Tim Landscheidt writes:
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.
I'm not following your reasoning here. I don't see any sense in which Wikipedia Zero is contradicting other opinions or resulting in resources that "bite the dust." Wikipedia Zero is not rivalrous in any economic sense that I'm aware of.
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.
So, you'd rather have users pay by the bit for Wikipedia on their mobile devices? This does not serve Wikipedia or its users in the developing world. The chart I use here shows you what the cost of broadband access is in the developing world, which relies primarily on mobile platforms. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/article/20141201000351-209165-wikipedia-zero-...
And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
But you haven't said what those severe doubts are. Having spent the last couple of years working on access projects in the developing world, I haven't encountered an alternative model that doesn't result in higher prices for subscribers. As the chart I reproduce indicates, in some places in the developing world, the annual cost of broadband access exceeds the average per capita income. I do not see how it serves Wikipedia's mission to require individual users to pay so much for Wikipedia access.
--Mike