If MZ doesn't like the Public Broadcasting System, I see no reason for him to misplace his rage against public television and direct it to Wikipedia. Certainly PBS forces me to see sponsorship statements that Wikipedia doesn't force me to see.
I don't actually see the Wikipedia banner ads, so I can't understand how MZ has conflated his experience with Wikipedia -- where I guess he does not log in -- with his experience of PBS, whose sponsorship announcements can't be avoided even if you are a donor.
I do follow the debate about PBS from time to time, but MZ's comments haven't shown up there for me yet, if he has posted them.
--Mike
On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:10 PM, MZMcBride z@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Mike Godwin wrote:
Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does. But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.
I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.
I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available in the United States or in the United Kingdom?
What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run, this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.
Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument: they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that! Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange bedfellows, to be sure.
MZMcBride