[Wikimedia-l] is wikipedia zero illegal because it violates net neutrality?

[Denny Vrandečić]

If customers would be signing up for access to the net, and if the ISP
would charge differently whether they access Wikipedia or whether they
access Facebook, yes, that would be a violation of net neutrality.

But in this case we are not talking about providing access to the net. We
are talking about providing access to Wikipedia. That's like saying
"printing out an article of Wikipedia and giving it to a student is a
violation of net neutrality because we didn't print out the rest of the Web
and gave it to them too".

I still think the question "does Wikipedia zero violate net neutrality" is
simply a categorical error (i.e. it errs in the sense that the categories
in the question do not match), and nothing I have seen convinced me
otherwise so far.

P.S., and just a sidenote: Britannica did not loose most of its reach due
to Wikipedia, but most of its business crumbled due to Encarta and cheap
CD-ROM based encyclopedias. When Wikipedia appeared in 2001, Encyclopedias
were already in a dismal state.




2013/8/27 Robert Rohde <rarohde at gmail.com>

> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 2:13 PM, George Herbert
> <george.herbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > Again: with Wikipedia, we do not have particular mutually beneficial
> > relationships which this would be encouraging, and the service provider
> > isn't really in a position to damage a Wikipedia competitor by doing
> this,
> > as far as I can see.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > If you can explain a manner in which the underlying monopoly / advantage
> > issue IS a problem here, please point it out.  If there is one that I do
> > not see then that forms a valid reason to reconsider.
>
> I'm willing to play devil's advocate here.  Personally, I don't see
> Wikipedia Zero as bad or a serious threat to net neutrality, but I can
> certainly understand the argument that free access to Wikipedia might
> disadvantage other content providers and discourage people from paying
> for mobile internet.
>
> To give a timely (if rather American) example, the Video Music Awards
> were last night.  If I wanted to know what happened, I could visit the
> VMA site, or many news sites, or Wikipedia which was updated in near
> real time.  In the framework of Wikipedia Zero, getting the info from
> Wikipedia is free which would rationally discourage traffic to other
> news sites or VMA's own site.
>
> The same argument can be made for other reference websites (e.g.
> About.com, Encyclopedia Britannica Online).  If they cost money to
> visit and we don't, then they are at a disadvantage when it comes to
> getting traffic.
>
> Free information is incredibly powerful, and I think we all agree that
> it is generally a Good Thing.  This is doubly true in many of the poor
> nations where Wikipedia Zero partnerships have been formed, as poverty
> can make data charges seem prohibitive.  However, the presence of free
> information is also disruptive to for-profit information providers.
> For example, we all know how the internet has impacted newspaper
> sales, or how the internet (and sites like Wikipedia) ultimately led
> Encyclopedia Britannica to close their print operation.  Free
> information is powerful, and sometimes that power will disrupt or
> destroy for-profit information providers.
>
> Consider for a moment, how the story might sound if we changed the
> names a bit.  Suppose National Monopoly Telecom partnered with Google
> to bring Maps and News to poor people with no data charges?  Is that
> just as good?  What if they had ads on the pages which were presented
> without data charges?  What if it were Microsoft instead of Google?
> Etc.  The end users get a free service, and presumably that service is
> useful, and quite possibly most users will be glad they have it.
> Still, it is true that Wikipedia Zero and similar programs do cause
> some content to have a privileged place in the marketplace over other
> content, and that will drive traffic to the free option and reduce
> traffic to competitors.  Depending on your point of view, maybe that's
> not a big deal, but if you are a hardcore advocate of net neutrality
> then one might well argue that ISPs should treat all content equally
> and not have different rates for equivalent amounts of data coming
> from different sources.  It is well-formed criticism of the Wikipedia
> Zero project.  Personally, I don't think the principle of net
> neutrality should be so rigidly adhered to as to discourage the broad
> dissemination of knowledge among people who have historically lacked
> access to it, but I suppose some people might disagree.
>
> -Robert Rohde
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.