The AI output on the left, Wikipedia on the right. Not impressed:
And Wikipedia Zero, which Jimbo was hyping like a madman in 2012-2015, is ending oops.
From the book wiki:
Wikipedia Zero is a controversial initiative by the WMF to give free mobile access to Wikipedia.
"The operator "zero-rates" access to Wikimedia sites in their billing system, so their subscribers will not incur data charges while accessing Wikipedia and the sister projects on the mobile web or apps. 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. When the user leaves the Wikimedia sites, they see a warning message and are asked to confirm, so there is no confusion or risk of surprise charges. Wikipedia Zero itself is not a separate product from the core Wikipedia mobile site."
See also Wikipedia Zero Operating Principles. By March 2015 WMF claimed to have launched Wikipedia Zero in 46 countries "with the help of 54 operators, giving an estimated 400 million people free access to Wikimedia sites. We hope these numbers will grow as we continue to expand into the Global South."
Criticism from Kolbe
Andreas Kolbe Mon Mar 30 18:37:57 UTC 2015:
"The recent Newsweek story on the Wifione / IIPM admin corruption case[1] has clear implications for Wikipedia Zero. Wikipedia Zero creates hundreds of millions of passive Wikipedia users who:
"- Cannot see the sources of a Wikipedia article (I believe SMS users cannot even see which statements *are* sourced and to what)
"- Cannot view alternative sources
"- Cannot meaningfully edit Wikipedia (lacking access to new sources)
"At the same time, Wikipedia Zero creates a monopoly position for Wikipedia that makes the site an even greater target for manipulation by local elites, who *do* enjoy full read/write access to Wikipedia. Such monopolies are fundamentally incompatible with the values underlying the idea of a free and open web. Monopolies ultimately result in *control* rather than *freedom* of information.
"The Wifione case illustrates that even in the English Wikipedia attempts at manipulation, focused on topics that the average Wikipedia contributor has little interest in or knowledge about, can be successful and remain undetected for years. Small, regional-language Wikipedias are far more unstable still, as the example of the Croatian Wikipedia demonstrated all too clearly.
"Wikipedia is far too vulnerable to become the gatekeeper for information in developing countries -- if such a gatekeeper were even desirable (which it is not). To give another example, I see that Wikipedia Zero is available in Kazakhstan.
"Jimmy Wales recently asserted on Reddit that the Kazakh government "does not control the Kazahk *[sic]* Wikipedia".[2] The Kazakh government, however, seems to disagree with Jimmy Wales.[3] The Kazakh Prime Minister's official website has stated since 2011 that the Kazakh Wikipedia project "is implemented under the auspices of the Government of Kazakhstan and with the support of Prime Minister Karim Massimov", quoting the head of WikiBilim and 2011 Wikipedian of the Year, who today holds the office of a Deputy Governor in the Kazakh government[4] and is the Founding Director of a Brussels-based think tank, the "Eurasian Council on Foreign Affairs", which is widely considered a PR front of the Kazakh government.[5] Is aiding the market dominance and penetration of such a source through Wikipedia Zero in line with movement values? Is the type of collaboration described on Wikimedia's Outreach page for Kazakhstan?[6] I don't think so.
"I thought we were on the side of those fighting for freedom of speech, not the side of those suppressing it. It's a concrete example of Wikipedia Zero aiding an oppressive government in the control of information -- not at some point in the future, but today. For a thoughtful examination of the issues surrounding Wikipedia Zero, I'd ask everyone to take 5 minutes of their time to listen to the presentation Thomas Lohninger gave at the Chaos Communication Congress in December 2014, "Net Neutrality: Days of Future Past?"[7]
"I would be glad to see the Wikimedia Foundation rejoin the ranks of those fighting for freedom of speech, and a free and open web for all."
Gerard Meijssen Tue Mar 31 07:05:34 UTC 2015:
"Hoi, With Wikipedia Zero people have access to knowledge that they would not have otherwise. It is well established that having information readily available is an important indicator for further development. Not having Wikipedia available is absolutely a worse situation than having it.
"Your argument is imho a bleeding heart stance. Would it not be better if.. My answer is sure HOWEVER given that the objective of Wikipedia is to share in the sum of all knowledge, your argument is decidedly secondary. Sources may be important but they are secondary to having the information available in the first place. As long as we have sources in full blown Wikipedia, as long as it is WMF that provides the Wikipedia Zero content... what is your point. Yes, ideally we want people to ensure that people know about sources. When sources are just statements of fact and they are in turn not accessible because of cost. What is your point in practical terms?
"Wikipedia Zero is very much a fulfillment of our aspirations. Do not forget who you are: white, privileged and well educated. What you propose is taking away something that you take for granted. Not nice. Thanks, GerardM"
Now, Gerard, you look like an idiot. (Again.)