4 ms·

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 Wiki

• 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
  • parennoob 12y ago
    That doesn't make sense. Zero-rating does not, as far as I know, inject ads into your other content. If you don't want to access Wikipedia you needn't see his popover.