Mike Godwin wrote:
>Does this mean some platform providers will use Wikipedia Zero to
>justify their own self-serving economic alliances? Of course it does.
>But we don't have to let their propagandists define us.

I think we should be explicit here: in exchange for zero-rated access to
Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation places a banner at the top of the
page, inserting a prominent advertisement for the associated
telecommunications company. So much for "we'll never run advertising," eh.

I'm still digesting this thread (and I certainly agree with Liam that this
thread is a showcase for healthy and informed discussion), but I do
wonder: if Wikipedia Zero is so great, why is Wikipedia Zero only
available in "developing countries" (which we somehow make more pejorative
by using the term "Global South")? When will Wikipedia Zero be available
in the United States or in the United Kingdom?

>What's more--and this is central--Wikipedia Zero, by encouraging
>higher usage of Wikipedia without additional costs to users, actually
>increases demand on the mobile infrastructure. Providers will have to
>increase capacity to handle the increased demand. In the long run,
>this promotes overall increased internet access in the developing
>world. That is an unalloyed positive result, in my view.

Yeah... both Facebook and Google are trying to sell this same argument:
they're in it to bring Internet to the world, nothing sinister about that!
Of course, the reality is far different: both companies are primarily
interested in mining and selling user data to advertisers. Strange
bedfellows, to be sure.


Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to