On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Cristian Consonni <kikkocristian(a)gmail.com>
2015-04-02 15:16 GMT+02:00 Andreas Kolbe
I pointed out that Lohninger, AccessNow and EFF
consider it obvious that
there is such an effect.
I keep hearing this argument, but what myself (and I think also Mike)
am contesting is this "automatic implication" that Wikipedia Zero
brings behind itself Facebook Zero, Twitter Zero and all the others
zero rating services.
I don't see this automatism, and I would like therefore see some
evidence for it, with dates possibly.
As mentioned previously, what I have seen is recent additions to
, describing Internet.org
app launches bundling Wikipedia Zero
and Facebook Zero (along with a small and varying number of other sites) in
the following countries:
Zambia (31 Jul 2014)
Tanzania (29 Oct 2014)
Kenya (14 Nov 2014)
Colombia (14 Jan 2015)
Ghana (22 Jan 2015)
India (10 Feb 2015)
A few months prior to the start of these bundles, Jimmy Wales was asked on
Quora "What does Jimmy Wales think about Mark Zuckerberg's Internet.org
project, especially in light of Wikipedia Zero? Is there a chance for it to
become a collaborative project between Facebook and the Wikimedia
I like what they are doing. I have spoken to both Mark Zuckerberg and
Sheryl Sandberg about it, and the internet.org
team is in contact with our
Wikipedia Zero team.
Because Wikipedia/Wikimedia is somewhat "the Switzerland of the Internet"
(i.e. with a strong tendency to be very vendor neutral) we are always going
to be supportive of efforts like this, which are broad industry coalitions
to do something useful particularly relating to broad access to knowledge,
our core value. But we won't generally be tied up in any one thing per se.
But we'll work with them where it makes sense, of course.
In my personal capacity, I am a big fan of what they are trying to do and
support it fully.
I am less convinced of Facebook's altruistic motives.
Note that Facebook actually seems to contain a complete mirror of
Wikipedia, judging by the presence of even fairly obscure Wikipedia
articles on its pages (selected using "Random article"). See e.g.
Given the limitations Wikipedia Zero users labour under, it is actually
fairly immaterial to users whether they see the Wikipedia article in
Facebook Zero or Wikipedia Zero. The key difference is that in Facebook
Zero, they will not see Wikipedia's logo and fundraising banners. (They
also can't see the talk pages in Facebook.) They will have a less clear
impression of Wikipedia's brand, and the whole thing will still primarily
be a Facebook experience to them.
So, in the context of Facebook Zero/Wikipedia Zero bundles, it seems to me
the Wikipedia Zero deal is to a large extent there to ensure that Wikipedia
becomes part of the telco's advertising. Access to Wikipedia articles is
already a given in Facebook Zero.
(I have already demanded it in
I do not consider it obvious at all. Please note that I am not saying
that this effect can not exist /a priori/, I am completely agnostic
about it and for this exact reason I would like it to be tested (it is
also worth pointing out that since you are making the claim you are
the one with the burden of proof).
About Thomas Lohninger's opinion, he stated in the talk that you
linked previously [4a] that WMF and Wikimedia Chile ask to withdraw or
amend the Chilean net neutrality law, but if you read the letter sent
(see [4b] for the letter, [4c] has context) the letter "asked to
confirm that Wikipedia Zero is not covered by this order [the circular
from Chilean government implementing the Net Neutrality law]"[*].
Thanks for the link. The Spanish text in the linked document bears you out,
though I would assume the correspondence went on a bit after that.
Again, this is different: asking that Wikipedia Zero
running in the framework of the net neutrality law is different from
demanding an amendment to the law, in the fact that it is asking to
consider Wikipedia an exception. From what I can gather from the
discussions on the advocacy advisors list I think that this is an
opinion held by several Wikimedians (including myself).
I think, Andreas, that your view (or Jens' or Thomas') is a legitimate
position, but taking a really materialistic stance this is not a zero
sum game. IMHO the "exception approach" is the only one, at least the
only one I can think of, that may have a net positive outcome (i.e.
giving access to Wikipedia to people and having a very wide-covering
net neutrality protection), your proposition has the negative effect
of eliciting the access to Wikipedia to people (and I very much
understand Josh's reaction in this respect).
Always taking this materialistic approach, I think it is legitimate to
weight competing values, i.e. it is not automatic that Net Neutrality
is a value that has a greater weight than access to knowledge (even if
mediated through the in-many-ways-imperfect Wikipedia).
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: