There are billions of websites out there and each one of them is some kind of information. Giving wikipedia free access but charging others may seem to be innocent. But I believe on the contrary, it is opening one door that should not be used.
There are thousands (millions?) of wikipedia articles and all have some kind of linked citation. How will you draw the line? Wikipedia is open information but these citations are not?
In my country we have operator giving twitter and facebook free access. And I always thought that was another nail on net neutralities coffin. Wikipedia is nailing one more too.
Public benefit organizations like Wikipedia already operate by a somewhat different set of tax laws than traditional for profit corporations. This is precisely because governments around the world believe there is high value in organizations other than governments that serve the people with a public good or service.
Why can you not imagine similar carve-outs for non-profits when it comes to communications regulations on the Internet.
Also I'm not against free wikipedia access. I'm against using connection provider power to limit access to any where.
If an ISP starts with free wikipedia where would it land then? I believe "You can freely connect wikipedia but you can't use whatsapp or you must reimburse us for the lost sms revenue" is only one step ahead.
+1 If it becomes the norm in these countries for wikipedia articles to not have citations, it becomes that much easier for those in power to control/manipulate information.
There are billions of websites out there and each one of them is some kind of information. Giving wikipedia free access but charging others may seem to be innocent. But I believe on the contrary, it is opening one door that should not be used.
There are thousands (millions?) of wikipedia articles and all have some kind of linked citation. How will you draw the line? Wikipedia is open information but these citations are not?
In my country we have operator giving twitter and facebook free access. And I always thought that was another nail on net neutralities coffin. Wikipedia is nailing one more too.