Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality 134
HughPickens.com writes Brian Fung writes in the Washington Post that Wikipedia has been a little hesitant to weigh in on net neutrality, the idea that all Web traffic should be treated equally by Internet service providers such as Comcast or Time Warner Cable. That's because the folks behind Wikipedia actually see a non-neutral Internet as one way to spread information cheaply to users in developing countries. With Wikipedia Zero, users in places like Pakistan and Malaysia can browse the site without it counting against the data caps on their cellphones or tablets. This preferential treatment for Wikipedia's site helps those who can't afford to pay for pricey data — but it sets the precedent for deals that cut against the net neutrality principle. "We believe in net neutrality in America," says Gayle Karen Young, adding that Wikipedia Zero requires a different perspective elsewhere. "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfills our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."
Facebook and Google also operate programs internationally that are exempted from users' data caps — a tactic known somewhat cryptically as "zero rating". Facebook in particular has made "Facebook Zero" not just a sales pitch in developing markets but also part of an Internet.org initiative to expand access "to the two thirds of the world's population that doesn't have it." But a surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. Chile recently put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries, of big companies "zero-rating" access to their services. "That might seem perverse," says Glyn Moody, "since it means that Chilean mobile users must now pay to access those services, but it is nonetheless exactly what governments that have mandated net neutrality need to do."
Facebook and Google also operate programs internationally that are exempted from users' data caps — a tactic known somewhat cryptically as "zero rating". Facebook in particular has made "Facebook Zero" not just a sales pitch in developing markets but also part of an Internet.org initiative to expand access "to the two thirds of the world's population that doesn't have it." But a surprising decision in Chile shows what happens when policies of neutrality are applied without nuance. Chile recently put an end to the practice, widespread in developing countries, of big companies "zero-rating" access to their services. "That might seem perverse," says Glyn Moody, "since it means that Chilean mobile users must now pay to access those services, but it is nonetheless exactly what governments that have mandated net neutrality need to do."
Are they the same? (Score:3)
Re:Are they the same? (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine if your ISP had a cap (hard cap, soft cap, whatever), and Amazon paid your ISP so that all their Amazon Prime streaming offerings would not count toward that cap - but Netflix won't or can't pay to do the same.
Would you stick with Netflix knowing that you can only watch N shows before hitting your cap, or would you switch to Amazon and watch as many shows as you like?
( For sake of argument, assume they offer the same content. )
Re:Are they the same? (Score:4, Insightful)
You stated a couple of assumptions that tell you exactly where the problem is.
"...assuming that Netflix and Amazon are able to negotiate for the same kinds of deals..."
Yeah, assuming that. And if they're not able to negotiate for the same kind of deals? If one big player is able to sign exclusive deals that nobody else can get? Once you abandon net neutrailty, you open the door to exactly that kind of problem. Right now, you pay for your data, and you choose what to use that data for; if Netflix has a better product for you than Amazon, you'll choose Netflix, and neither of those companies can attempt to manipulate your choice by basically sabotaging your ability to use other services. Don't give up that situation too easily.
Re: (Score:2)
we have plenty of laws on the books to fight the root cause, which is the monopoly control of resources and markets.
everything else in time will take care of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
We control cap. ISPs control non-net neutrality.
Re: (Score:2)
What if some toll road operator first builds Hicksville's highway connection using public subsidies and right-of-way, then opens a general store there, and finally starts selectively enforcing huge tolls and lower speed limits against any trucks carrying goods for the competing stores (but not their own)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is Amazon is offering this to me, the end user.
Comcast isn't extorting it from them by slowing them down unless Amazon kicks back a portion of my money to Comcast (which, by the way, is fraud as my contract with Comcast offers me certain speed rates.)
Non-neutrality damages innovation (Score:2)
and promotes more total and more entrenched network-effect monopolies.
If you came up with a way better peer to peer movie sharing site that had better quality and paid the actors and director directly through a tip jar which also funded their next productions (just throw the business process patent my way now, I won't even bother applying :-), you woudn't have a fair chance to compete, because the Flixazon competitor's product would be free for the users and you couldn't get into the market.
And because thei
Re: (Score:2)
If Amazon paid me directly for my connection I'd use them too. In fact, in the US Netflix did pay the postage on DVDs they mailed out. Was that unfair to competitors who didn't pay postage?
The insidious problem is that ISPs want to get paid twice - once by me and once by content providers who have deep enough pockets. That's like the post office charging Netflix to send me a DVD and then charging me again before they'd give it to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing that will really chap your hide then is that the post office offered to send items faster if the content providers payed more money. They'd even send DVDs next day if a competitor was willing to pay for it. This kind of outrage is why the post office is only out for them selves and screwing over the customers.
Re: (Score:2)
OK... Now imagine your ISP had the cap and Amazon did not pay your ISP anything extra, and your ISP is not a related entity to Amazon, so they have no financial incentive to favor Amazon, and your ISP decided to waive the cap for Amazon prime educational videos.
That's more like the Wikipedia situation.
Maybe the description "Network Neutrality" is not even the goal we should want it's really Non-interference; as in, no use of network traffic management to promote a commercial service sold by yourself o
Re: (Score:1)
This is the difference between the USA and the rest of the world - the general assumption is that there is any money changing hands at all, as opposed to the ISP merely obtaining a direct link to the other network or installing a caching server in the NOC so as to maximize the user experience even if for no other reason than bragging rights.
Did So-Net in Japan *have* to 1-up all the gigabit offerings popping up around the world by being the first to offer a 2gbit/s service? Hell no, but it's bloody awesome
Re:Are they the same? (Score:4, Interesting)
Or, imagine that the websites espousing certain political views do not count against your cap, but those with opposing political views do.
Which messages are more likely to be heard?
Net Neutrality is about whether or not we are going to trust corporate gatekeepers with no requirement of fairness to set the narrative about our society.
And how will this affect how companies that provide hosting services work, if some of them get caps and others don't? What will happen to the cost of hosting (which is basically the cost of speech on the internet)?
Re: (Score:3)
For instance, I am a proponent of classifying the physical layers at common carriers while ISPs would not be, so consumers would be locked into their local carrier but then could chose any ISP endpoint they wished. Under this setup data caps would be fine since you could always switch to another ISP. Other solutions however keep the two bundled so data
Of course they're the same. (Score:2)
Is "data against cap" the same as net neutrality? I don't see the relationship.
I live in one of the two countries where a pilot program [itnewsafrica.com] from Internet.org was tested, namely, that traffic to and from Facebook (later also extended to WhatsApp) doesn't add to your data cap. The way it works is that the mobile operator inspects the traffic (nothing too deep, just checks whether the connected endpoint IPs belong to a whitelist) and if the traffic comes from FB or WhatsApp, it's "free" (as it does not use your quota). This is of course discrimination by origin, and it goes against net neutr
Re: (Score:2)
...I myself was always FOR net neutrality, but I'm aware this kind of initiatives (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) would suffer if N.N. is fully enforced.
It should read:
"...I'm aware this kind of initiatives would suffer if N.N. (which by the way is mandated by the ISP regulation in my country) is fully enforced..."
Re: (Score:2)
We have had these special Whatsapp+Facebook plans in India for years. Nobody uses them. People need a lot more stuff on their phones than these. Also, data use by whatsapp and fb zero is basically negligible. So its not like net neutrality is being heavily subverted or anything. I think its OK. FB zero doesn't even load images.
Re: (Score:2)
Waiving data charges is fine with net neutrality (Score:2)
As long as you do it in a non-discriminatory manner (all non-profits (schools, libraries,etc) )
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. But they don't.
The problem is that what FB, Google are currently presenting as "aid" or "development" for underprivileged regions is 1) restricted to their own services and 2) likely to be shut down in the near future on their whim.
If they are serious about development, that's great, but it seems to me there are far less self-interested avenues for them to do so.
Meanwhile these zero-rate programs are just another attempt at re-defining The Internet to be what they have on offer, and probably end up
Re:Waiving data charges is fine with net neutralit (Score:5, Insightful)
No it is not fine with net-neutrality. Setting up one class of users (non-profits) as opposed to other sets of users is violating the core idea of it. Sorry you cant have it both ways. Either all packets are equal (which is frankly stupid given that people want QoS) or some packets are privileged for X reason. Then we have debates about reasons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but nobody talking about net neutrality wants all packets to be equal. They want all destinations to be equal, i.e. they want traffic from Netflix to have roughly the same likelihood of reaching its destination as traffic from the cable company's VOD service.
Subsidizing traffic doesn't violate net neutrality, because it doesn't affect the delivery of data, only the cost to the end user. Even if the Internet were regulated in precisely the same way as telephone, subsidized traffic would still be allo
Re: (Score:3)
It's hard to say, imagine a world where your data cap is zero, overage is $100/meg, and certain sites don't count. How is that not the same problem as one where providers are being extorted for money if they want people to see their data? And why does it become any different if the data cap is now 500 meg instead of zero? or the overage is $5/meg instead of $100? Adjust the numbers any which way you want, but the whole idea that one company can pay to get access to the customer while another may not be able
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but nobody talking about net neutrality wants all packets to be equal. They want all destinations to be equal.
If travelling to one destination does not count against your data cap, then that destination is not on equal footing.
Subsidizing traffic doesn't violate net neutrality, because it doesn't affect the delivery of data, only the cost to the end user.
It does violate net neutrality, because it affects the cost of delivery of data to and from the end user.
What Wikipedia is doing here is a good thing by itself, but if the practice were to become commonplace, it's something that would be very bad.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't. The cost is still the same, regardless of who is paying it. What it does is shift the burden, at the request of one of the parties. That's not the same as shifting the burden at the request of someone who isn't a party to the communication (your ISP). And changing the cost of the communication isn't really any different from changing the cost of the content. If Apple (for example) ch
Re: (Score:2)
That is
The worst haiku I have ever seen in my life
Winter
Re: (Score:2)
Which is precisely the same thing as saying that traffic priority should not be dependent upon endpoint—i.e. that all de
Re: (Score:2)
If every other website on the Internet besides Netflix and Amazon pays a fee to be included in that "premium" quota, then yes, it is consistent with Net Neutrality. It is also about as likely as Santa Claus getting the Tooth Fairy pregnant.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they?
I, for one, would rather have net neutrality than QoS.
And I guess most people do not want QoS, they want enough bandwith and low enough latency in general so QoS does not even come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
I want my games and voip to be low latency, but not necessarily high bandwidth. I want my streaming content to be very high bandwidth but I don't care if it's got even a multi-second latency.
Re: (Score:2)
Well sure but that world of effectively infinite bandwidth with low latency is not going to happen at least not soon. Latency has for many routes been going up slightly as traffic increases. For the next decade or two QoS matters.
Re: (Score:2)
What does QoS on the router do for you? The main source of latency is the middle miles. Your router doesn't even get you through all of the last mile.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about. If I connect a user in New York city to a server outside Los Angeles there is 3000 miles of physical distance. All of that has to be covered, copper or fiber.
Yes. They can't sustain a variable 50% link utilization without jitter.
This seems different (Score:1)
What net neutrality is trying to prevent (as I understand it) is that Google has to pay extra for it's content to be delivered to a customer, while the customer is already paying for that data to be delivered to him.
Essentially, here wikipedia is subsidizing the users internet connection when connecting to wikipedia.
Whereas net neutrality is about not charging companies extra for delivering data to users who alrea
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, every company could do those things if they want to. Individuals could do so if they wanted to. It's no different than having a 1-800 number. You pay so that the person calling you doesn't. There's no neutrality violation there; if anything, it improves net neutrality by providing a reasonably priced mechanism for allowing other companies to be on equal footing with Comcast, who almost certainly does not charge their customers for the use of their own, in-house video-on-demand service. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wikipedia Zero does NOT, ever, pay any ISPs anything. Frequently, you, the client, might not have any internet access on your mobile device, and yet will still be able to access Wikipedia for free. This is frequently done as a CSR initiative or other reasons by the mobile operator.
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you're talking about has the slightest bearing on what we're talking about. I fully agree that screwing your customer to extort money out of Netflix (or whoever) is bad. What I'm saying is that if you're on a capped connection—capped in terms of total data quantity, not instantaneous speed—there's no neutrality violation involved if Netflix agrees to pay your ISP so that their usage doesn't count towards your cap. That's not a double dip. It is quite literally exactly the same
Re: (Score:2)
>Whereas net neutrality is about not charging companies extra for delivering data to users who already paid.
But so many net neutrality bigmouths are against paid prioritization, too.
Re:This seems different (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely not; prices are set based on what the market can bear, completely independent of input materials. If a vendor makes a huge investment in widgets and no one wants to buy, it ends up being a sunk cost and they'll sell it below cost (because supply and demand).
Additionally, cost is defined as "the value of the next best alternative." Unless the network is at capacity, it costs me nothing when my neighbor uses e.g. T-Mobile's no-charge music streaming.
What's being proposed is called toll-free broadb
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Net Neutrality is a routing rule: "Don't degrade service (technically, drop packets) based on source/destination". Bandwidth caps don't do this.
You might not like monthly caps, but don't call it a Net Neutrality issue. That's a separate battle.
There's many different ways Internet traffic can be billed. There may be a peering agreement in place (where peers exchange roughly equal amounts of packets, and aren't otherwise concerned about their ultimate source or destination); there may be some arrangement wher
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one has made any mention of a bandwidth cap "for a specific website", though. I said what if I paid the bandwidth costs you would otherwise incur.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Again, it's not Net Neutrality, because it's not causing packets to be dropped based on source or destination. You're arguing against a by-definition argument.
But let's look at your argument (apparently) against bandwidth caps and toll-free broadband as a separate issue.
So you're on a prepaid or otherwise pre-negotiated plan because your service provider wants to budget for their capacity. How else do you handle overages, other than an overage charge or ending service altogether?
Suppose that Facebook invent
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality (also network neutrality or Internet neutrality) is the principle that Internet service providers and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication.
Charging differently is a violation of net neutrality.
Re: (Score:3)
That definition makes it impossible to provide toll-free broadband, then.
Consider if I went to a website, and it asked my ISP "How much is this user being charged to visit us?" And the ISP said "$0.50". And so they cut me a check for $0.50.
What if instead of paying a million people a million small checks, what if it were easier to pay a single check to the ISP for the same amount?
What's the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Also consider that the data is being treated equally: In both cases, it's being paid for. It doesn't matter who's doing the paying, does it?
It's not the ISP setting the policy of how the data is getting paid for; it's one of the two end-users who is voluntarily opting in. Either I pay for it, or someone else does, in either case, the ISP and/or routers don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That definition makes it impossible to provide toll-free broadband, then.
Congratulations. You have just hit upon the dilemma that the article was written about. It took you a while, but you got there.
Re: (Score:2)
*whoosh*
Re: (Score:2)
How is that different than a company paying to bypass a cap? how does that not give them an unfair advantage over the company who can't? And how does it not provide incentive for the provider to decrease caps hoping to force more companies to pay to bypass them?
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Free information for all is great and all, but Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on that and making their service free ups hurts all other sources of information.
Re: Good (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Wikipedia needs to drop this idea and embrace net neutrality. Getting their own service exempted from data caps is a very short-term aid to spreading knowledge at best. Their strategy is more self-serving than noble.
Re: (Score:1)
Or not. Wikipedia should absolutely focus on making as much of an impact as it can. While it may be hard for Americans to believe, many other countries regulate telecommunications in a much more ad-hoc way, and wouldn't necessarily see the treatment given to Wikipedia as a template for all other services. That is, many regulators simply look at social benefit and not at principles that are as technical as net neutrality.
Re: (Score:1)
There is one [conservapedia.com], but fortunately it has not spread beyond the USA yet.
Re: (Score:3)
The following is a quote from their entry on Bible: "The Bible is a collection of the most logical books and letters ever written. It includes the most beautiful book ever written, the Gospel of Luke, and the most profound book ever written, the Gospel of John. Biblical scientific foreknowledge has anticipated or guided nearly every great human achie
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think you'll find that was written in all seriousness. Not all writers and readers of Conservapedia may agree whole-heartedly on its sentiments, but Conservapedia has never had a problem with contributors bringing their own personal opinions into edits. (As long as they don't markedly differ from the owners of Conservapedia.)
Re: (Score:2)
What if they believe that Wikipedia has some huge bias and are spreading propaganda
Seeming how Wikipedia has already been accused of bias in the past, I see this as a very relevant example.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Part of me agrees with you, but then I think about how much real-world useful information is available on wikipedia - stuff that can make a significant difference to the life of an intelligent person for whom even a $30 monthly internet bill would represent a large slice of their income. Or how valuable, in a business sense, social networking services such as Facebook can be for impoverished community trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And I think that maybe the humanitarian benefits in such
Re: (Score:2)
"We have a complicated relationship to it. We believe in net neutrality in America," said Gayle Karen Young, chief culture and talent officer at the Wikimedia Foundation. But, Young added, offering Wikipedia Zero requires a different perspective elsewhere. "Partnering with telecom companies in the near term, it blurs the net neutrality line in those areas. It fulfills our overall mission, though, which is providing free knowledge."
Let me state things clearly. These {facebook|wikipedia|whatever}.zero campaigns are a direct and unequivocal attack on Net Neutrality. They are the brainchild of some very smart, cynical people who know exactly how insidious the whole idea is, and whose job it is to set Open Data people against Open Networks people.
This is not an unintended consequence. This is the consequence.
My part of the world consists pretty much entirely of developing nations, and when we discussed these zero initiatives, we pretty q
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak to Facebook, et. al., but please don't lump Wikipedia Zero into your attack above, it's a very different animal. WP Zero is the brainchild of some very smart, idealistic people whose primary mission in life is to spread as much free information around the globe as possible, and that in turn is just a facet of a deeper ideal that information is empowering, and lack of information is oppressive.
Whose brainchild, specifically? I'm very interested in knowing. Because I think you'll find that the idea did not originate in Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], but that it was presented to them by others.
I know some of the individuals involved in the WP Zero movement from the get-go. These are the in-the-trenches activists. They physically went to these developing nations to examine the situation because they saw a disturbing trend in their own analytical data: the most oppressed people on the planet, who had the most to gain from free information, were not taking advantage of Wikipedia's free information as much as expected.
I hope you'll forgive my cynicism, but 'physically going' to the developing world teaches very little indeed about the broader truths of living in poverty. I say this having lived the last 11 years in a Least Developed Country, and having worked for half a generation with a parade of well-intended people who, to put it bluntly,
What makes Wikipedia and co. so special? (Score:2)
If you want to spread internet access to developing countries, how about making internet for free for poor people?
Instead Wiki, Google and Facebook went on the narcistic train and think that those services are more important then any other service.
I personally agree that Wikipedia should be free to access to everyone, but I can recognize that other people might disagree and other people think other services are more important. How about somebody in China makes a competing Wikipedia, or have Wikipedia now th
What goes wrong without Net Neutrality (Score:1)
To me, this is an excellent example of what goes wrong without Net Neutrality. Wikipedia: I can understand and agree with paying to float data caps to share their information. However, Facebook and Google (and any other company using "zero rating") are abusing their power. If a true Facebook or Google competitor could be built within these countries natively, they would be at a severe disadvantage because of the superpowers they're going up against.
I don't think that is disputable. The trouble is how to vet
Re: (Score:2)
Have you considered how incredibly valuable something like Facebook is for large and poorly-organized impoverished communities? It's a communication medium unlike anything that came before it in terms of convenience and power to spontaneously coordinate people, and can be harnessed for substantial economic and organizational good - something *particularly* valuable for the most impoverished portions of humanity. Google as well - it's the closest thing to a real oracle that the world has ever seen - knowle
Bad, the rich will win (Score:2)
It is just as bad as any tiered internet.
Just suppose only CNN could afford to offer a Zero-cap and Fox News couldn't find a sponsor for the same, so much humour would be lost on these poor conservatives with a cap!
I am convinced that Internet should be treated as a utility similar to roads, you pay for the infrastructure and there can be a % charge on your data use but all are treated equal.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think if Amazon could ship you products next or even same day for very low prices. While others had to rely on USPS, UPS or FedEx prices to get products to you quickly. The outcry for this would be horrible. There would be blood in the streets.
Who picks what is universally valuable? (Score:2)
It's easy to see how much more valuable access to Wiki is to the average dotter (probably not so much for the Facebook-addicted) and every government would have a differing perspective what was good for their citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
The Green Planet? Have you been hanging out with E.T.? This planet is mostly blue - the parts that aren't blue are mostly various shades of brown, with, yes, some green mixed in, especially in places sparsely populated by humans.
Re: (Score:2)
All Good Laws Have Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Every good law has counterpoints. Traffic signals prevent me from driving through the intersection even when there are no other cars there. Assault laws mean you can't punch someone who talks on their phone at the movies. The right to a trial means we can't just execute people we know are guilty.
One of the other examples I've been hearing lately is about Citizen's United. They say overturning it or passing contradictory legislation could hamper Steven Colbert, or limit the ACLU or EFF. Well, yes, it might. But that would be better, overall, than what we have now.
The goal is not to have laws that capture every nuance. Government is a blunt weapon that must operate in a non-discriminatory fashion. Special cases exist that show the friction in every law. The objective is not for every special case to be efficient, but for the law overall to be efficient.
Last mile providers colluding with incumbents to provide preferential access to consumers harms competition in content. Competition is good in the long run, even for the things we like that may appear to be harmed in the short run. There are natural limitations to competition on carriage, we should not extend those competition limitations to making discriminatory deals with content providers.
Re: (Score:2)
You can scream and shout all you want, but corporations are merely collections of people organized for a purpose, no different than a union or political party.
I think you might want to revisit what a corporation is. It's a legal construct designed to shield individuals from losing everything if their business goes belly-up.
As for your idea that a corporation is exactly the same thing as a political party... well, it certainly explains the cluster fuck in this country. Congratulations, you ARE the root problem.
Re: (Score:3)
So what? Every individual in that corporation is free to do as they please, *as an individual*. As a corporation, with the corporate veil protecting every individual from personal responsibility for their actions, they should not be allowed the same rights as an individual who can be held accountable for their actions.
Remember, corporations are *specifically* designed to allow individuals to accumulate profit while being shielded from virtually all risks beyond losing their investment. Such a protection
Re: (Score:2)
Some are more neutral than others (Score:2)
We are not going to get 'net neutrality' in every country, even if it was federally regulated (or passed by congress) There are always going to be some limitations in other parts of the world, just by the distances and bottlenecks in the structure.
(well maybe we could get the new congress and senate to repeal the speed of light limit, along with the laws of thermodynamics.)
Coming soon, to an inbox near you ... (Score:2)
Contradictions (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. It allows ISPs to use a pricing model that takes advantage of market segmentation
2. It provides ISPs with leverage they can apply to other market entities to gain benefits, such as cash or quid pro quo (preferential treatment).
Re: (Score:2)
Really low bandwidth is 99% text with fairly small pics. Like Wikipedia.
Music is medium bandwidth, assuming that wikipedia (or slashdot) is actually read and pics are looked at intently.
Nothing is 100% positive (Score:2)
Net neutrality is a solution to a specific problem (Score:2)
There are reasons you might want to have a two tier internet, and even if there aren't it's not impossible that we might want them in the future. Most countries there's enough competition for this to self regulate to a degree.
The encyclopedia that any idiot can bugger up (Score:2)
You can't expect them to make a decision one way or the other. Have you never heard of WP:NPOV?
Marxism (Score:1)