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

[Andreas Kolbe]

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_announce_partnership_April_2009QA

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 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <lebo.beland at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <martijnhoekstra at gmail.com>:
> >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <lebo.beland at 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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>