[Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

[George Herbert]

Andreas:

> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.


Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled?




On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I guess the benefit to the Wikipedia Zero providers is that making
> Wikipedia available for free to their subscribers is a competitive
> advantage for them. That seems obvious enough, and it is acknowledged in
> the Wikimedia Foundation FAQ,
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Will these operators be putting Wikipedia in their advertising?*
>
> A: Many of them will put out various communication materials (ranging from
> leaflets to billboards) about the program in order to promote it and
> encourage usage. Anytime the Wikipedia logo is used, the Wikimedia
> Foundation will have to give approval to ensure that the use is in line
> with the mission.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> The 2009 deal with Orange (which I believe ran for three years) did involve
> advertising being placed on Wikipedia content, with part of the advertising
> revenue paid to the Wikimedia Foundation:
>
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Orange_and_Wikimedia_announce_partnership_April_2009QA
>
> I haven't seen any figures released on how much Orange paid the Foundation
> as part of the advertising deal.
>
> At any rate, the new deal with Orange no longer includes that financial
> arrangement, according to the Mobile partnerships FAQ. See
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Mobile_partnerships:
>
> ---o0o---
>
> *Q: Is there money involved?*
>
> A: No. There is no money involved with this partnership. Orange is not
> paying Wikimedia Foundation, and Wikimedia Foundation is not paying Orange.
>
> ---o0o---
>
>
> I don't know whether Zero providers are allowed to place ads on the
> content, and if so, whether that gets them additional revenue.
>
> The most obvious benefits of the arrangement to the Wikimedia Foundation
> are increased page views, an enhanced Alexa ranking, enhanced worldwide
> brand name recognition, and an even more dominant role in the global
> information market place.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 6:52 PM, George William Herbert <
> george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <lebo.beland at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra at gmail.com>:
> > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <lebo.beland at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> "And if it is illegal or borderline according to, say,
> > >>> netherlands, swiss, or german law, is it appropriate to do it in
> > >>> countries where the law is less developed? "
> > >>>
> > >>> As said Kevin, it is impossible to respect the law of all countries
> in
> > >>> every country (Wikipedia already fails at that in its current state
> by
> > >>> the way, with or without Wikipedia Zero). So no we cannot "just
> > >>> abstain from any
> > >>> activity which might be perceived as illegal somewhere". After that,
> > >>> are you suggesting we should apply the laws of some "developed"
> > >>> countries to all countries and just ignore the others, this is way
> > >>> more morally wrong in my opinion.
> > >>>
> > >>> That being said, the law on net neutrality you cited applies to ISP,
> > >>> which Wikipedia Zero or the WMF isn't, so it doesn't apply to it.
> > >>>
> > >>> But of course, we as a community and the WMF should still keep high
> > >>> ethical and moral standards.
> > >>>
> > >>> JP Beland
> > >>> aka Amqui
> > >>
> > >> I do think there is some merit in the net neutrality argument, at
> least
> > >> sufficiently so to be open to discussion on whether or not offering
> > >> Wikipedia Zero is a good thing. It comes down to the question if we
> > believe
> > >> that having a walled garden variety of internet consisting only of
> > >> Wikipedia for free, and with that undermining the market position for
> a
> > >> paid, open internet is a net positive. I'm inclined to say it is, but
> > the
> > >> opposite position, though counter-intuitive, is pretty defensible.
> > >>
> > >> -Martijn
> > >
> > > "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> > > the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment."
> > > (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Vision)
> > >
> > > I agree with you that it is good to discuss about it. The real
> > > question we have to ask is what between Wikipedia Zero giving free
> > > access to Wikipedia or avoiding that for net neutrality and not
> > > undermining the market position for a paid open internet is getting us
> > > closer to our vision.
> > >
> > > JP Béland
> > > aka Amqui
> >
> >
> > I believe a nonstandard interpretation of net neutrality is being used
> > here.
> >
> > It's intended - as originally posed - to prevent a service provider from
> > advantaging their own bundled services and disadvantage independent
> > services via tariff structure.
> >
> > What competitors for Wikipedia exist?
> >
> > And to the extent there are such, are we associated with this provider in
> > some way that causes us to be their service in some preferred way to
> their
> > or our benefit?  What benefit do we get?
> >
> >
> > Sent from Kangphone
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com