I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative:
Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (3). What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " // commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js&embedplayer=yes" width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "i" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions.
(1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Video... (3) http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (4) screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg ( the "stockphoto.js" toolbar)
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports about this on bugzilla so that the technical magicians can actually fix it? I'm confident they would appreciate any constructive input.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 11 de Outubro de 2011 12:25, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.comescreveu:
I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative:
Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (3). What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " // commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js&embedplayer=yes " width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "i" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions.
(1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Video... (3) http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (4) screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg ( the "stockphoto.js" toolbar)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If the video player actually worked for anything, it would be a problem. But it doesn't and therefore it isn't.
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:10 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.orgwrote:
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports about this on bugzilla so that the technical magicians can actually fix it? I'm confident they would appreciate any constructive input.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 11 de Outubro de 2011 12:25, Teofilo <teofilowiki@gmail.com
escreveu:
I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative:
Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village...
(3). What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " //
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js&embedplayer=yes
" width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "i" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions.
(1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Video...
(3)
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village...
(4) screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg
( the "stockphoto.js" toolbar)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In the news today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8818827/Parents-to-be-urged-to-repo...
"The Prime Minister will unveil Parentport, an online complaints site targeted at mothers and fathers who have concerns about their children being exposed to inappropriate material.Parents will be able to lodge complaints about specific cases at the site, triggering an Ofcom investigation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/11/pornography-internet-service-p...
"Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography."
It is worth noting here that the opt-in filter to be installed by BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin uses the expression "opt-in" in exactly the opposite way that we have used it in relation to the image filter.
- In relation to the Wikimedia image filter, "opt-in" means the default is unfiltered, and the user can opt in to filtering. - In relation to BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin, "opt-in" means that the default is filtered, and the user can opt in to view pornography.
Andreas
Also in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-i...
ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people taking out completely new contracts, who will be offered the choice of a connection with "parental controls", or one without. "Customers will have to choose one or the other, but we won't be making either one the default," said a source at one of the ISPs. A spokesperson for TalkTalk said: "This is called 'active choice' rather than an opt-in or opt-out." People who change to a different tier of connection within the same service will not be obliged to change the setting. BT said that new customers will be offered a package of parental control systems, provided by the security company McAfee.
________________________________ From: Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, 11 October 2011, 15:01 Subject: [Foundation-l] David Cameron's opt-in filter, Parentport (UK)
In the news today:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8818827/Parents-to-be-urged-to-repo...
"The Prime Minister will unveil Parentport, an online complaints site targeted at mothers and fathers who have concerns about their children being exposed to inappropriate material.Parents will be able to lodge complaints about specific cases at the site, triggering an Ofcom investigation."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/oct/11/pornography-internet-service-p...
"Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography."
It is worth noting here that the opt-in filter to be installed by BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin uses the expression "opt-in" in exactly the opposite way that we have used it in relation to the image filter.
- In relation to the Wikimedia image filter, "opt-in" means the default is unfiltered, and the user can opt in to filtering. - In relation to BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin, "opt-in" means that the default is filtered, and the user can opt in to view pornography.
Andreas _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 11 October 2011 15:08, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Also in today's Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-i...
ISPs moved quickly to insist that the provisions will only apply to people taking out completely new contracts, who will be offered the choice of a connection with "parental controls", or one without. "Customers will have to choose one or the other, but we won't be making either one the default," said a source at one of the ISPs. A spokesperson for TalkTalk said: "This is called 'active choice' rather than an opt-in or opt-out." People who change to a different tier of connection within the same service will not be obliged to change the setting. BT said that new customers will be offered a package of parental control systems, provided by the security company McAfee.
Given past reaction (backlash) to the Phorm filtering proposals; I'm not surprised to see them clarifying this very quickly :)
Tom
Teofilo did open a bug, I tried to explain that the mwEmbed player gadget is not identical to the mwEmbed player in the extension. The Extension has a bit better handling of license i.e by default shows the credit page on menu click and on clip end. The extension also does a bit better job of parsing info templates.
I agree that we could make licence info more predominate. There are constraints of player size make it difficult to translate page based templates into a the small player credit space. Keep in mind we don't have monolithic licence tags or 'real structured data' for wikimedia commons so its not trivial to translate licence info into different use contexts. It may be possible to leverage some of the recent licence template work, if anyone has suggestions on how to do that I am happy to apply it. We do prominently link to the asset description page on clip end.
peace, michael
On 10/11/2011 05:10 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is not exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports about this on bugzilla so that the technical magicians can actually fix it? I'm confident they would appreciate any constructive input.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 11 de Outubro de 2011 12:25, Teofilo teofilowiki@gmail.comescreveu:
I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative:
Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (3). What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " // commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js&embedplayer=yes " width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "i" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions.
(1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Video... (3) http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village... (4) screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool: http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg ( the "stockphoto.js" toolbar)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Here, in Spain, we are talking about Wikidocumentals. I.e, documentals about wikipedia articles.
It will be easy: upload video cuts, and then all the GFDL work will fall upon production work, you know: voice, dubbing, visual effects... mashup... It's the same way to make a BBC documental about WWII. I think it will be a revolution. We are talking with professional schools because I think that collaborative production will be a new paradigma. And Schools don't want to make a commercial end-product,
They're just ideas.
2011/10/11 Michael Dale mdale@wikimedia.org
Teofilo did open a bug, I tried to explain that the mwEmbed player gadget is not identical to the mwEmbed player in the extension. The Extension has a bit better handling of license i.e by default shows the credit page on menu click and on clip end. The extension also does a bit better job of parsing info templates.
I agree that we could make licence info more predominate. There are constraints of player size make it difficult to translate page based templates into a the small player credit space. Keep in mind we don't have monolithic licence tags or 'real structured data' for wikimedia commons so its not trivial to translate licence info into different use contexts. It may be possible to leverage some of the recent licence template work, if anyone has suggestions on how to do that I am happy to apply it. We do prominently link to the asset description page on clip end.
peace, michael
On 10/11/2011 05:10 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
I assume that you, before sending this email to a mailing list that is
not
exactly technical in nature, have submitted bug reports about this on bugzilla so that the technical magicians can actually fix it? I'm
confident
they would appreciate any constructive input.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 11 de Outubro de 2011 12:25, Teofilo <teofilowiki@gmail.com escreveu:
I have learnt this morning that the "Timedmedia" extension "is not yet installed on wikimedia sites, but its meant to replace the existing player" (1).
As I was uploading videos, and needed some specific tools, I happened the other day to use the mwEmbed gadget on Wikimedia Commons which seems to be a prefiguration of what the WMF plans to install everywhere on its sites. My experience as guinea pig of that experiment is negative:
Clicking on the "i" option of the polar bear video inserted on commons village pump (2) produces the following screenshot:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village...
(3). What the video viewer can read is "Credits: Title : File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv Kaltura". This is not a proper way of providing author name (which should be Nehrams2020 ) and license (which should be Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license with a link). The "share" menu provides "< i frame src = " //
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv?withJS=MediaWiki:MwEmbed.js&embedplayer=yes
" width="220" height="165" frameborder="0" >< /iframe > ". There is no "Attribution" code similar to the one you can find when clicking on "Use this file" on the photostock toolbar on the Commons description page (4). The small polar bear icon displayed in the "i" option of the "menu" is too small (it is only about 50x30px, while the standard "thumb" size is 220px!). Using the full 220px rectangle as a link is the way by which we tell readers/viewers that the Commons description page is an important page. Most users will not be aware that they may click on that 50x30px icon to find valuable information about the file. The File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv text is in grey color. This is not the standard way to make the viewer aware that it is a clickable link. Usually, clickable links are blue. This video player is putting the Wikimedia commons description page 3 clicks away from Wikipedia instead of just one (you must click on "menu", then on "i" then on "File:PolarBearsPlayingSDZooFeb09.ogv"). If installed on Wikipedia, this gadget will not be an improvement, but a huge drawback for the quality of the relation between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons will be unknown from Wikipedia readers or seen as something far away. I guess a lot of people are going to believe that the person who deserves credit is the company named "Kaltura" instead of the real video creator. The "i" symbol is meaningless for people whose languages do not have the word "information" in their vocabularies. Even in English or in French "information" is vague and does not mean "credit" or "license" or "attribution". The efforts Wikimedia Commons has been doing on description pages (indicating the source of the file, provide a description, provide a date, provide categories to find related files, etc.) are put aside for the purpose of the promotion of the "Kaltura" brand name. And again a download link seems to be provided straight away from the "menu" even if the user has not made the effort to learn about the licensing conditions.
(1) Michael Dale 2011-10-11 02:54:09 UTC https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31583 (2)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#mwEmbed_gadget:_Video...
(3)
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Screenshot_of_commons_village...
(4) screenshot of "use this file" toolbar tool:
http://prototype.wikimedia.org/timedmedia/File:Use_this_file_screenshot.jpg
( the "stockphoto.js" toolbar)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org