Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Trying to understand Wikipedia Zero as some kind of
self-interested
organizational move is a mistake, in my view. What it is, IMHO, is a
logical development based on the core mission statement of Wikipedia.
And in the long term it's actually helpful to the advancement of
network neutrality without posing the anti-competitive risks that
other zero-rated services may pose.
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.
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.
And I have severe doubts that Wikipedia Zero fulfils actual
needs from the perspective of sustainable development.
Tim