4 ms·

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?

by pulgrot 12y ago

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.
    - jebus989 12y ago
      > Wikipedia creates an enormous barrier to better information due to its size and scope, and its co-dependent relationship with Google. Too silly to address. > Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a DIY medical textbook. If you see dangerous information please feel free to edit it out — Wikipedia emphatically does not give medical advice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer). > The wiki layout is useless for certain content types, such as video. New-ish media viewer allows video playback fullscreen or inline, it's no youtube but unclear in which way you consider this useless. > So giving free access to Wikipedia, over other sites is not actually in the public good at all. The answer is more competition. Firstly Wikipedia Zero does not preclude, and indeed hasn't precluded, Facebook zero etc. Regarding competition, you know Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA right? You and everyone else has a right to fork the entire project, along with the mediawiki software...
  - rmc 12y ago
    Trying to fight against the deletionists on Wikipedia with their spurious claims is a barrier to entry.
  - azernik 12y ago
    We do (and did) complain about Microsoft giving its browser away for free; in the end, we got lucky that there was a well-funded nonprofit (Mozilla) and another monopolistic company (Google) willing to put in the massive investment to compete in that market, but it took years. Similarly, I may happen to trust Wikipedia itself, but the tactics it is using are very abusable to keep a for-profit's inferior loss-leader product on top.
    - Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
      But my contention is that Wikipedia should be regarded as fundamentally different from Microsoft or Google. They are not trying to compete with other encyclopedias. Why would they? They have nothing to gain by beating the competition. They are not making monetary profits. They are not paying to get themselves this advantage. Suppose an NGO decided to provide expensive vaccines to children in Africa for free and enlisted the help of a local delivery company to ensure the vaccines reach as many people as possible, would you accuse them of trying to out-compete drug companies? Why is Wikipedia different from this? They too are trying to provide an essential service (information) to people who could not afford it under normal circumstances. They are doing so without expectations of profit. Their tactics are in no way similar to those of Microsoft, purely because they are not competing in a market economy.
sparkzilla 12y ago
No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.

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?

by 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.
  - jebus989 12y ago
    > Wikipedia creates an enormous barrier to better information due to its size and scope, and its co-dependent relationship with Google. Too silly to address. > Wikipedia's medical information is unreliable and dangerous. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a DIY medical textbook. If you see dangerous information please feel free to edit it out — Wikipedia emphatically does not give medical advice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Medical_disclaimer). > The wiki layout is useless for certain content types, such as video. New-ish media viewer allows video playback fullscreen or inline, it's no youtube but unclear in which way you consider this useless. > So giving free access to Wikipedia, over other sites is not actually in the public good at all. The answer is more competition. Firstly Wikipedia Zero does not preclude, and indeed hasn't precluded, Facebook zero etc. Regarding competition, you know Wikipedia is CC-BY-SA right? You and everyone else has a right to fork the entire project, along with the mediawiki software...
- rmc 12y ago
  Trying to fight against the deletionists on Wikipedia with their spurious claims is a barrier to entry.
- azernik 12y ago
  We do (and did) complain about Microsoft giving its browser away for free; in the end, we got lucky that there was a well-funded nonprofit (Mozilla) and another monopolistic company (Google) willing to put in the massive investment to compete in that market, but it took years. Similarly, I may happen to trust Wikipedia itself, but the tactics it is using are very abusable to keep a for-profit's inferior loss-leader product on top.
  - Golf_Hotel_Mike 12y ago
    But my contention is that Wikipedia should be regarded as fundamentally different from Microsoft or Google. They are not trying to compete with other encyclopedias. Why would they? They have nothing to gain by beating the competition. They are not making monetary profits. They are not paying to get themselves this advantage. Suppose an NGO decided to provide expensive vaccines to children in Africa for free and enlisted the help of a local delivery company to ensure the vaccines reach as many people as possible, would you accuse them of trying to out-compete drug companies? Why is Wikipedia different from this? They too are trying to provide an essential service (information) to people who could not afford it under normal circumstances. They are doing so without expectations of profit. Their tactics are in no way similar to those of Microsoft, purely because they are not competing in a market economy.

sparkzilla 12y ago

No, Because it closes out competition to newer, better information.