Andrew Gray writes:
It certainly isn't an announcement that Evil Baby-Eating Adobe Flash will be put on Wikipedia tomorrow, and an awful lot of this seems to be a violent storm in a teacup incited by, at best, a rather impressive leap of logic.
That's perhaps a little harsher than I'd put it, but not by much.
Me, I find it hard to care either way. I don't see it being up and running and clean and robust any time soon;
I agree.
I don't see an implementation for us in the near or medium term;
I think that's highly probable.
I am still not sold at all that we even *need* editable collaborative video as part of the toolbox for our projects.
I tend to favor video editing for the same reason I favor giving my daughter, who's a fine reader and a decent coder, a video cam. There are things she can do with a cam that she can't do with prose.
But why the screaming? Baffling.
Obviously, it's because either (a) Wikimedia Foundation has been taken over by the Devil, or (b) having cut ties with True Believers, the Foundation has Lost Its Way.
What we definitely know is that (c) (the Foundation is engaging in an experimental collaboration that may go nowhere, but seemed worth trying) is totally impossible, because (c) would require us to Assume Good Faith.
--Mike
On Jan 19, 2008 12:07 AM, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
What we definitely know is that (c) (the Foundation is engaging in an experimental collaboration that may go nowhere, but seemed worth trying) is totally impossible, because (c) would require us to Assume Good Faith.
Well, no. I have full confidence in the good faith of the Foundation officials who signed off on this. The crux of the issue is in the phrase "but seemed worth trying". The Foundation did; I (for one) would not have. I want to understand why this difference exists. Was it an imbalance of information (knowledge of the depth of the community's skepticism of Flash, or conversely, knowledge of Kaltura's future plans)? Was it just a difference in judgment? A different ordering of priorities? Any of these, and more, are possible; not one of them requires me to question anyone's good faith (or for anyone else to question mine.)
I don't know if the conversation I want to have will let me fully understand the thoughts of the Foundation on this, but even if it doesn't, it is worth having.
On 19/01/2008, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
What we definitely know is that (c) (the Foundation is engaging in an experimental collaboration that may go nowhere, but seemed worth trying) is totally impossible, because (c) would require us to Assume Good Faith.
The problem isn't a lack of good faith; it's a lack of confidence in competence. Not entirely justified, I think, but it's there.
- d.
On 19/01/2008, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/01/2008, Mike Godwin mgodwin@wikimedia.org wrote:
What we definitely know is that (c) (the Foundation is engaging in an experimental collaboration that may go nowhere, but seemed worth trying) is totally impossible, because (c) would require us to Assume Good Faith.
The problem isn't a lack of good faith; it's a lack of confidence in competence. Not entirely justified, I think, but it's there.
Combination of the two. Lack of trust in Kaltuna which is not unreasonable and lack of faith in the competence of the foundation which going by the track record of the foundation is not completely unreasonable.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org