[Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

Tue Aug 27 23:52:58 UTC 2013

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
<george.herbert at gmail.com>wrote:

> It was not rhetorical, but you missed the point.
>
> Net neutrality is an issue because service providers (can / may / often do)
> become a local monopoly of sorts.  Monopilies are not necessarily bad (how
> many water and natural gas line providers can you choose from?  how many
> road networks?) but are generally felt to be bad if they enable the
> monopolist to leverage themselves into other markets.
>

Of course there is a desire to leverage the Foundation into other markets.
Wikivoyage is one example, Wikidata is another. The latter in particular is
envisaged to play a central role as a global information hub.

The other day, Jimmy Wales said, "We are a start-up in stealth mode."[1]

> With regards to network neutrality, the problem is if the provider uses
> their network monopoly to encourage the customers to use their (or their
> preferred, with some sort of mutual advantage) search engine, email
> service, etc., or discourage use of an alternative streaming media service,
> and issues of the like.
>

How is this not happening when one service is free and the others are not?
Wikipedia is well known (and quite highly regarded, rightly so) for
providing up-to-the-minute coverage of breaking news. When something like
the Japan earthquake happens, or someone like Michael Jackson dies, many
people check Wikipedia to see the latest update. That means they do not go
to, say, CNN. Wikipedia may *cite* CNN, but it inevitably takes away some
of CNN's page views.

Again, IIRC, Jimbo proudly said at Wikimania that Wikipedia gets more page
views than the world's top-20 or so newspapers together. And he suggested
that he might like to set up a semi-crowdsourced journalism project to
compete against traditional news outlets.

> Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing this,
> as far as I can see.
>

See above.

> One can argue that even a free (to use, contribute, participate),
> functionally monopolized, public service organization could benefit somehow
> and the ISP could benefit somehow, and that the strict terms of the
> particular law in question might come into play.
>
> However, from a moral stance, the underlying goal of network neutrality
> seems unharmed by this, in any realistic or reasonable manner.  Your
> interpretation seems excessively legalistic rather than factually or
> morally based; while it may be that we should avoid even trivial legalistic
> issues, we do not as a project make special efforts to comply with 180+
> countries laws (other than copyright issues, and "free" definitions for
> Commons, that I can see).
>

The question is whether monopolisation of information is desirable. I
prefer pluralism. Monopolies sooner or later end up not being in the
public's best interest.

If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
>

Here is one that makes me uneasy: Wikimedia projects are particularly
vulnerable to manipulation – look at how long Qworty was allowed to do what
he did,[2] look at the plastic surgery (and likely sockpuppeting) case
presently at AN/I,[3] the Arnie Draiman story,[4] the Klee Irwin[5] or
Monsanto[6] articles, or indeed any of a good number of arbitration cases
commenting on neutrality, BLP violations etc.

In light of that vulnerability, the idea of making crowdsourced Wikimedia
projects stewards of the world's information, to the detriment of
professionally published and edited news and reference sources, seems to
have some obvious drawbacks. And the higher the stakes are, the more
concerted efforts at manipulation will be. In Wikimedia's case, such
efforts can be made anonymously.

News reporting and information providers have always been biased. But it is
good to be able to read both The Guardian and The Telegraph. Monopolisation
means that you get only one or the other. And while we know the biases of
The Guardian or The Telegraph, and can compensate for them, with Wikimedia
information the consumer never knows the bias of the person who last edited
a page or data record.

Andreas

[1]
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/wikipedia-wants-you-were-a-startup-in-stealth-mode-says-jimmy-wales-as-he-plans-to-open-data-to-all-8728357.html

[2]
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/

[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=570462412#Otto_Placik_editing_plastic_surgery_articles

[4] http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/.premium-1.530285

[5] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Klee-Irwin.gif

[6] http://wikipediocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/monsanto.gif

On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Martijn Hoekstra <
> martijnhoekstra at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" <
> > george.herbert at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <lebo.beland at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra at gmail.com>:
> > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <lebo.beland at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > > >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries
> > in
> > > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state
> > by
> > > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> > > >>> abstain from any
> > > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After
> that,
> > > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> > > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> > > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to
> ISP,
> > > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> > > >>> ethical and moral standards.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> JP Beland
> > > >>> aka Amqui
> > > >>
> > > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at
> > least
> > > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> > > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> > believe
> > > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> > > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position
> for
> > a
> > > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is,
> but
> > the
> > > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> > > >>
> > > >> -Martijn
> > > >
> > > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
> in
> > > > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > > > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> > > >
> > > > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > > > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > > > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > > > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting
> us
> > > > closer to our vision.
> > > >
> > > > JP Béland
> > > > aka Amqui
> > >
> > >
> > > I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
> > here.
> > >
> > > It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider
> from
> > advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent
> > services via tariff structure.
> > >
> > > What competitors for Wikipedia exist?
> > >
> > > And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider
> in
> > some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to
> their
> > or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?
> >
> > We get a wider readership, at least in the short term. Why else would we
> be
> > doing this? Or was the question rhetorical, as the answer was rather
> > obvious to me. If it was, I don't understand the point you were trying to
> > make with it.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from Kangphone
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert at gmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>