Mike Godwin mnemonic@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
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.
I think on the contrary Wikipedia Zero illustrates nicely why net neutrality is so important: Wikipedia Zero favours solely Wikipedia (und sister projects), while contradicting or simply other opinions and resources bite the dust.
This mainstreaming, forming a monopolistic cabal on all things information is why I am a strong proponent of net neutrality. The ease with which information can be shared nowadays should be used so that more people provide their views, not more people consume one view.
And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
Tim