Ack. Doc just pointed out to me that I'm cited in the second paragraph of the current Wikipedia article on Net neutrality. Here's how the article begins:
Network neutrality is a general principle of Internet regulation which states that a network is neutral if it satisfies all application needs equally. For example, a perfectly neutral network would not give better service to some web sites than others, and it is argued that it would likewise not favor web-surfing or blogging over online gaming or Voice over IP. It is also guided by the assumption that the public good is maximized by limiting Internet innovation to the edges, where things are often easier to change, rather than the core of the network.
However, it has no completely precise, agreed-upon meaning. One prominent net neutrality advocate, Cluetrain Manifesto author David Weinberger, expresses frustration at his attempts to reach a precise understanding: ...I recently spent a day—sponsored by an activist think tank—with a dozen people who understand Net tech deeply, going through exactly which of the 496 permutations would constitute a violation of Net neutrality. Caching packets within a particular application area but not according to source? Caching application-based non-cached application-based packets? Saying "Hi" to all passing packets, but adding, "Howya doin'?" to only the ones you like? Patting all packets on the back but refusing to buy some lunch? The whole thing makes my brain hurt.[1]
Here's what I just posted to the article'sdiscussion page:
FWIW, I agree that the paragraph that cites me should be edited out. It is unencyclopedic. It also is used to make a point that it in fact does not support. The fact that it's challenging to work out the precise application of NN in some instances doesn't mean that the meaning of the principle itself is unclear. It's tough to figure out exactly how to apply, say, affirmative action, gay rights, or the end-to-end principle, but it'd be highly misleading to start an article on them by saying the principles are unclear. It's the nature of principles to require thought, argument and politics in their application. So, I hope someone removes that paragraph.
(Here's my original post.) [Tags: net_neutrality wikipedia politics]
Posted
by D. Weinberger at December 5, 2006 10:44 AM
Comments
The paragraph is "unencyclopedic"? What do you mean by that?
(Wikipedia editors have used the term "unencyclopedic" in the past to mean "not elitist enough". I tested this by copying and pasting texts from PD encyclopedias, which got promptly deleted from Wikipedia for being not "encyclopedic" enough, so you may understand that I'd like to know what you mean by that term.)
Posted by: Branko Collin | December 5, 2006 11:17 AM
It reads like a blog post, not like an encyclopedia entry. It's a debatable matter of tone.
BTW, I went ahead and removed the paragraph from Wikipedia.
Posted by: David Weinberger | December 5, 2006 01:34 PM
I like your quote when I read it in your blog, when I saw someone add it to the entry I thought otherwise and somewhat agree with you.
The wikipedia article on NN is very fluid at the moment, and is certainly not our best material. I nominated it a while ago for some internal cleanup, but we haven't decided whether to do it or not.
To me, the article seems like it has been edited by a large number of people, most of whom are not that familiar with wikipedia standards etc. That's fine, and it's probably how we get our best material, but at some point it will need to be cleaned up and refactored. That hasn't happened yet. :) It's an interesting phenomenon though, the people online who know the most about NN are obviously smart enough, and tech savvy enough to use wikipedia, and do so. This isn't the case with all our articles :)
Posted by: Judson Dunn | December 5, 2006 02:42 PM
I put your quote into that article because it's the first honest thing that's been said about NN from the foaming-at-the-mouth advocates of Internet regulation.
Your taking it out of Wikipedia says you don't want an honest debate about this dubious principle. The problem with NN is that the advocates took it to Congress and pleaded with them to pass a law mandating it, taking the whole question out of the hands of the FTC and the FCC. If you want to do that, you'd better be able to say precisely what is and what isn't a violation, and that's the point of the Wikipedia article.
I'm asking for a little honesty; is that too much to expect from Internet Utopians?
Posted by: Richard Bennett | December 5, 2006 05:17 PM
Richard, it's possible for someone to disagree with you without being dishonest.
I think it may be worthwhile to note in the course of the Wikipedia article that there are cases about which NN supporters disagree. But, it's wrong to conclude from that that NN is vague or meaningless. Further, it'd be wrong to suggest that there are no cases about which NN supporters agree. And it's non-neutral to make that the second paragraph of the article. Further, what you quoted reads like a blog post (surprise!), not like an encyclopedia article.
Posted by: David Weinberger | December 5, 2006 06:03 PM
I don't think there's any reason for reality to conform itself to the dictates of the snooty style that Wikipedia calls "encyclopedic." For example, an encyclopedia article that wants to include quotes doesn't have the right to demand any particular level of snootiness in the quotes, merely that they be representative of the subject. So while the editors may very well be required to adopt a snooty tone, the subjects of the article can't be.
Furthermore, there's been a real resistance on the part of the NN advocates on Wikipedia to even acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion among NN advocates on how to define and how to regulate their agenda. I cited Doc and Evslin as NN advocates who prefer not to enact new regulations at this time, and the children removed these mentions. Too real for Wikipedia.
And finally, as NN only came to the attention of the public and the press as a result of the push for laws this year, the gap between NN as a vague, general idea - and that's all it's ever been - and law that has immediate and practical consequences, many of them unintended - is a perfectly legitimate discussion.
Left to their own devices, the Wikipedia editors said "net neutrality, like motherhood and apple pie, is something all decent people support. Kill the phone company, they're stealing the Internet!"
Hogwash.
Posted by: Richard Bennett | December 5, 2006 06:29 PM