Is that an argument that makes any sense in the context of Wikipedia? Where users actually form the content itself, and where access and content are free anyway everywhere?
I thought it was a liberal use of colonialism (but still fair) until I reached the part in the article about disabling IP ranges for not using the service in ways that align with admin sensibilities. In particular, the reenabling of an account because its contributions were seen as valuable illustrates the power relationships at play here. Angolans don't seem to be able to form content the way they think it should be formed, and are required to go through an outsider gatekeeper. Colonialism becomes more relevant when you consider that these services are the only ones that were made free and widely accessible. Over time, it pushes western/northern concepts of knowledge, data organization, copyright, etc onto a culture that didn't ask for it. That's colonialism.
I'm largely in favor of a reduction in quite a few of those concepts here in the West(North).
HOWEVER, you can survive if you can't pirate and edit wikipedia at the same time.
You can use wikipedia for free, and express yourself better, within wikipedia rules. Same for all of us. That's a pure bonus (that some poor people I know here would like to have for education btw).
How does that prevent you from having a better internet ? Because you're too poor as a country ? Well preventing to have Free wikipedia will not solve that. having a free wikipedia will 1) show you the greatness of internet even if limited, 2) make you more educated so potentially richer so potentially with more disposable income to afford full internet. Then you can't say well, it discourages you from getting anything other than wikipedia because it's good enough AND you're missing an important part of internet which is pirating US movies (which are much more invasive worldwide).
I don't see many differences between this situation and the one in the west ~10/15 years ago without torrents sites, and barely a few sites available for free if you used the free AOL 50hour CDs, trying to pirate photoshop with disks.
We managed to survive and grow internet also.
Of course, Facebook offering is entirely different.
Offering free internet for the whole earth would be nice. It's not a requirement however.
> Over time, it pushes western/northern concepts of knowledge, data organization, copyright, etc onto a culture that didn't ask for it. That's colonialism.
Is the thrust of your argument that Angolans should be deprived of knowledge and data because they didn't ask for it, or that Wikipedia admins should only be allowed to block and unblock people from the same culture as them?
I mean, Angola has had copyright laws for a while now: the idea that the people behind these hacks are noble savages whose fragile culture is imperilled by Wikipedia admins is really insulting and patronising.
I think it's harder to argue colonialism for Wikipedia specifically, given that they go out of their way to provide a plethora of sites for as many locales as they can, presented in a way best suited for their locale. Similarly, Wikipedia doesn't strike me as particularly interested in market capture and selling information behind the scenes. But, on the other hand, of the big names, WP seems to be the only site with this approach.
