Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikipedia Zero

wikimediafoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 84 posts

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#11

Post by samuellevy »

livnev wrote: post #4
tmcb wrote: post #3

I can't help pondering about the implications this move could consequently bring to the perceptions of net neutrality. Not that I see this project as something inherently bad, it is just the contrary, but it can give rise to some bad moral precedents.

Would you care to expand on these bad precedents that you are referring to?

I can see some possible issues, too. If you want to take a hard line approach, this breaches net neutrality just as much as slowing or charging access to other sites. Sure, Wikipedia is already the defacto source of information for a lot of people, but this would cement a monopoly as such in those areas. This all sounds a bit silly when talking about Wikipedia, but it has implications for other services.

What if google or bing made a similar deal? Or any large corporation, for that matter? You set up an internet where the majors can buy their way into a monopoly position, not by convincing ISPs to degrade other services, but by convincing them to charge users less to use your service. This makes it harder to impossible for new companies to enter those markets.

All that being said, I think this (Wikipedia Zero) will be a net-positive thing, and I hope they succeed. I do see that this type of thing could have worrying implications for net neutrality, but ultimately they're not the first site to broker "free access" deals with mobile carriers.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#12

Post by jarek »

samuellevy wrote: post #11
livnev wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to expand on these bad precedents that you are referring to?

I can see some possible issues, too. If you want to take a hard line approach, this breaches net neutrality just as much as slowing or charging access to other sites. Sure, Wikipedia is already the defacto source of information for a lot of people, but this would cement a monopoly as such in those areas. This all sounds a bit silly when talking about Wikipedia, but it has implications for other services. What if goog…

> What if google or bing made a similar deal? Or any large corporation, for that matter?

Facebook already does this https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo... and I'm sure many others do as well

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#13

Post by _delirium »

kcorbitt wrote: post #9
livnev wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you care to expand on these bad precedents that you are referring to?

Well, presumably if carriers provide reduced- or no-cost access to Wikipedia that's a direct violation of net neutrality, aka charging the same amount of money for data moving through the pipes no matter what it is or who it comes from. Presumably the OP is concerned that this could degenerate from "breaking net neutrality is fine as long as it favors sites we like" to "breaking net neutrality is fine". Note that I d…

I do think there is some risk (though I'm not sure how much delta it adds to the risk either way) that it plays into normalizing the proposals for tiering, a specific kind of non-neutral net, where ISPs would give you access to different levels of "internet content" based on your subscription level, like cable TV packages for the internet. Example: a few sites are available in the Free tier, a basic whitelisted set of sites (news, webmail, popular blogs, etc.) are in the Lite tier, everything but high-bandwidth video and torrents comes with the Standard tier, and the full internet is unlocked only by the Premium tier. The free tier would be made up of "content partners" who are a mixture of nonprofits like Wikipedia, and for-profits that pay for their inclusion in the free tier (CNN, maybe).

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#14

Post by rsync »

I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia.

But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia.

This is currently not possible.

Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that your facts, grammar, form, and adherence to wikipedia style are perfect.

Come back and let us know how that goes.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#15

Post by smacktoward »

rsync wrote: post #14

I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…

What does that have to do with this? From the writeup it sounds like the Wikipedia Zero initiative is explicitly about the consumption side of the project ("accessing free knowledge"). Should they not do anything to make Wikipedia more accessible to non-contributing readers until every problem with contribution is resolved? The problems are separate and could be worked on separately -- why even assume that they can't walk and chew gum at the same time?

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#16

Post by TrainedMonkey »

rsync wrote: post #14

I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…

I see what you mean - Wikipedia essentially promotes oligopoly on knowledge. Relatively few privileged, old time crew, can enforce their views through bureaucratic like process.

I am not sure that can be fixed though - what we can fix are which people get to be in charge of the article by some kind of peer voting mechanism where greater weight is given to academics who actually study the problem. To know which people are academics Wikipedia can start some kind of initiative with universities that would verify credentials.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#17

Post by 001sky »

TrainedMonkey wrote: post #5

I think this is very important step. If this works, then we will have real data to argue about providing free basic internet connectivity (Enough for text for example) for entire world population. This would allow for text only MOOC's accessible by everyone at the very least.

I think you are right to point out the value proposition to a text-only internet. But the implementation risks are probably more second-order and worth considering.

The contra case is that someone will twist this into a model to charge for everything else. its better to create better public goods, than bargain for special access to private assets, when the quid-pro-quo will surely be some form of reciporacal monopoly rights (ie, special interest regulation).

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#18

Post by samuellevy »

jarek wrote: post #12
samuellevy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see some possible issues, too. If you want to take a hard line approach, this breaches net neutrality just as much as slowing or charging access to other sites. Sure, Wikipedia is already the defacto source of information for a lot of people, but this would cement a monopoly as such in those areas. This all sounds a bit silly when talking about Wikipedia, but it has implications for other services. What if goog…

> What if google or bing made a similar deal? Or any large corporation, for that matter? Facebook already does this https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook/fast-and-free-facebo... and I'm sure many others do as well

Oh, I'm well aware. In Australia, I remember seeing a number of the telcos advertising "mobile data with free access to facebook and twitter". One of the catchup TV services also has "unmetered access" deals with a number of ISPs.

I don't think that the world is going to end here, or collapse into some dystopian nightmare, but the question was asked: "what are these bad precedents?" and I attempted to answer.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#19

Post by throwaway092834 »

rsync wrote: post #14

I want to love this idea. I want to love wikipedia. But before I can do that, I need to be able to use wikipedia. And by use, I don't mean consume - I mean, be a full participant in a collective online encyclopedia. This is currently not possible. Rather than explain or give examples, let me challenge you to start any new article, or make any decent sized edit to any article, and let's assume for the discussion that…

I've contributed casually and anonymously in the past without problem, but it's been a while and I thought I'd take you up on your challenge.

But there's a complication: Wikipedia appears to be TOO COMPREHENSIVE. I can no longer find a subject of general interest which isn't fleshed out to near (or beyond) my level of knowledge. All my local landmarks are well represented, as are the interesting areas I've travelled.

Do you have any ideas on an article Wikipedia needs? I'd be happy to spend some of my own time on research and submit it anonymously.

Re: Wikipedia Zero

#20

Post by smn »

We built the SMS & USSD connectivity for last week's launch in Kenya with Airtel [1] using http://github.com/praekelt/vumi. Happy to answer any questions about this, USSD isn't used as much and as such largely unknown outside of the majority world.

[1]: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/10/25/wikimedia-foundatio...

Post reply on HN