Andreas: > 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.
Is this not our organizaitonal goal being fulfilled? On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 6:31 AM, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 10:42 AM, JP Béland <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 2013/8/26, Martijn Hoekstra <[email protected]>: > > >> On Aug 26, 2013 6:30 PM, "JP Béland" <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> > -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe>
