In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia, Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy becomes a little more directly relevant...
From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to mind is that we should always take a still from the video as illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval process?
I still protest the policies on this point. In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format, giving people extra problems to just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds.
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:44 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org wrote:
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia, Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy becomes a little more directly relevant...
From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to mind is that we should always take a still from the video as illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval process?
--
Robert Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org http://benambra.org
"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi attacking Bambi"
-- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Suggestion: * upload an ogg and a divx/xvid/mpeg/whatever version * link to a page that contains links to the ogg and the alternate version, as well as links for downloading the respective codecs
I still haven't gotten the "heat to beat" :-(
Magnus
Andre Engels wrote:
I still protest the policies on this point. In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format, giving people extra problems to just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds.
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:44 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org wrote:
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia, Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy becomes a little more directly relevant...
From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to mind is that we should always take a still from the video as illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval process?
--
Robert Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org http://benambra.org
"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi attacking Bambi"
-- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Andre Engels wrote:
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie.
I've seen .ogm as a fairly common exception for "ogg with movie data", with .ogg being reserved for Ogg Vorbis audio. Not sure if Xiph has an opinion on this, but it's becoming the de facto standard naming scheme on the internets, because most people use Windows, and Windows needs extensions to be different to associate them with different programs, so overloading .ogg is problematic as long as ogg audio and ogg video are handled by different players.
-Mark
Just some sidenotes.
On Thu, Nov 11, 2004 at 01:19:01PM +0100, Andre Engels wrote:
I still protest the policies on this point.
Fair enough.
In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format,
On the contrary, we are enforcing STANDARD formats, and more, OPEN STANDARD formats. Don't confuse "standard" with "installed on most proprietary overmarketed systems"; availability does not make it standard. It is right to note, that the standard formats are not yet as widespread, but do not mix these.
giving people extra problems to just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds.
While I see your point I disagree (as probably most of those who actually shaped the policy this way). Many believes that Wikipedia is not just free but have the mission of publicise freedom agains vendor locking. I believe that if there is a generally available and useful free format replacing a widespread, non-free, non-standards-compliant (and often simply illegally obtained or used) format then a free and open project should press the users a bit to obtain it and use it.
This way standard formats will become widespread formats as well: it is going to be easier to install them, even easier to obtain and use them. This way Wikipedia would serve the open/free community, the idealists (like me) and itself, since people who use open formats are probably creating open format files as well, which helps Wikipedia in the end.
I strongly disagree that these formats are, as you put it, for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds. Codec installation is not a hard task even for a windoze lemming, and downloading and running a player isn't really a tough job either. My grandma probably would be able to do it if she were still around, and she wasn't a tech-savvy nerd either.
Right now it requires EFFORT from the clueless end users. Installing windows requires efforts from them, too. We have the possibility to make them use their efforts for something useful, even if they are not aware of it, since they probably wouldn't understand at all what it's all about. If they want to use Wikipedia, they will familiarise themselves with the free tools. Educate themselves. Became smarter. More open. In the end, free.
(And if Xiph can point out that "see! this is the STANDARD format which is used even in the greatest project of our times: Wikipedia" then it could help the development of these free formats, and make them eventually universal. Wikipedia isn't "just another webpage" anymore.)
Amen.
:-)
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
What do you expect, Windoze IS braindead, after all. But others mentioned .ogm as a simple workaround (and widespread, if not standard, solution).
But the other points you made are perfectly clear: if there is free software to create and play these formats, it "should bother us" if people don't use them. That's what it's all about: vorbis and theora are open, free and available, they match your definition, so we bother to make them used. To me it sounds fair.
My point 3 paragraphs ago was exactly about that "actual advantage" and "disservice" you mention: it is a service, and it have actual and very real advantage. You may not see it since you may happen to be one of those who, as I mentioned, doesn't understand or see the service others want to do for you (or, actually, force down your throat :)). But it's for your [or avid clueless windows users'] own good.
Peace, Peter
ps: I can see clearly the cardio video. I didn't make any efforts, it seems that my mplayer supports theora... but i'm a tech-savvy open-source nerd, after all. :)
In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format,
On the contrary, we are enforcing STANDARD formats, and more, OPEN STANDARD formats. Don't confuse "standard" with "installed on most proprietary overmarketed systems"; availability does not make it standard. It is right to note, that the standard formats are not yet as widespread, but do not mix these.
I am not here to discuss semantics, and I readily admit to using a suboptimal term when saying "standard".
I strongly disagree that these formats are, as you put it, for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds. Codec installation is not a hard task even for a windoze lemming, and downloading and running a player isn't really a tough job either. My grandma probably would be able to do it if she were still around, and she wasn't a tech-savvy nerd either.
Probably she could, probably I could too. Still, they need to do it. When I go around the web, there's things to be downloaded here and there. If I really want what is offered, I do so. Downloading and installing something is not a lot of work. But getting a few seconds of film is also not a large reward.
Right now it requires EFFORT from the clueless end users. Installing windows requires efforts from them, too. We have the possibility to make them use their efforts for something useful, even if they are not aware of it, since they probably wouldn't understand at all what it's all about. If they want to use Wikipedia, they will familiarise themselves with the free tools. Educate themselves. Became smarter. More open. In the end, free.
Yippee! Now I can watch this movie from Wikipedia and I have this *free* program on my computer to do so! I am glad that I'm not using that other free program that I use to watch all those other sites, because now I know that those who wrote that program either could forbid others to do so, or could be forbidden by others to do so. What a service!
I *hate* it when people tell me what to do and how to think.
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
What do you expect, Windoze IS braindead, after all. But others mentioned .ogm as a simple workaround (and widespread, if not standard, solution).
But the other points you made are perfectly clear: if there is free software to create and play these formats, it "should bother us" if people don't use them. That's what it's all about: vorbis and theora are open, free and available, they match your definition, so we bother to make them used. To me it sounds fair.
Yes, they match the definition. But there are other formats that match the definition just as well, but that you want to forbid because you prefer your free formats to formats that are free only in practice but not in theory and want to force your opinion upon me and others.
My point 3 paragraphs ago was exactly about that "actual advantage" and "disservice" you mention: it is a service, and it have actual and very real advantage. You may not see it since you may happen to be one of those who, as I mentioned, doesn't understand or see the service others want to do for you (or, actually, force down your throat :)). But it's for your [or avid clueless windows users'] own good.
Farewell.
Andre Engels
Andre Engels (andreengels@gmail.com) [041113 02:58]:
Yes, they match the definition. But there are other formats that match the definition just as well, but that you want to forbid because you prefer your free formats to formats that are free only in practice but not in theory and want to force your opinion upon me and others.
You've convinced me. I move we make data dumps only available in the universal standard format, i.e. MS Word documents.
- d.
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:03:58 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Andre Engels (andreengels@gmail.com) [041113 02:58]:
Yes, they match the definition. But there are other formats that match the definition just as well, but that you want to forbid because you prefer your free formats to formats that are free only in practice but not in theory and want to force your opinion upon me and others.
You've convinced me. I move we make data dumps only available in the universal standard format, i.e. MS Word documents.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I just not being clear? I am not the one who is prescribing any formats. I want to _extend_ the allowed formats. I'm not in favor of converting material to any format I prefer, but in not converting material that comes in in such a format.
Nor would I want to allow _all_ formats. Formats that are very rare are not a good idea. Nor are formats that are hard or impossible to read on some of the most common platforms, which would exclude at least all recent versions of MS Word. All I'm asking is to take a practical stand (availability on all applicable platforms for free, or included with all normal software packets) rather than a legalese one (no known patents).
Andre Engels
On Nov 12, 2004, at 11:28 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 03:03:58 +1100, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Andre Engels (andreengels@gmail.com) [041113 02:58]:
Yes, they match the definition. But there are other formats that match the definition just as well, but that you want to forbid because you prefer your free formats to formats that are free only in practice but not in theory and want to force your opinion upon me and others.
You've convinced me. I move we make data dumps only available in the universal standard format, i.e. MS Word documents.
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me, or am I just not being clear? I am not the one who is prescribing any formats. I want to _extend_ the allowed formats. I'm not in favor of converting material to any format I prefer, but in not converting material that comes in in such a format.
You've made yourself quite clear, which is why at least two people are very angry with you, and object on moral grounds to what you are doing.
I too object to using Wikipedia as a means of advancing a proprietary product which helps fund a competing product (En carta) and other competing proprietary products.
If Microsoft wants to promote its proprietary solutions, that is, of course, their business. However wiki should not be in the business of encouraging Proprietary software, since, there is no telling when at a later time that software will be altered to include spyware, new licensing or platform restrictions, or other forms of restrictions of use.
On Nov 12, 2004, at 10:58 AM, Andre Engels wrote:
In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format,
On the contrary, we are enforcing STANDARD formats, and more, OPEN STANDARD formats. Don't confuse "standard" with "installed on most proprietary overmarketed systems"; availability does not make it standard. It is right to note, that the standard formats are not yet as widespread, but do not mix these.
I am not here to discuss semantics, and I readily admit to using a suboptimal term when saying "standard".
But it's for your [or avid clueless windows users'] own good.
How about allowing people to do what they want, including making mistakes. It's what freedom is about.
As far as ogg and ogm and theora and all that stuff:
I agree in theory that this is the best, for licensing issue when distributing the wikipedia, to have audio and video not formatted in proprietary, patent-encumbered, or licensed codecs.
I also agree that the user should not have to jump through hoops.
I propose that both ogg/ogm files AND mpeg/mp3/whatever files be available, online. Offsite CD/DVD dists should have only the ogg/ogm, but those CDs and DVDs could also include viewers for the files.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Peter Gervai wrote:
In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format,
On the contrary, we are enforcing STANDARD formats, and more, OPEN STANDARD formats. Don't confuse "standard" with "installed on most proprietary overmarketed systems"; availability does not make it standard. It is right to note, that the standard formats are not yet as widespread, but do not mix these.
I think you're misusing the term "standard". Theora is certainly "open", but it is not an "open standard", because it is not a standard at all. It is a product from the Xiph Foundation, which is not a standards body of any sort, just an open source development organization. MPEG, by contrast, is an internationally recognized standards body, but their standard has some patent encumberance.
I think we ought to distinguish between: -- Fully proprietary, non-standard formats (WMV, etc.) -- Open standards whose implementation may be problematic due to patents (MPEG, AAC, etc.) -- Non-standard but open and unencumbered formats (FLAC, Ogg, Theora, etc.) -- Open standards with no patent encumberance (PNG, AIFF, etc.)
I don't think Theora falls in the last category, because there has been no standardization process where various concerns and issues are hashed out, just a unilateral implementation by Xiph. Which I still fully support, of course, but it's not the same sort of thing as PNG, which is truly developed through a standards process.
The question for us, of course, is whether we should prefer both standard and non-standard open source formats, and where to draw the line.
-Mark
First off, I would strongly suggest that everyone think a little more about the words they use and the tone they set.
Second, if we are in fact wanting to force people to use free open software, the most effective way to do it would be to remove all the tweaks in the code/css to accommodate IE. When people complain, insist that they install a completely free and open browser. Of course, we'd end up pissing-off more than half of our user base, and Wikipedia would return to being "just another web page." The point is that even though we are in favor of free and open software, there are other goals that we hold more important.
Personally, I did not join Wikipedia in order to advance open source software. I'm much more interested in making an encyclopedia that is accessible by all. As I see it, that should be our first and most important goal.
WARNING! LONG RANT TO FOLLOW
I'd also like to say a few words on behalf of the "Windoze Lemmings" of the world. I use Windows, currently Windows XP. My family has three computers, all of them running XP. I also use IE on all the systems. I am well aware that there are other browsers out there, but I also have a life to live. I want to keep those three computers as similar as possible, and to keep them relatively close to "normal".
I don't do this because I am technology idiot. At the company where I formerly for over 10 years, I maintained over 20 computers, while also coding software -- mostly for custom-built microcontroller-based systems with no operating system or with bare-bones real-time cores. I cut my teeth on CPM, worked for years in DOS and RT-11, and made the painful transitions from DOS to Win3.1 to Win95 to Win98 to Win2000 to WinXP. I also spent some time fiddling with AmigaDOS, and even have some (tiny) exposure to whatever-it-is-they-call-the-OS on IBM370's (can you say punched cards?).
I've never been a regular Mac user (in the early days it was just to damn expensive), and I don't find any compelling reason to switch to the Apple hardware and OSX (or whatever).
I also understand that Linix is finally beginning to be available in truly user-friendly forms. When I looked into Redhat some 5 years ago (when people were telling me it was really user friendly), I met with nothing but frustration.
Sure, I'd love to stop shelling out too much cash to Microsoft for its OS and everything else. I also cheer whenever MS loses a lawsuit. But, when I use a computer at the university, its WinXP. When my wife goes to work, its WinXP. When my kids go to school, its WinXP. It's going to take a hefty amount of convincing for me to give up all my hard-won experience and start using a defacto non-standard system.
So, watch the name calling, OK? Lemmings (as you use the word in "Windoze Lemmings") are creatures who follow the leader without thinking. Every step on my journey was taken knowing there were advantages and disadvantages involved. You can question whether I made the correct decisions, but don't suggest that I, and all the rest of the Windows world, are following without thought and without knowledge.
END OF RANT
Thanks, I just wanted to get all that off my chest.
Rich Holton (en:wikipedia:Rholton)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
On 12 Nov 2004, at 21:47, Rich Holton wrote:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-November/ 035849.html
Very well put. Let me totally <AOL /> that. (And I'm saying that as a Mac OS X (ex OS/2, ex Win, ex DOS, ex etc.) user.)
Two sidethoughts:
1. Earlier in the thread, Word .doc format was mentioned (humorously or no) as a de-facto "standard". <rant> There is no such thing as a "Word format". Yes, I know, the recent Word versions (Win-Word 97-2003 & Mac-Word 98-2004) <em>are said</em> to use the same format. That claim is a bunch of Mullarkey: As soon as you start using some more advanced Word features such as document outlines, tables and headers and footers, you'll find that .doc-file (A) which you created on, say WordXP/WinXP will actually look different on, say Word97/Win 98 or Word2004/OSX). The file format may technically be identical, but that's no use whatsoever, because the content still renders differently in the various versions of Word, <em>including those where MS expressly pledges that things were compatible</em>. That's not even to mention the various other versions of Word before that which openly were semi-compatible (at best). Or the partial guesswork that could/can be involved when trying to figure out which is the "right" version of Word to open a particular file with. Or the mess when it comes to conversion to other formats where MS kindly sometimes only offers <em>im</em>porters, but no exporters. <em>There is no such thing as <b>a</b> Word format, dig it.</em> "Word format" is a broad expression that covers a zoo of "I didn't mean that line break to be there"-files. I use PDF as often as possible. Yes, LaTex or encapsulated Postscript may to a degree even be better at preserving formatting and/or be editable, but try sending Jane Random User an .eps file. Good luck. </rant>
2. As a Mac user I have to chip in on your mentioning OS X: IMHO being a Mac user is ''primarily'' an '''attitude''' thing. It's probably possible to be happy with other platforms, I just found it easier to be happy with OS X. If you want to honestly understand that Mac mindset, try this article: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/apps/delicious-library.ars Some may even find that article negative or scary, but they're probably no past or future Mac users.
-- ropers [[en:User:Ropers]] www.ropersonline.com
Why can't we simply use the avi or mpeg formats again? Do we have to pay someone to encode the file, or what's the deal? Those formats for video would get the widest reach of any file format.
James
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org [mailto:wikipedia-l-bounces@Wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Andre Engels Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2004 1:19 PM To: wikipedia-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Video uploaded...
I still protest the policies on this point. In the name of freedom, we are enforcing a non-standard format, giving people extra problems to just hear and see the sound files and videos on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should be there for the normal internet user, not just for tech-savy open-source-loving nerds.
My computer when seeing a .ogg-file, automatically assumes it's a sound file, and thus I cannot see this movie. I know there are others who don't even have software for .ogg-soundfiles. We are much too strict on this point. What should bother us is not whether there are any patents on a certain format, but whether free software exists to play it. Where that is the case (for the most common platforms, or at the very least for Windows and Unix), rejecting files because their format is supposedly non-free is doing a disservice to our readers and writers with no actual advantage to compensate for it.
Andre Engels
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 16:04:44 +1100, Robert Graham Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org wrote:
In the grand tradition of actually getting things done on Wikipedia, Wikipedian KSheka, with some assistance from myself to convert the video to Theora, has gone ahead and uploaded a video of an "echocardiograph demonstrating systolic anterior motion of the anterior leaflet of the mitral value", which, translated, I think means "a video of a beating heart with a valve that's moving wrongly"
You can see the article with the uploaded video at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophic_cardiomyopathy
Now we actually *have* a video in a patent-unencumbered codec uploaded to Wikipedia, and the ability to make more of them (transcoding to Theora is pretty straightforward once you've got ffmpeg2theora installed), the discussion about video I posted at http://meta.wikimedia.org/Video_policy becomes a little more directly relevant...
From my point of view, I'd be very interested in people's thoughts on
what we should do to make best use of video (one thing that comes to mind is that we should always take a still from the video as illustration, but more thoughts are good)...
Oh, and has there been any progress on implementing code for an approval process?
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Merkel robert.merkel@benambra.org http://benambra.org
"And James Hird has just gone after Robert Harvey...that's like Bambi attacking Bambi"
-- Gerard Whately, Essendon vs. St Kilda, 3/4/2004
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:42:33 +0100, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Why can't we simply use the avi or mpeg formats again? Do we have to pay someone to encode the file, or what's the deal? Those formats for video would get the widest reach of any file format.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_policy.
Steve
I have a better idea. We can print a movie reel for each video, and rather than have people download it we can have them come to the local foundation headquarters to watch scheduled screenings of the videos accompanying each article. No more worrying about standards!
And we could do the same with audio - write it all to LPs and play them at scheduled times.
Mark
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:53:09 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:42:33 +0100, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Why can't we simply use the avi or mpeg formats again? Do we have to pay someone to encode the file, or what's the deal? Those formats for video would get the widest reach of any file format.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_policy.
Steve _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
So in other words, we don't want it, because it might not be free, even though in reality it is. On the other hand, Ogg might also not be free, but someone we like got the rights, so we don't care about that.
Andre Engels
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:53:09 -0500, Stephen Forrest stephen.forrest@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:42:33 +0100, James R. Johnson modean52@comcast.net wrote:
Why can't we simply use the avi or mpeg formats again? Do we have to pay someone to encode the file, or what's the deal? Those formats for video would get the widest reach of any file format.
See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Video_policy.
Steve _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org