[Foundation-l] [Commons-l] Wikipedia Invites Users to Take Part in Open, Collaborative Video Experiment

[Erik Moeller]

On 1/19/08, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell at gmail.com> wrote:
> My understanding is that Michael Dale was told that Wikimedia would be
> using Kaltura and that it might consider metavid some day 'in the
> future'.

We've made no firm commitment to using Kaltura anywhere. This is the
problem with speculation about leaked presentations: They lack context
& positioning. When we've talked about our technology roadmap to
potential donors or partners, we've always made it clear that it's
highly tentative & dependent on lots of factors. The Kaltura
screenshots are pretty, that's why they are in there.

> Many months ago I asked if I could travel to Australia (on my own
> dime, none the less) to attend FOMS for Wikimedia.

Whom did you ask?

> Correct. Yet WMF is putting our press releases and calling for
> community help with one and not the other.

I'd be happy to have an open-ended discussion with Michael about ways
we can drive open source interest in the project.

> Being all things to all people is worthless if you are nothing to
> yourself. The world does not need another ocean, but it does need a
> collection of uncompromisingly free knowledge.

Wikimedia should always be accessible (including full participation)
to people using only free software. That makes sense -- because
otherwise, projects like OLPC would run into problems when they want
to access our content. One of the ongoing discussions we've had is
whether it's OK or not to make things easy & friendly for people using
proprietary systems (i.e. the vast majority of web users). My position
has been consistently that we should at the very least get a good
evaluation of the cost of choosing not to support proprietary systems.

WMF is not the Free Software Foundation; our core mission isn't to
promote free video & audio formats. The reason, in my view, that we're
supporting them is to broaden access and participation, and to ensure
long term sustainability. These are highly practical reasons that sync
up with our mission statement. So does, in my opinion, making it easy
for users of proprietary systems to access our content and to
participate in its development. (I found it interesting, in this
context, that Sue implemented Ogg Vorbis on the CBC website, for
exactly the same reason: to give more people access to CBC content.)

In the last few discussions we've had about this issue, you've
consistently taken the side of what I deem isolationism: against
Creative Commons, against parallel distribution, and now against
working with a company that wants to embrace open source & open
standards as best they can. I don't think that's the majority view in
our community, and I don't consider it the strategic stance that the
Foundation should take. (Obviously, some of these parameters are
ultimately for the Board to figure out and we'll live with whatever it
decides.)

There's always going to be some tension between the extremes: Recall
the recent discussion on this list about us not making sufficient use
of fair use exemptions. I expect that the Foundation will get flak
from both camps regularly, both of them making apocalyptic predictions
of our future. It's like Wikipedia itself -- as long as it's seen as
both a vast right wing conspiracy and a bunch of liberal treehuggers,
we're probably doing okay. :-)
-- 
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate