4 ms·

This is a bullshit stance by Wikipedia. If when Wikipedia started there had been some popular ad supported encyclopedia that received preferential ISP treatment

by guelo 12y ago

This is a bullshit stance by Wikipedia. If when Wikipedia started there had been some popular ad supported encyclopedia that received preferential ISP treatment Wikipedia would not exist today. Maybe it makes sense for the established internet companies to oppose net neutrality because they're the ones that would get packaged up by the ISPs. But it's bad for everyone else.

pulgrot 12y ago
Does the end result of more people having free access to the information wikipedia provides, justify the zero rating/preferential treatment by ISPs of the site?
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.
  - username223 12y ago
    Like Demand Media? Would it be a bad thing for people to have free access to Wikipedia and Open Street Maps? They could always pay for Demand and GMaps if they wanted to.
  - Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
    >No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information. But that would only make sense if Wikipedia created some sort of insurmountable barrier for newer, better information. It doesn't. Newer, better information can reach people through Wikipedia with just as much ease (provided it fits Wiki's publishing standards) as it would through any other platform. For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia and other similar open and free general knowledge sources can (and perhaps should) be regarded as a public good. We don't complain that the government's monopoly on building public roads closes out competition to 'newer, better roads'. We recognize that these roads are vital public infrastructure. Platforms like Wikipedia should be no different.
    - sparkzilla 12y ago
      Wikipedia creates an enormous barrier to better information due to its size and scope, and its co-dependent relationship with Google. In many cases Wikipedia's information is substandard when compared to other sources, both in presentation and content. The wiki layout is useless for certain content types, such as video. For example, many people prefer to use imdb for movie information (which is also free to the end user), but it comes lower than Wikipedia on many search results. There have also been several recent studies that say Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. So giving free access to Wikipedia, over other sites is not actually in the public good at all. The answer is more competition.
      - vacri 12y ago
        IMDB does have better quality information about their niche topic, but their layout sucks. Outside their niche topic, their information sucks. Trying to get even basic information about animals, major religions, or non-entertainer public figures, and IMDB is just plain awful. As for video, both IMDB and wikipedia 'pop up' a box in which to play video, independent of the parent page layout; they don't seem to differ in that respect, and IMDB is a specialist site that's all about video. There have also been several recent studies that say Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. As opposed to...? Online medical literature in general is noted to suck, even the specialist websites. Even paid professionals - my housemate returned from the doctor two days ago after a norovirus scare... and the doctor claimed the incubation period before symptoms was 2 weeks... when it's actually 1-2 days. Anyway, Wikipedia is a generalist site - basically you're arguing that it's not as good as specialist sites, so to free up access to information, all that better info should be free, hence all (useful) sites (effectively) should be free. I'm not sure that's going to go down well with ISPs.
        DanBC 12y ago
        > As opposed to...? Online medical literature in general is noted to suck, even the specialist websites. Even paid professionals - my housemate returned from the doctor two days ago after a norovirus scare... and the doctor claimed the incubation period before symptoms was 2 weeks... when it's actually 1-2 days. Now get some good quality evidence - something like a Cochrane review or NICE guidance - and try to edit those medical pages.
- sparkzilla 12y ago
  No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.

by guelo 12y ago

pulgrot 12y ago

Does the end result of more people having free access to the information wikipedia provides, justify the zero rating/preferential treatment by ISPs of the site?

sparkzilla 12y ago
No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.
- username223 12y ago
  Like Demand Media? Would it be a bad thing for people to have free access to Wikipedia and Open Street Maps? They could always pay for Demand and GMaps if they wanted to.
- Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
  >No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information. But that would only make sense if Wikipedia created some sort of insurmountable barrier for newer, better information. It doesn't. Newer, better information can reach people through Wikipedia with just as much ease (provided it fits Wiki's publishing standards) as it would through any other platform. For all intents and purposes, Wikipedia and other similar open and free general knowledge sources can (and perhaps should) be regarded as a public good. We don't complain that the government's monopoly on building public roads closes out competition to 'newer, better roads'. We recognize that these roads are vital public infrastructure. Platforms like Wikipedia should be no different.
  - sparkzilla 12y ago
    Wikipedia creates an enormous barrier to better information due to its size and scope, and its co-dependent relationship with Google. In many cases Wikipedia's information is substandard when compared to other sources, both in presentation and content. The wiki layout is useless for certain content types, such as video. For example, many people prefer to use imdb for movie information (which is also free to the end user), but it comes lower than Wikipedia on many search results. There have also been several recent studies that say Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. So giving free access to Wikipedia, over other sites is not actually in the public good at all. The answer is more competition.
    - vacri 12y ago
      IMDB does have better quality information about their niche topic, but their layout sucks. Outside their niche topic, their information sucks. Trying to get even basic information about animals, major religions, or non-entertainer public figures, and IMDB is just plain awful. As for video, both IMDB and wikipedia 'pop up' a box in which to play video, independent of the parent page layout; they don't seem to differ in that respect, and IMDB is a specialist site that's all about video. There have also been several recent studies that say Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. As opposed to...? Online medical literature in general is noted to suck, even the specialist websites. Even paid professionals - my housemate returned from the doctor two days ago after a norovirus scare... and the doctor claimed the incubation period before symptoms was 2 weeks... when it's actually 1-2 days. Anyway, Wikipedia is a generalist site - basically you're arguing that it's not as good as specialist sites, so to free up access to information, all that better info should be free, hence all (useful) sites (effectively) should be free. I'm not sure that's going to go down well with ISPs.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        > As opposed to...? Online medical literature in general is noted to suck, even the specialist websites. Even paid professionals - my housemate returned from the doctor two days ago after a norovirus scare... and the doctor claimed the incubation period before symptoms was 2 weeks... when it's actually 1-2 days. Now get some good quality evidence - something like a Cochrane review or NICE guidance - and try to edit those medical pages.
sparkzilla 12y ago
No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.