7 ms·

You kid, but as much as I like Wikimedia (and as much as I would like to access Wikipedia free of mobile data charges), I think this objectively makes it harder

by gbl08ma 10y ago

You kid, but as much as I like Wikimedia (and as much as I would like to access Wikipedia free of mobile data charges), I think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I like to think I'm a net neutrality supporter, but when my mobile plan included unlimited data for the carrier's own music streaming service, I started using it and the unlimited data came in really handy. I used other streaming services much less because of that; Spotify, for example, didn't stand a chance of seeing my money. I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too...

megalodon 10y ago
There is a pretty big difference between a charitable non-profit organization and a proprietary music streaming service.
- yosamino 10y ago
  Sure, but the barrier for the ISP to allowing the same thing for a proprietary music streaming service has been lowered. This is, apart from the utility that it brings, advertisement for the operator: > Wikimedia recognizes the user is on that operator's network and serves a banner on the top of the page indicating free data courtesy of their mobile operator, which reinforces a positive brand experience for the operator. [0] It's not inconceivable that the ISP would do similar deals with $music_streaming_service. Maybe for some payment. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
- gbl08ma 10y ago
  See guelo's comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 ) Just because Wikimedia is not seeking profits or even looking to somehow "stay ahead" with this deal, that doesn't mean it isn't against neutrality.
smsm42 10y ago
> think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. Just as it's true that you breathing reduces amount of breathable oxygen around, but that's not a ground for me to sue you for air pollution and depriving me of vital oxygen ;) There are things so tiny as to consider them as if they weren't is to seriously distort the matter, and I think it's one of such things. To make it substantial, one needs to point out that a) there are viable competitors b) they are influenced by things like bandwidth costs and c) this difference is causing real and noticeable preference shift. I can believe it's true for mobile music streaming services, but I don't see it being true for Wikipedia. There's one more point - the argument against NN goes "it'd kill Wikipedia Zero". I don't think saying "well, so what, but it'd help Spotify" really a strong counter to it - if I had to choose between living without Wikipedia and living without Spotify, I'd choose Wikipedia without even pausing to think for a second. So NN proponents have to offer better answer than that, if they mean to go the utilitarian road.
- mncharity 10y ago
  > I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. I've no idea what current state is, but at one point the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously concerned about potential Wikipedia forks, such as by Facebook. And was working to make them more difficult. Given that WP seems to have plateaued in a less-than-ideal place, with for instance, a lot of research programming languages considered non-notable, I had mixed feelings about that. A competitor with a different culture could be a good thing.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > at one point the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously concerned about potential Wikipedia forks, such as by Facebook Being concerned about a theoretical possibility of something happening is not the same as it actually happening and being a viable competitor. > A competitor with a different culture could be a good thing. Maybe. But I don't see any right now with even tiny amount of viability. Do you?
WikipediasBad 10y ago
As much as I like competition, I think Wikipedia (in terms of Wikis) is as close to Google (in terms of search) as it can get to having a monopoly. And I am more OK with Wikipedia having a monopoly than Google since it is a non-profit. The closest true competitors to Wikipedia are Everipedia, Infogalactic, and Wikia (sort of..kind of) and they all have a fraction of a fraction of Wikipedia's total traffic combined. I am fairly active in Wikipedia's editor community and although there are some issues in the community and real toxicity sometimes in there between different editor factions and deletionists etc, I have met very few people who think Wikipedia has a net negative impact on humanity. It is truly a force for good, so increasing their impact on impoverished areas of the world can only be a good thing.
- gpawl 10y ago
  The Catholic Church is a nonprofit. Would you be OK with them having a monopoly on zero-rated spiritual information?

by gbl08ma 10y ago

megalodon 10y ago

There is a pretty big difference between a charitable non-profit organization and a proprietary music streaming service.

yosamino 10y ago
Sure, but the barrier for the ISP to allowing the same thing for a proprietary music streaming service has been lowered. This is, apart from the utility that it brings, advertisement for the operator: > Wikimedia recognizes the user is on that operator's network and serves a banner on the top of the page indicating free data courtesy of their mobile operator, which reinforces a positive brand experience for the operator. [0] It's not inconceivable that the ISP would do similar deals with $music_streaming_service. Maybe for some payment. [0] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Zero
gbl08ma 10y ago
See guelo's comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13767782 ) Just because Wikimedia is not seeking profits or even looking to somehow "stay ahead" with this deal, that doesn't mean it isn't against neutrality.

smsm42 10y ago

> think this objectively makes it harder for projects in the same field to compete, even if just a tiny bit. I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. Just as it's true that you breathing reduces amount of breathable oxygen around, but that's not a ground for me to sue you for air pollution and depriving me of vital oxygen ;) There are things so tiny as to consider them as if they weren't is to seriously distort the matter, and I think it's one of such things. To make it substantial, one needs to point out that a) there are viable competitors b) they are influenced by things like bandwidth costs and c) this difference is causing real and noticeable preference shift. I can believe it's true for mobile music streaming services, but I don't see it being true for Wikipedia. There's one more point - the argument against NN goes "it'd kill Wikipedia Zero". I don't think saying "well, so what, but it'd help Spotify" really a strong counter to it - if I had to choose between living without Wikipedia and living without Spotify, I'd choose Wikipedia without even pausing to think for a second. So NN proponents have to offer better answer than that, if they mean to go the utilitarian road.

mncharity 10y ago
> I think this is true in theoretical sense, but not in any practical sense. I've no idea what current state is, but at one point the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously concerned about potential Wikipedia forks, such as by Facebook. And was working to make them more difficult. Given that WP seems to have plateaued in a less-than-ideal place, with for instance, a lot of research programming languages considered non-notable, I had mixed feelings about that. A competitor with a different culture could be a good thing.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > at one point the Wikimedia Foundation was seriously concerned about potential Wikipedia forks, such as by Facebook Being concerned about a theoretical possibility of something happening is not the same as it actually happening and being a viable competitor. > A competitor with a different culture could be a good thing. Maybe. But I don't see any right now with even tiny amount of viability. Do you?

WikipediasBad 10y ago

As much as I like competition, I think Wikipedia (in terms of Wikis) is as close to Google (in terms of search) as it can get to having a monopoly. And I am more OK with Wikipedia having a monopoly than Google since it is a non-profit. The closest true competitors to Wikipedia are Everipedia, Infogalactic, and Wikia (sort of..kind of) and they all have a fraction of a fraction of Wikipedia's total traffic combined. I am fairly active in Wikipedia's editor community and although there are some issues in the community and real toxicity sometimes in there between different editor factions and deletionists etc, I have met very few people who think Wikipedia has a net negative impact on humanity. It is truly a force for good, so increasing their impact on impoverished areas of the world can only be a good thing.

gpawl 10y ago
The Catholic Church is a nonprofit. Would you be OK with them having a monopoly on zero-rated spiritual information?