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

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

George William Herbert
Andreas:

> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.


Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
>
> A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
> leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> with the mission.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
> advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
> revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
>
> I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
> as part of the advertising deal.
>
> At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Is there money involved?*
>
> A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
>
> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>:
> > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[hidden email]> 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?
> >
> >
> > Sent from Kangphone
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andreas Kolbe-2
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:17 PM, George Herbert <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Andreas:
>
> > The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> > brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> > information market place.
>
>
> Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




Well, you asked, below: [1]

---o0o---

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?

---o0o---

I was answering your question.

Andreas

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127746.html





>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> > Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> > advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> > the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
> >
> > A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging
> from
> > leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> > encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> > Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> > with the mission.
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> >
> > The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did
> involve
> > advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the
> advertising
> > revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
> >
> >
> >
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
> >
> > I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the
> Foundation
> > as part of the advertising deal.
> >
> > At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> > arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> > http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> > *Q: Is there money involved?*
> >
> > A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> > paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying
> Orange.
> >
> > ---o0o---
> >
> >
> > I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> > content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
> >
> > The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> > are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> > brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> > information market place.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>:
> > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[hidden email]> 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?
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent from Kangphone
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andreas Kolbe-2
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
<[hidden email]>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 <

> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" <
> > [hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>:
> > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[hidden email]> 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
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

George William Herbert
This is a huge question and problem, however:

Andreas:

> 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 view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
information monopoly, I object.

The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
model and launched a project to implement that better model.

No matter what happens with network access, that does not change the
unrelated entry barrier, which is at the conceptual level.

Us not taking advantage of network opportunities does not change that, it
just degrades our ability to deliver to our existing mission.

If you feel that the WMF should do its job worse, to enable alternatives to
flourish, I disagree.



On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
> <[hidden email]>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 <
> > [hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" <
> > > [hidden email]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>:
> > > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[hidden email]>
> 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
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > [hidden email]
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>



--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

JP Béland
Unless WMF signed a contract of exclusivity with all major ISPs for
Wikipedia to be the only "information" website to be distributed for free
on their mobile networks, then I don't think there is an act of unfair
competition from the part of WMF, nothing refrains others actors to set up
the same thing with the ISPs. As George said, we are not to do something
worse just for the sake of letting others catch up.

JP Béland



2013/8/27 George Herbert <[hidden email]>

> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
> > 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 view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
> access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
> information monopoly, I object.
>
> The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
> model and launched a project to implement that better model.
>
> No matter what happens with network access, that does not change the
> unrelated entry barrier, which is at the conceptual level.
>
> Us not taking advantage of network opportunities does not change that, it
> just degrades our ability to deliver to our existing mission.
>
> If you feel that the WMF should do its job worse, to enable alternatives to
> flourish, I disagree.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 10:13 PM, George Herbert
> > <[hidden email]>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 <
> > > [hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Aug 26, 2013 7:53 PM, "George William Herbert" <
> > > > [hidden email]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[hidden email]>:
> > > > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[hidden email]>
> > 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
> > > > > [hidden email]
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > > [hidden email]
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -george william herbert
> > > [hidden email]
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > [hidden email]
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" <[hidden email]>:

> Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> paragraph 3:
>
> "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
>
> "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for internet
> access services dependent on the services and applications that are offered
> or used via these services."
>
> If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.

Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.

As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.

Rupert

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

rupert THURNER-2
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:05 AM, George Herbert
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> This is a huge question and problem, however:
>
> Andreas:
>
>> 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 view Wikipedia / WMF projects getting very slightly preferred net
> access as the primary barrier to WMF / Wikipedia not edging towards an open
> information monopoly, I object.
>
> The primary barrier is that nobody has proposed a more functional, feasible
> model and launched a project to implement that better model.

Good point. So the question you are asking is "How can we legalize
Wikipedia Zero in all countries and avoid such a discussion in
future?". What do you think of doing the following:

First, WMF should declare officially if it wants to follow net
neutrality or not. This eases the future design of offerings. And it
facilitates dealing with net neutral borderline countries, like China.
 "we like net neutrality, but we do think it does not apply for our
own contents" might bear a reputational risk, and therefor impact
donors money inflow, weaken negotiation position. Essential is that
this does _not_ mean "promote net neutrality" - which at least i
cannot read out of the vision or mission.

Second, find a way to legalize Wikipedia Zero. A simple proposal might
be a contract in the lines of:
   "If one reads a Wikipedia article on the mobile device, then he
shall get 3 MB free internet traffic for this day."

This would have the following advantages:

1. it is a real teaser to people to read wikipedia every day
2. there is no cost trap when clicking out of zero.wikipedia.org.
3. people can really participate in the movement,
    e.g. read/write emails, facebook groups,
    read blog.wikimedia.org.
4. mobile applications traffic is included
5. compared to today, the conditions would be simple
6. it is cheaper because no effort goes into separating
    our contents into zero.wp.org, m.wikipedia.org, etc.

Rupert

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Todd Allen
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 12:12 AM, rupert THURNER
<[hidden email]>wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>
> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.
>
> Rupert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
>

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.
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by rupert THURNER-2
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:12 AM, rupert THURNER <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Am 26.08.2013 18:14 schrieb "Andre Engels" <[hidden email]>:
>
> > Dutch telecommunication law, article 7.4a (the net neutrality article),
> > paragraph 3:
> >
> > "Aanbieders van internettoegangsdiensten stellen de hoogte van tarieven
> > voor internettoegangsdiensten niet afhankelijk van de diensten en
> > toepassingen die via deze diensten worden aangeboden of gebruikt."
> >
> > "Offerers of internet access services do not make the tariffs for
> internet
> > access services dependent on the services and applications that are
> offered
> > or used via these services."
> >
> > If an isp offers Wikipedia for free, and some other internet usage not,
> > then it has a different tariff dependent on the service that is offered.
>
> Andre, this means Wikipedia Zero is illegal in Dutch law, and WMF
> actively promotes illegal deals? The Swiss proposal btw looks the
> same, as well the intention of the German law seems similar.
>

Well, they are not illegal, as they do not fall under Dutch jurisdiction.


> As i see it "illegal" does not mean necessarily "immoral" or "bad
> intention". And of course we (or at least i) are heavily biased
> because we think there is nothing better than Wikipedia, and there is
> nothing better if everybody on this world is able to get it for free.


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, [hidden email]
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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

Martin Rulsch
In reply to this post by Todd Allen
> 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.
>
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_§_86a<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C3%82%C2%A7_86a>:
“(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda
or
the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional
aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about
current historical events or similar purposes. […]” Hence, German law of
course allows usage of the swastika in Wikipedia, one of the best places to
further civil enlightenment. Yet, one German left-wing party member, Katina
Schubert ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katina_Schubert ), “filed criminal
charges against German Wikipedia […] for featuring Nazi symbols such as the
swastika in its articles [… but] after criticism from other members of her
party, Schubert withdrew her charges.”

Best regards
Martin Rulsch

Btw., great combination of country laws …
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[hidden email]?subject=unsubscribe>
12