[Foundation-l] Frustration with WMF = WP

[Pedro Sanchez]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Kul Wadhwa <kwadhwa at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> 2) A conspiracy to push Wikipedia at the expense of the sister projects
>
> In regards to #1, although I'm somewhat aware of the discussions
> around the image filter, this is not affecting how we are approaching
> this Initiative. Not at all. In fact, if operators are willing to
> allow for a zero-rated (data usage free) version of Wikipedia that
> includes images and all, that's what we ideally want. And I will
> continue to push for that when partners are willing to do that.
> Operators, in general, are worried about taxing their networks by
> providing free data at all so we're trying to work with them so there
> is at least some way that people that can't afford data access in
> developing countries to be able to at least access some form of
> Wikipedia to start out with. We're also trying ways to do this via SMS
> & USSD, which also doesn't support images. The reality is that images
> use up more bandwidth than text so we have to work within the
> constraints of mobile operators.  A user that wants to pay for data
> access can get access to full Wikipedia and the sister projects.
> However, as I said, we're pushing to get as much as we can with these
> zero-rated initiatives and if mobile carriers are willing to do a
> version that includes images and all, and every project, we should
> definitely do it. The more complete the experience, the better.
>
> In regards to #2, there is no conspiracy here. We've been quite open
> about this. Yes, there is more of an emphasis on Wikipedia but it goes
> back to WMF's prioritization of "A rising tide lifts all boats"
> strategy. The more interest in Wikipedia will then hopefully translate
> into more interest on Wikimedia in general and benefit the other
> projects. Therefore, pushing interest in Wikipedia doesn't take away
> from the sister projects, rather, it should hopefully lead to more
> interest in them in the future. Furthermore, the zero-rated Wikipedia
> initiative is focused on developing countries where people have
> limited or no access to the internet, so many of the projects aren't
> well known enough or developed enough in those native languages where
> operators are willing to promote them. If users from developing
> countries discover more ways to access Wikipedia then we're hoping
> that it would then be easier for them to discover the sister projects.
>
> --Kul (mobile grunt worker)
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>

I think the concept of "wikipedia zero" is a great one.

But there are 2 issues here
1. An interface for offering Wikipedia for low speed connections
2. A project that involves phone companies

Now I think the idea is worth pursuing by its own merits, without
needing to have some deal with a phone company.
Even if no company steps up, we should be offering a text only
version, and that's why the initiative is a good one.

But.. we should be offering a text version of all our projects, not
just wikipedia.
It makes a lot more sense to offer a text-only version of Wikisource,
Wikiquote, to say something than Wikipedia (since those wikis are
almost text-only already, user-experience should not differ much ).

That's what I believe is what people here is pointing: even if
Wikipedia Zero is neat, it would also be good to have wikibooks Zero
and the rest. And the idea should be pursued  even if no company wants
a deal, since the idea aligns and helps us to reach our goal to
provide free knowledge (not free wikipedia).

And that's why people are wondering why other projects are not even
considered or mentioned in Wikimedia annoucements (it does indeed lend
to the perception that only wikipedia matters and only because phone
companies will be interested)
-- 
Pedro Sánchez
http://drini.mx
@combinatorica