4 ms·

Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.or

Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.org.

belorn 12y ago
If a company wanted to provide aid and give away food, we don't claim that it is creating an unfair market for the local food industry. If Wikipedia want to give away free access to information, suddenly its an unfair advantage in the market of free information?
- manish_gill 12y ago
  Because the access to information is extremely constrained. The Internet is much bigger than just wikipedia. There have been studies which showed that people in such situations who used these so called "Free services" didn't even realize they were actually a part of the much bigger Internet, and just considered them standalone. I guess a similar situation would be people in the old days thinking AOL was synonymous with the Internet. Do you want to live in a world where your access to information is constrained to one site only?
  - disgruntledphd2 12y ago
    Give the choice between that and no internet (Wikipedia alone could be transformative, conditional on literacy), then yes, I'd probably make that choice. Its not ideal, but marrying the commercial incentives of telcos to get people paying for data and the gateway drug of free access seems more likely to get more people connected faster than anything else.
- firasd 12y ago
  The difficulty in analogies like this (and other arguments against net neutrality, such as saying partnerships between Facebook and network companies are the equivalent of promotional marketing or bundling) is that controlling the availability of specific sites or apps on a network inherently introduces bias in the network. So this is like an organization that gives away food creating roads that only they and their partners can use, given a government license to build roads (the same way network companies have a government license to build on the wireless spectrum and other channels.)
- keenerd 12y ago
  > If a company wanted to provide aid and give away food, we don't claim that it is creating an unfair market for the local food industry. Actually some do claim that: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food.4.7116855.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food.... edit: In case you are hit by the paywall, > Charity finds that U.S. food aid for Africa hurts instead of helps, Celia W. Dugger, 2007-08-14
- denzil_correa 12y ago
  The company owns the food. Wikipedia doesn't own the Internet or the information.
parennoob 12y ago
Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia run by the non-profit Wikimedia foundation, Facebook is an ad-serving, for-profit social network. So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.
- nileshtrivedi 12y ago
  Yes, many people are arguing the same. But I don't think the conclusion is foregone. Wikimedia has been criticized as well: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and...
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Net Neutrality supporters have their priorities out of whack when they attack Wikipedia for getting free zero rating. Net neutrality is a means to an end, not the end itself. And wiki being available to millions or billions of people for free doesn't threaten the "open internet."
  - jace 12y ago
    Wikipedia's charter requires them to increase access to Wikipedia, so signing up for internet.org was the right thing to do as long as it is not illegal. Let's put them aside for now and focus on the others.
- balls187 12y ago
  > Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program Except for the high likelihood of having a pop over of Jimmy Wales asking for money show up on all your content.
  - npkarnik 12y ago
    Which is preferable to the current model of your-and-my-data-and-eyeballs-to-advertisers-as-a-service
  - 12y ago
qq66 12y ago
Would you feel the same way about Facebook installing "Facebook PCs" for free use of Facebook, say in every Starbucks?
pekk 12y ago
Maybe this should cause some hard thinking about what Wikipedia's interests are, and who actually ends up with editorial authority at Wikipedia.

Happy that someone wrote about this. We don`t need Facebook's walled garden. It is surprising to see "Wikipedia" aka champion of free speech part of internet.org.

belorn 12y ago

If a company wanted to provide aid and give away food, we don't claim that it is creating an unfair market for the local food industry. If Wikipedia want to give away free access to information, suddenly its an unfair advantage in the market of free information?

manish_gill 12y ago
Because the access to information is extremely constrained. The Internet is much bigger than just wikipedia. There have been studies which showed that people in such situations who used these so called "Free services" didn't even realize they were actually a part of the much bigger Internet, and just considered them standalone. I guess a similar situation would be people in the old days thinking AOL was synonymous with the Internet. Do you want to live in a world where your access to information is constrained to one site only?
- disgruntledphd2 12y ago
  Give the choice between that and no internet (Wikipedia alone could be transformative, conditional on literacy), then yes, I'd probably make that choice. Its not ideal, but marrying the commercial incentives of telcos to get people paying for data and the gateway drug of free access seems more likely to get more people connected faster than anything else.
firasd 12y ago
The difficulty in analogies like this (and other arguments against net neutrality, such as saying partnerships between Facebook and network companies are the equivalent of promotional marketing or bundling) is that controlling the availability of specific sites or apps on a network inherently introduces bias in the network. So this is like an organization that gives away food creating roads that only they and their partners can use, given a government license to build roads (the same way network companies have a government license to build on the wireless spectrum and other channels.)
keenerd 12y ago
> If a company wanted to provide aid and give away food, we don't claim that it is creating an unfair market for the local food industry. Actually some do claim that: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food.4.7116855.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food.... edit: In case you are hit by the paywall, > Charity finds that U.S. food aid for Africa hurts instead of helps, Celia W. Dugger, 2007-08-14
denzil_correa 12y ago
The company owns the food. Wikipedia doesn't own the Internet or the information.

parennoob 12y ago

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia run by the non-profit Wikimedia foundation, Facebook is an ad-serving, for-profit social network. So I would argue that Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program, and Facebook the worst.

nileshtrivedi 12y ago
Yes, many people are arguing the same. But I don't think the conclusion is foregone. Wikimedia has been criticized as well: https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and-net-neutrality-wikimedia-turns-its-back-on-the-open https://www.accessnow.org/blog/2014/08/08/wikipedia-zero-and...
- rhino369 12y ago
  Net Neutrality supporters have their priorities out of whack when they attack Wikipedia for getting free zero rating. Net neutrality is a means to an end, not the end itself. And wiki being available to millions or billions of people for free doesn't threaten the "open internet."
- jace 12y ago
  Wikipedia's charter requires them to increase access to Wikipedia, so signing up for internet.org was the right thing to do as long as it is not illegal. Let's put them aside for now and focus on the others.
balls187 12y ago
> Wikipedia is the perfect candidate for such a program Except for the high likelihood of having a pop over of Jimmy Wales asking for money show up on all your content.
- npkarnik 12y ago
  Which is preferable to the current model of your-and-my-data-and-eyeballs-to-advertisers-as-a-service
- 12y ago

qq66 12y ago

Would you feel the same way about Facebook installing "Facebook PCs" for free use of Facebook, say in every Starbucks?

pekk 12y ago

Maybe this should cause some hard thinking about what Wikipedia's interests are, and who actually ends up with editorial authority at Wikipedia.