Discuss this story
- Wow. TechDirt really recommended that Wikipedia, if it won't shut down the W0 program, should just agree to look the other way on users from poor countries uploading copyrighted content to Commons because avoiding censors is training for overthrowing their governments? That's the kind of logical thinking skills I'd expect from a high schooler, not a professional blogger wait no nevermind. -- Pres N 03:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those trying to frame the Wikipedia Zero debate as an intellectual property/civil liberties issue are missing the point. Let's try a little though experiment. The community issues could easily be solved by giving Wikimedia Zero users their own private Commons. The legal issues could be solved as well: make sure the server hosting that private Commons is located in Angola and operated by an independent Wikimedia Angola. Now the true problem comes to light. While the telecom provider partnering with Wikimedia Zero is willing to give free access to small, educational Wikipedia articles out of altruistic motives, they are less likely to be willing to provide their users with free access to gigabytes of entertainment. There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped. That infrastructure is not going to be developed further if people are not paying for their usage. So whatever lofty goals Jason Koebler has in mind, it simply isn't going to work for purely technical reasons. There isn't enough bandwidth in the country to make it work. — Ruud 11:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a nonprofit, but that's about it. Not so, WMF is a non-profit, Wikipedia is free content (as in speech) that we would like to be free (as in beer). The suggestion that Angolans should be denied it because My Little Pony is not free (as in beer) is absurd on its face.
- Absolutely, as things stand, we may need to "play whack-a-mole" or maybe do something a little smarter to prevent the platform from being swamped. That, though, is a different problem.
- All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
- Agree with User:Rich Farmbrough. This is not much different than dealing with paid promotional editing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, the argument of underdeveloped infrastructure suggests a trend that can correct itself when it gets out of hand. If Commons is a major source of pirated multigigabyte movies, thus swamping the limited transmission capacity, the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain. They will either give up Wikipedia Zero or find another way to free their channel capacity to accommodate customers who pay fat per-Megabyte fees. Jim.henderson ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain"? Is there any actual profit drain? i.e. are the people using this work around people of limited means who if they could not get access to this material would simply go without? The number of people who can "pay fat per-Megabyte fees" is probably quite limited. However a business model where the companies get a larger number of signups an turn a blind eye to more creative responses to crippling copyright law, as actually the "profit-drain" is largely illusory. It's a bit like the fantasy that GLAM organisations used to tease themselves with, that vast revenue-streams were slipping through their fingers if they released material on Open Licenses. The more problematic aspects of underdevelopment is that it has been an ever present phenomenon of
capitalism as a world system for several hundred years and no-one has yet made the case that that situation is likely to change soon. W0 is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but basically I agree with
User:Rich Farmbrough and
User:Doc James.
Leutha (
talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. Another editor has offered, "There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped." Unfortunately, we do not know the degree to which that is true. If it's entirely the reason, I'm right. If it's not at all the reason, you're right. Jim.henderson ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- "the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain"? Is there any actual profit drain? i.e. are the people using this work around people of limited means who if they could not get access to this material would simply go without? The number of people who can "pay fat per-Megabyte fees" is probably quite limited. However a business model where the companies get a larger number of signups an turn a blind eye to more creative responses to crippling copyright law, as actually the "profit-drain" is largely illusory. It's a bit like the fantasy that GLAM organisations used to tease themselves with, that vast revenue-streams were slipping through their fingers if they released material on Open Licenses. The more problematic aspects of underdevelopment is that it has been an ever present phenomenon of
capitalism as a world system for several hundred years and no-one has yet made the case that that situation is likely to change soon. W0 is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but basically I agree with
User:Rich Farmbrough and
User:Doc James.
Leutha (
talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly, on this archived blog page the blogger KnowProSE ( Taran Rampersad) tells the world, in an update added at the end, that they just created the RepRap Wikipedia entry. -- Lambiam 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Discuss this story
- Wow. TechDirt really recommended that Wikipedia, if it won't shut down the W0 program, should just agree to look the other way on users from poor countries uploading copyrighted content to Commons because avoiding censors is training for overthrowing their governments? That's the kind of logical thinking skills I'd expect from a high schooler, not a professional blogger wait no nevermind. -- Pres N 03:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Those trying to frame the Wikipedia Zero debate as an intellectual property/civil liberties issue are missing the point. Let's try a little though experiment. The community issues could easily be solved by giving Wikimedia Zero users their own private Commons. The legal issues could be solved as well: make sure the server hosting that private Commons is located in Angola and operated by an independent Wikimedia Angola. Now the true problem comes to light. While the telecom provider partnering with Wikimedia Zero is willing to give free access to small, educational Wikipedia articles out of altruistic motives, they are less likely to be willing to provide their users with free access to gigabytes of entertainment. There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped. That infrastructure is not going to be developed further if people are not paying for their usage. So whatever lofty goals Jason Koebler has in mind, it simply isn't going to work for purely technical reasons. There isn't enough bandwidth in the country to make it work. — Ruud 11:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is a nonprofit, but that's about it. Not so, WMF is a non-profit, Wikipedia is free content (as in speech) that we would like to be free (as in beer). The suggestion that Angolans should be denied it because My Little Pony is not free (as in beer) is absurd on its face.
- Absolutely, as things stand, we may need to "play whack-a-mole" or maybe do something a little smarter to prevent the platform from being swamped. That, though, is a different problem.
- All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 18:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC).
- Agree with User:Rich Farmbrough. This is not much different than dealing with paid promotional editing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me, the argument of underdeveloped infrastructure suggests a trend that can correct itself when it gets out of hand. If Commons is a major source of pirated multigigabyte movies, thus swamping the limited transmission capacity, the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain. They will either give up Wikipedia Zero or find another way to free their channel capacity to accommodate customers who pay fat per-Megabyte fees. Jim.henderson ( talk) 22:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- "the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain"? Is there any actual profit drain? i.e. are the people using this work around people of limited means who if they could not get access to this material would simply go without? The number of people who can "pay fat per-Megabyte fees" is probably quite limited. However a business model where the companies get a larger number of signups an turn a blind eye to more creative responses to crippling copyright law, as actually the "profit-drain" is largely illusory. It's a bit like the fantasy that GLAM organisations used to tease themselves with, that vast revenue-streams were slipping through their fingers if they released material on Open Licenses. The more problematic aspects of underdevelopment is that it has been an ever present phenomenon of
capitalism as a world system for several hundred years and no-one has yet made the case that that situation is likely to change soon. W0 is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but basically I agree with
User:Rich Farmbrough and
User:Doc James.
Leutha (
talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. Another editor has offered, "There is a reason why data usage is so expensive in Angola, it's because the technical infrastructure is underdeveloped." Unfortunately, we do not know the degree to which that is true. If it's entirely the reason, I'm right. If it's not at all the reason, you're right. Jim.henderson ( talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- "the mobile providers are bound to notice the profit drain"? Is there any actual profit drain? i.e. are the people using this work around people of limited means who if they could not get access to this material would simply go without? The number of people who can "pay fat per-Megabyte fees" is probably quite limited. However a business model where the companies get a larger number of signups an turn a blind eye to more creative responses to crippling copyright law, as actually the "profit-drain" is largely illusory. It's a bit like the fantasy that GLAM organisations used to tease themselves with, that vast revenue-streams were slipping through their fingers if they released material on Open Licenses. The more problematic aspects of underdevelopment is that it has been an ever present phenomenon of
capitalism as a world system for several hundred years and no-one has yet made the case that that situation is likely to change soon. W0 is perhaps a small step in the right direction, but basically I agree with
User:Rich Farmbrough and
User:Doc James.
Leutha (
talk) 18:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Interestingly, on this archived blog page the blogger KnowProSE ( Taran Rampersad) tells the world, in an update added at the end, that they just created the RepRap Wikipedia entry. -- Lambiam 20:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)