Jens Best writes:
First it's kind of interesting that net neutrality which is very clear in its definition becomes "overly simplistic and unrealistic" and "inadequate" the moment it collides with an organisations own interests. Isn't that quite an coincidence? ;)
Jens, rather than argue with you point by point, let me outline what my own views are.
First, I'm a long-standing supporter of the Wikipedia mission to make the world's information available for free to everyone. Second, I'm a longstanding supporter of network neutrality. Third, I have no organizational interest in favoring Wikipedia, although I consider myself a Wikipedian.
I do not believe the Wikimedia mission--providing the world's information to everyone for free--has any necessary connection to network neutrality, even though I favor the latter very much. In short, I'm entirely willing to modify my secondary goal (net neutrality) if it advances my primary goal as a Wikipedian (free knowledge for everyone). Conversely, I'm not willing to modify my free-knowledge goal at all if it conflicts with an absolutist model of network neutrality.
Here's what we know about internet access in the developing world (which Wikipedia Zero is designed to serve): it relies primarily on mobile platforms, and mobile smartphones typically are saddled with data caps. Data caps discourage users from using Wikipedia as extensively as we in the developed world use it. Furthermore, they certainly discourage contributions from the developing world for the same reason. Sidestepping those costs for would-be Wikipedians and Wikipedia users is something very closely aligned with the long-standing mission of the project.
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. Instead, we have to communicate why Wikipedia Zero is not like what commercial interests are doing.
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.
And the necessary build-out in capacity driven by Wikipedia Zero will make network neutrality--which I care deeply about--a more tenable policy in the developing world.
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of self-interested organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia. And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that other zero-rated services may pose.
--Mike Godwin