On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Wikipedia, or at least portions of it, is illegal under many countries' laws. Any article showing a swastika, even if it's a neutral article about Nazi Germany or the like, is illegal under German law. Probably almost all of Wikipedia is illegal under North Korean law. It cannot reasonably be expected that WMF would follow the laws of every country in the world. Wikimedia's infrastructure and staff are located in the United States, so WMF must respect US law. No other really is relevant. I live in the US. I don't follow the laws of Germany, or Iran, or China, in my day to day life. Why should I? I'm not subject to them. Todd Allen -- Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. From this all else follows.

On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER <rupert.thurner(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction. For me personally, it is a moral question. As specified above, it's not illegal for the simple reason that it's not been rolled out or planned in countries with net neutrality laws as far as I know. To me the question is: Even if it is not illegal, is it a good idea from a moral standpoint? I don't think WMF has spoken out about net neutrality, but undoubtedly many people within our movement stand behind it. If the WMF would endorse net neutrality, and if Wikipedia Zero would break it, then supporting Wikipedia Zero would be hypocritical. For me personally, the solution is to stand for a more relaxed definition of net neutrality, where giving an alternative or better service for specific services is not problematic as long as this does not adversely affect service for other services. YMMV. -- André Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com