Mike Godwin wrote:
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.
I can't say I watch PBS very much, but I do occasionally listen to NPR. And to borrow a phrase from the West Coast, I find those advertisements hella annoying and I certainly don't think we should emulate them.
Like you, I'm a Wikimedian, so my focus is naturally on the intersection between issues and Wikimedia. I wish PBS and NPR and other fine organizations did not have those awful sponsored interruptions. Other sites and forums have other needs and other priorities, but perhaps we can stick to focusing on Wikipedia Zero in this thread? :-)
I found Phoebe's summary of the fundraising banners thread supremely useful. I'm hoping that someone can create a similar summary for Meta-Wiki about Wikipedia Zero and net neutrality (there are blog posts on blog.wikimedia.org to maybe pull from too).
My personal view at the moment still somewhat strongly leans toward "it's complicated," which I think, as David suggested, we may simply want to embrace as a perfectly cromulent answer. But I do take issue, perhaps not alone, with what I view as language subversion and manipulation, such as trying to redefine what constitutes advertising or net neutrality. I think there's great beauty in truth and honesty. And I think that's part of Wikimedia's values.
MZMcBride