[Advocacy Advisors] Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality

Mon Aug 11 12:33:46 UTC 2014

Thank you, Lodewijk,

for giving us another example of fine subtle manipulation. Let's have a
closer look to your mail:

1. "the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret it"

Describing people who have a clear positive position on protecting net
neutrality indirectly as "absolutistic" is a rhetoric trick which intents
to make a reasonable position look like an extremist or absolute position.
This then tries to create the impression that WM is taking a "balanced"
position instead. This isn't true - WM is taking a position which is a
clear violation of net neutrality.

2. "Patricio's full response, but I can live with what I heard"

Well, that's nice for you, Loewijk, but that's not an objective argument
for or against anything. Let's repeat the quintessence of what Patricio
said here: Free Knowledge is a human right, Wikimedia is selling the
Wikipedia as "Free Knowledge", therefore, if somebody has anything against
Wikipedia (Zero) he or she is an enemy of a basic human right. - Well, this
sounds pretty much as a very hostile absolutist position to me.

So let's make this clear another time: Wikipedia is NOT Free Knowledge, it
is a brand which works with the claim that it is "Free Knowledge". In other
context (e.g. education) the same people always remind the public that WP
is just one possible gateway to knowledge and that if you really want to be
informed it is important that you not only use one encyclopedia but more
sources. More sources are available online, but they are not zero-rated.
And here the whole "argument" of Pro-WP0 collapses. The remaining fact:
Wikipedia Zero is the free use of the Wikipedia as a website, but you can't
use any external links to sources or further knowledge, because then
zero-rated is over. Therefore WP0 is marketing which has to stand up
against all senseful rules which exist to protect a free and open web.

3. "when we at least consider the nuanced side"

Yeah, let's be nuanced, let's be balanced, let's not make a stand for such
a stupid argument all the rest of the digital civil rights movement people
are making. We are the Free Knowledge people, we stand for a clear and
unbreakable human right - the right to read the Wikipedia, ah, sorry the
right to access free knowledge. This is were we aren't balanced, we have to
protect our brand and therefore everybody against our project WP0, which we
will do whatever you say anyway, is an enemy of the human rights. - I like
this "nuanced" argument, too, Ludewijk.

4. "please assume good faith and be constructive" (my favorite "argument")

This part of your email implicit that people who take a clear point against
WP0 have no "good faith" and more importantly aren't "constructive". Apart
from the fact that using a basic paradigm of the movement against people
who just have another standpoint in a factual discussion is already
manipulative. But why should somebody have "good faith" when he/she is
called wrongly an enemy of human rights by a member of the board of the
Foundation? Why should he/she expect a "constructive" debate when for
months all the clear and reasonable arguments against violating net
neutrality with WP0 are ignored? WP0 which by the way is far from
successful in its aim when you look at the numbers is a violation of net
neutrality and still the Foundation is pushing this project - it is not on
hold at all. This is a clear sign to everybody "assuming good faith" and
who wants to be "constructive" that the matter at hand is and will be
ignored by the people in power.

------

As long as Wikimedia thinks it is the queen of Free Knowledge or even
better the digital incarnation of Free Knowledge there will be ignorance
for other equally important aspects of a digital civil, free and open
internet. Net neutrality will be ignored by the guards and priests of this
brand-oriented endeavour which thinks it could expliot the sublime meaning
of Free Knowledge for its brand marketing. (see, Ludewijk, you wanted
inconspicuously reduce the discussion to rhetoric trickery? Well, here we
go.)

best regards

Jens

2014-08-11 12:52 GMT+02:00 Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org>:

> Responding to your last few emails: could you please assume good faith and
> be constructive? Even in your quote there was a clear big if.
>
> I did not have the chance to see Patricio's full response, but I can live
> with what I heard. That does not mean that the discussion is over, but
> given past and current conversations it is unlikely indeed that wikimedia
> will take the absolutist stand on net neutrality as you seem to interpret
> it. And personally I'm always happy when we at least consider the nuanced
> side.
>
> As to Lila's comment, I think this list consists mostly of community
> members that liaise to their respective communities. It has proven in the
> past to be a valuable discussion forum and it would be a waste if we would
> limit ourselves only to the wiki pages.
>
> Best, lodewijk
> On Aug 10, 2014 9:08 PM, "Jens Best" <jens.best at wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> Patrício is quoted as “he said at Wikimania conference“. The journalist
>> who has written the article is known for his accuracy.
>>
>> Link:
>> http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Wikimania-Die-Wikipedia-als-soziale-Maschine-2289614.html
>> - last passage.
>> Am 10.08.2014 22:01 schrieb "Thomas Lohninger" <
>> thomas.lohninger at netzfreiheit.org>:
>>
>>> Could somebody please post a link/scan of Patricios original statement
>>> in question?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Thomas
>>>
>>> On 10.08.2014, at 19:38, Christophe Henner <christophe.henner at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Patricio comment was more complete than that.
>>>
>>> Net neutrality is about fast/slow Lane. WP0 is about a free Lane. Bis
>>> argument was pretty sensible.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure why we should fear a free  Lane. The worst it does is
>>> providing free access, not a better QOS or a filtered/unfiltered access to
>>> the Internet.
>>>
>>> N'est,
>>>
>>> Christophe
>>> Le 10 août 2014 18:00, "Anirudh S. Bhati" <anirudhsbh at gmail.com> a
>>> écrit :
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Jens Best <jens.best at wikimedia.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the press Patricio Lorente, member of the Foundation's
>>>>> board, said:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Access to information is a basic human right. If net neutrality is
>>>>> hurting a human right, we have to rethink net neutrality."
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't heard such a single-sided, unbalanced and self-righteous
>>>>> statment for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, people standing for net neutrality are now became enemies of basic
>>>>> human rights in the understanding of the foundation. - Well, if this low
>>>>> level of discussion is reached, I guess it doesn't make sense to discuss
>>>>> the subject with the foundation at all.
>>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> Last I checked, "self-righteous" could be used to describe the advocacy
>>>> of a one-size-fits-all solution implemented in an absolutist fashion
>>>> without regard to the rights and interests of those who would be most
>>>> affected by it, i.e. the owners of private property.
>>>>
>>>> You like "net neutrality"?  Go buy your Internet access from a company
>>>> that promises to adhere to those principles.  Or better yet, raise some
>>>> money and start your own infra and ISP business.  Don't force others to
>>>> play by your rules - that would be self-righteous.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
>> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Advocacy_Advisors mailing list
> Advocacy_Advisors at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/advocacy_advisors
>
>

-- 
--
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/advocacy_advisors/attachments/20140811/94bf388b/attachment.html>