
The Wikipedia Zero program will end in 2018 - Ethcad
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/02/16/partnerships-new-approach/
======
niftich
'Wikipedia Zero' is a zero-rating [1] scheme where many ISPs and network
operators offered data access to certain Wikimedia sites (or just Wikipedia)
at no metered-data cost to the line's subscriber.

Zero-rating's relationship with the broader subject of net neutrality has been
hotly debated, and some legislation considers it a violation of net
neutrality, while others don't. Nonetheless, fierce backlash against
Facebook's zero-rating scheme in India was contrasted with Wikipedia's zero-
rating which was broadly popular, exposing a dilemma.

By Wikimedia discontinuing this scheme, the situation moves towards
resolution: no longer does it need to be debated whether Wikipedia's zero-
rating is a net good, but Facebook's, although ostensibly also for public
benefit, is something to be avoided.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-
rating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating)

~~~
cornholio
The Wikipedia trafic (mostly text and thumbnail images) is also becoming
quickly negligible compared to, say, Facebook with autoplaying videos, Youtube
or other streaming providers.

They hint that the global penetration of Wikipedia in the rest of the world is
less one of connectivity and more one of local politics and interest in
permitting and encouraging such an open tool.

~~~
katastic
It cost mere 2 million (of their huge budget) to serve ALL of the pages from
Wikimedia Foundation for 2017.

It can't cost "that much" for someone to download Wikipedia pages. And if so,
you can still buy a Wikipedia snapshot CD/DVD.

\- But if Wikipedia is "too much" bandwidth (1) then what CAN you access on
the internet? Why would you expect any utility from the internet at all, if a
mostly text page is too much?

\- Unlike Wikipedia taking on the world itself, Wikipedia should be LOBBYING
people with even more money to do it for them. You know... building internet
infrastructures. Think how bad our internet would be today if in 2005 they
said, "Let's work on minimizing the bandwidth usage instead of complaining
that our ISPs need to get faster." It's like someone who wants to get out of
poverty by spending less. Yeah, that's great. But you want an easier way to
get out of poverty? _Make more money._ Trust me, I know. We should be
elevating internet quality (and incomes) around the world, not minimizing
usage for one of the already tiniest bandwidth websites on the planet.

(1) BTW, there's also bandwidth reducing plugins for Chrome that have a 3rd-
party convert them to black-and-white/low-res.

[edit] There's even an official Google plugin! (If you're okay having them
basically store the contents every site you visit...)

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/data-
saver/pfmgfdl...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/data-
saver/pfmgfdlgomnbgkofeojodiodmgpgmkac?hl=en)

I don't recall the 3rd party one I used but it definitely worked when I tested
it out. It might be this one, Bandwidth Hero:

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bandwidth-hero-
liv...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bandwidth-hero-live-
image/mmhippoadkhcflebgghophicgldbahdb?hl=en)

(Basically search "Bandwidth saver" in extensions.)

~~~
mixmastamyk
katastic, I see many of your comments are dead, and they don't look like low
quality as far as I can tell. Best guess is that the are a bit unkind to
popular tech companies.

Might wanna mail hn support?

------
vgf
I was involved in one of the non-FB companies who pushed for this weirdo
program.

If I were to guess the stats: I would guess FB got 99% of the traffic, even
though wikipedia was the key thing of the marketing message, at least in the
west.

The basic FB setup was to target key people in african and south-east asian
operators and after a while of the usual kind of negotiation say: if you'll
set us up with this zero-rating program in your company, we'll get you a cushy
FB job + visa to the US.

It was an open joke in the business at the time. People in every part of the
industry (including myself!) were scrambling to get an FB job offer. These
were the kind of things we were discussing after drinks when meeting with
mobile operator customers.

It got to the point where operators were restricting the people who were
allowed to meet with FB.

I am not joking. I witnessed (on FB!) several people from these mobile
operators who I had previously worked with later move to California for FB
jobs.

Yes, I am aware that this is likely illegal under US law. No, I don't have
proof.

~~~
rckclmbr
Yea, I'm going to have to call this one out as bullshit, unless you can
provide solid proof.

~~~
vgf
As I wrote, I don't have any solid proof for _why_ they hired those people. I
suppose the counter-case is that the FB partner program people could just have
been very impressed with their negotiation counterparts? I am merely pointing
out a direction for investigation here.

------
edent
One thing not mentioned in the article, is the problems with piracy -
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7eyg/wikipedia-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7eyg/wikipedia-
zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating)

If you give people an artificially restricted free resource, they'll find a
way to break out. If only there were a popular aphorism to explain this...

~~~
userbinator
_If you give people an artificially restricted free resource, they 'll find a
way to break out._

This fits with the observation that some of the most creative people I know
are from Eastern Europe and former-Soviet countries. Restricting what people
can do tends to, to put it bluntly, force them to think more. The darker side
of this is that companies try very hard to make users think that they _aren
't_ restricted, just to stop them from "thinking too much" and thus getting
out of the company's control.

 _A 20-year-old developer in Paraguay found a vulnerability in Facebook
Messenger that allowed people to use Free Basics to tunnel through to the
"real" internet_

I predicted that would happen; but is that really a vulnerability or just the
intrinsic way communication works? It's the digital analogy of asking someone
to go to the library and read pages from a book to you, because you don't have
access.

~~~
srtjstjsj
Vulnerability simply means communication that is unwanted by someone.

------
ukulele
What it is:

> Wikipedia Zero was created in 2012 to address one barrier to participating
> in Wikipedia globally: high mobile data costs. Through the program, we
> partnered with mobile operators to waive mobile data fees for their
> customers to freely access Wikipedia on mobile devices.

------
hokumguru
No one else is saying this but wouldn't this essentially have been against the
law under net neutrality?

~~~
r3bl
Net neutrality is not a law.

Net neutrality is a principle implemented through different laws in different
countries. As such, this practice would depend on how the concept of net
neutrality is implemented into local laws.

------
kragen
While it's heartening to see the Wikimedia Foundation abandon its opposition
to net neutrality, it would be more heartening if this was accompanied by
explicit stance of _support_ for net neutrality.

Wikipedia, by contrast with the WMF, has always had strong support for net
neutrality. WMF's opposition to net neutrality was a strong indicator of its
lack of accountability to the community it ostensibly serves.

~~~
cooper12
Wikimedia has always been in favor of net neutrality, it's just that their
role in the issue was always muddled by zero rating. From 2014:

> The Wikimedia Foundation believes that the principle of net neutrality is
> critical to the future of the open Internet.
> ([https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-
> net...](https://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/08/01/wikipedia-zero-and-net-
> neutrality-protecting-the-internet/))

In that article they also discuss how they reconcile net neutrality with
Wikimedia Zero. From December 2017:

> Net neutrality is essential for access to knowledge
> ([https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/04/net-neutrality-
> access-...](https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/12/04/net-neutrality-access-to-
> knowledge/))

Regarding Wikipedia strongly supporting net neutrality, I'm not sure I would
agree considering it didn't participate in the day of action on December 12.
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neut...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Action_to_Save_Net_Neutrality))

~~~
kragen
Zero rating violates net neutrality; you can't be in favor of zero-rating and
opposed to net neutrality. I know there are people who disagree with that, or
who think it's possible to "balance" zero-rating against net neutrality,
including Erik Moeller of the WMF. Those people are entitled to their opinion,
but it is wrong.

I think English Wikipedia didn't participate in the Day of Action because it's
harder and harder to organize anything on WP, which of course is why WMF
exists and why it isn't accountable to WP.

~~~
cooper12
You said there wasn't any statement of support for NN from Wikimedia, I showed
you otherwise. I also acknowledged that zero rating muddled the issue, but
that's irrelevant now. So I don't see your point. The onus is now on you to
prove they somehow don't support net neutrality. Regarding Wikimedia
organizing things, the SOPA blackout [0] was actually organized by the
community, Wikimedia only provided technical support on their end and wouldn't
have done it unless there was community consensus. It's fine if you don't like
Wikimedia, but there's no need to spout ignorance and double down while you do
it.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative)

------
TheSmiddy
On the consumption side of wikipedia there are other options for getting it
into bandwidth poor areas.

for example there is endless OS
([https://endlessos.com/](https://endlessos.com/)) which is essentially an
offline linux distro aimed at school kids preloaded with a snapshot of
wikipedia, khan academy, etc.

------
thisacctforreal
I think this is a good decision, unfortunately.

