On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:17 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
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?
Well, you asked, below: [1]
---o0o---
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?
---o0o---
I was answering your question.
Andreas
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2013-August/127746.html
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@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_anno...
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@gmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoekstra@gmail.com:
On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" lebo.beland@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe