to free knowledge.
I think the focus of people at WMF should be on getting as much free knowledge distributed, at as low a cost as possible, to everyone in the developing world and elsewhere. I know that this is considered a hopelessly primitive notion, but I'm stuck with thinking that near-term access to free knowledge for a developing-world citizen in her 20s is more important than refusal to engage in compromise without which she may not get such unfettered access until she's in her 70s. If ever.
WMF is not fundamentally a policy organization, although it does engage in policy from time to time as required by external events. Network neutrality has its own advocates independent of WMF. Let's let them do their job, and let's try to do ours. And, as I pointed out, Wikipedia Zero may actually result in the kind of demand that requires mobile providers to build out their capacity enough to free users from restrictive data plans.
This of course is a prerequisite for net neutrality to work in a developing country.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public Free Knowledge.
Hey Jens,
I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions), but it should count for something.
Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public domain information should be available free of charge, this creates further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely consistent with our mission, as well.
I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking, building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it off.
Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
Erik
Hoi, When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.
There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero. It effectively saves lives. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de wrote:
Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public Free Knowledge.
Hey Jens,
I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions), but it should count for something.
Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public domain information should be available free of charge, this creates further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely consistent with our mission, as well.
I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking, building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it off.
Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
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 Eric,
your last line expresses a direction which would enhance the spirit of the movement in an appropiate way. Let me repeat it: "Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge."
THIS is a great punchline, a good next big target which could put Wikimedia in the middle of a stronger and broader global movement. Free Public Knowledge is also great when you think of the goals of Wikidata - structured data connected to empower knowledge enabler and facilitators of Free Education around the world with good data and informations. Free Public Knowledge is putting the beacon named Wikipedia in front of a great campaign which would reach out far beyond being the greatest encyclopedia ever.
It is clear by now that imho it would also help to make something better out of the flaw which Wikipedia Zero is right now when it comes to net neutrality. (I'm still a little bit irritated by your rhetoric trickery, Mike, when calling the usual and established understanding of net neutrality repeatedly "absolutist". This cheap rhetorical maneuver doesn't fit you.) It would be good for WMF to admit that with the best intentions a mistake was made which scale wasn't really thought through before.
Wikipedia Zero is still primarily a marketing stunt for mobile providers (e.g. Orange) which build up on the great trust in the name "Wikipedia". Data is data, no user is thinking in terms like "good cause data" and "pure commercial data" - and this kind of familiarization with data on different rates (incl. zero rate) is what the mobile providers count on. I consider activists for other aspects of a free and open web partners in crime and not some other unrelated guys whose cause I'm willing to trade cheap when it fits the selfish interests of my brand.
But, as mentioned, there is no sense in looking the stable door after the horse has bolted - so let's think forward by reflecting activity-oriented on putting Wikimedia in the middle of a broader movement for all Free Public Knowledge and reduce ill-concieved partnerships with commercial players on the way.
best regards
Jens Best
PS: Eric, gimme a moment (aka another later mail) to write about draft of the definition of Free Public Knowledge (especially from the point of view of our movement).
@GerardM I don't wanna narrow your joy about WP0, but the thing with saving lifes/protecting against ebola is that in neither[1] of the countries (Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea) mentioned by James Heilman Wikipedia Zero is active. So there is no proof that it wins laurels for that.
[1] according to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships
2014-12-09 8:25 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, When you consider that Wikipedia is the most used source of information in the countires where ebola is rife, it makes these countries particularly important to have Wikipedia zero. They are.
There is no way we should underestimate the importance of Wikipedia zero. It effectively saves lives. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2014 at 07:28, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Jens Best jens.best@wikimedia.de
wrote:
Wikipedia Zero should be newly framed as a leading example of Public Free Knowledge.
Hey Jens,
I think your line of argument here is reasonable, and we are generally thinking in the direction of how Wikipedia can be part of a broader coalition dedicated to free access to knowledge. Wikipedia Zero started off as an experiment to bring Wikipedia to millions of people who could otherwise not afford it. But now we should think (and are thinking) about the kind of coalition we want to create to bring free knowledge to every person on the planet, rather than primarily advocating for free access to Wikipedia.
I'd be indeed curious about your thoughts on how to define Public Free Knowledge. IMO the licensing status of the material ought to play some role in defining what kinds of resources should be made freely available in this manner. I don't know that this should be an absolutely non-negotiable criterion (even Wikimedia makes exceptions), but it should count for something.
Freely licensed material (in a manner compatible with the Definition of Free Cultural Works or the Open Knowledge Definition) is not tied to a specific website and host; the ability to fork free knowledge is a fundamental protection against the misuse of power. Moreover, if society creates a social contract that freely licensed and public domain information should be available free of charge, this creates further incentives to contribute to a true commons. It protects our heritage and reminds us to expand it. This is a position entirely consistent with our mission, as well.
I agree with Mike that WMF needs to take a practical stance to bring free knowledge to the largest number of people, and we need not apologize for Wikipedia Zero -- it's a program that serves the organization's mission well. But entirely practically speaking, building a greater coalition in support of access to knowledge could serve the mission to an even greater extent, if we manage to pull it off.
Imagine a world where you can take a smartphone or tablet without a contract and immediately connect to an ever-growing library of free knowledge, without charge. I couldn't think of a better 21st century equivalent to the foundation of public libraries, and frankly of a better way to even the odds for the survival of our species.
Erik
-- Erik Möller VP of Product & Strategy, Wikimedia Foundation
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
On 14-12-09 08:45 AM, Jens Best wrote:
when calling the usual and established understanding of net neutrality repeatedly "absolutist".
Except that it is. At its heart, "net neutrality" demands that there be no QoS or pricing difference to 'net access depending on the endpoint. That is, fundamentally, an absolutist view.
As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many first-worlders because we equate that as "everything is equally inexpensive" to level the playing field.
Except that for the vast majority of the world's population, it means "everything is equally expensive and unafordable".
If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the world then it *is* an absolutist stance.
-- Marc
On 9 December 2014 at 20:35, Marc A. Pelletier marc@uberbox.org wrote:
As I've said elsewhere, it's percieved as desirable by many first-worlders because we equate that as "everything is equally inexpensive" to level the playing field. Except that for the vast majority of the world's population, it means "everything is equally expensive and unafordable".
You may well have nailed the two-liner of why Wikipedia Zero is a good idea.
If we fail to understand the necessity to make exceptions or the desirability of making Free Knowledge /effectively/ available to the world then it *is* an absolutist stance.
Rather, not *our* absolutism.
- d.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org