9 ms·

> Wikipedians take it on faith that their website is better, more useful, more ethical, more informative, etc., than other websites. I've been a Wikipedia edit

> Wikipedians take it on faith that their website is better, more useful, more ethical, more informative, etc., than other websites. I've been a Wikipedia editor for about 10 years. I don't think that your perception of the community has any basis in reality. Lot's of Wikimedians are pretty vocal about their disagreements with the Wikimedia Foundation on a wide range of issues (including this one). There are lots of discussions within the community about the limitations of Wikipedia's model.

woah 12y ago
How do you feel about non-neutral treatment of Wikipedia traffic? Does this differ from your feelings on non-neutral treatment of Netflix traffic?
- GabrielF00 12y ago
  In the US or in Sub-Saharan Africa? I tend to agree with the WMF that in parts of the world where millions of people are using a smartphone as their first computer, providing free information is key to wikimedia's mission. I think that the world would be better off if all websites were treated equally by all ISPs, but I also think the world would be better off if millions of people who have never had a computer before can have the access to information that we take for granted. Given that the WMF is unlikely to be able to change telecom policy or business practices in all these countries, I think it's better to work within the existing system and provide a resource that would otherwise be costly (perhaps prohibitively so). Having said that, many Wikimedians disagree with me.
  - solipsism 12y ago
    But you didn't answer the question, did you? but I also think the world would be better off if millions of people who have never had a computer before can have the access to information that we take for granted Like Netflix? Or only like Wikipedia? That's the question. Are you saying it's more important for Sub-Saharan Africans to get access to Wikipedia than Netflix? Netflix might disagree. scholarpedia.org might have something to say about it as well. So might stackexchange.com.
    - GabrielF00 12y ago
      I think I did answer the question. I don't think that users should be billed for Internet access based on what they use, and I don't think that carriers should be able to play favorites when it comes to content providers. However, given that the wireless industry in many third-world countries works this way, and given that the WMF is unlikely to change either business practices or telecom policy in these countries, I would much rather see the WMF work within the system and try to provide free resources to people then refuse to participate on principle. There's a huge practical benefit to Wikimedia Zero - people who have very limited access to information resources can get these great resources for free. Balanced against that, I just don't see how not participating benefits anybody, except, perhaps, by letting some people in San Francisco and Cambridge, MA feel good about standing up for an abstract principle.

woah 12y ago

How do you feel about non-neutral treatment of Wikipedia traffic? Does this differ from your feelings on non-neutral treatment of Netflix traffic?

GabrielF00 12y ago
In the US or in Sub-Saharan Africa? I tend to agree with the WMF that in parts of the world where millions of people are using a smartphone as their first computer, providing free information is key to wikimedia's mission. I think that the world would be better off if all websites were treated equally by all ISPs, but I also think the world would be better off if millions of people who have never had a computer before can have the access to information that we take for granted. Given that the WMF is unlikely to be able to change telecom policy or business practices in all these countries, I think it's better to work within the existing system and provide a resource that would otherwise be costly (perhaps prohibitively so). Having said that, many Wikimedians disagree with me.
- solipsism 12y ago
  But you didn't answer the question, did you? but I also think the world would be better off if millions of people who have never had a computer before can have the access to information that we take for granted Like Netflix? Or only like Wikipedia? That's the question. Are you saying it's more important for Sub-Saharan Africans to get access to Wikipedia than Netflix? Netflix might disagree. scholarpedia.org might have something to say about it as well. So might stackexchange.com.
  - GabrielF00 12y ago
    I think I did answer the question. I don't think that users should be billed for Internet access based on what they use, and I don't think that carriers should be able to play favorites when it comes to content providers. However, given that the wireless industry in many third-world countries works this way, and given that the WMF is unlikely to change either business practices or telecom policy in these countries, I would much rather see the WMF work within the system and try to provide free resources to people then refuse to participate on principle. There's a huge practical benefit to Wikimedia Zero - people who have very limited access to information resources can get these great resources for free. Balanced against that, I just don't see how not participating benefits anybody, except, perhaps, by letting some people in San Francisco and Cambridge, MA feel good about standing up for an abstract principle.