[Foundation-l] more thoughts on openness and collaborative media

[daniwo59 at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/22/2008 6:54:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
dgerard at gmail.com writes:

I'm  sorta wishing the press releases hadn't given the news sites the
impression  that this was rolling out on Wikipedia in the near or even
middle future -  as Brion said, it's a great idea but will need to be
free all the way down.  But it does sound like you're onto a big and
valuable idea  here.


- d.






David, 
I think you hit the nail on the head here. If I understand Brion  correctly, 
implementation is a long way off, and there is no favoring of Kaltura  over 
other applications. And yet, a quick search of Google for the terms  "Wikipeia" 
and "Kaltura" shows something very different.  
I get: 
1. Kaltura introduces video mashups to Wikipedia (makes it sound like a  fait 
accompli) 
2. Kaltura partners to add crowdsource video to Wikipedia  (ditto) 
3. Wikipedia invites users to take part in open collaborative …  (Wikipedia 
encourages it) 
4. Wikipedia article on Kaltura (with a sublink to a deletion  debate) 
5. Wikipedia to get videos via Kaltura (another fait accompli) 
6. Wikipedia to get its video on NewTeeVee (again) 
7. Kaltura introduces video mashups to Wikipedia (they did?) 
8. Wikipedia to get videos via Kaltura (repeat  of 5) 
9. Also check out how Kaltura's software works with the MediaWiki  
software.(it does?) 
And that is just the first page of over 20,000 hits.  
Now, what Brion explains is far more nuanced and reasonable. The problem  is 
that the only place that his explanation appears is on some WMF mailing list.  
It seems that the press is taking this as a done deal that is already  
implemented or that its implementation is just around the corner. And face it:  an 
abundance of quick soundbytes will always win out. 
Of course, this is incredibly valuable for Kaltura--investors see it and  
come running. After all, even the Wikipedia article is quoting these sources.  
But it is not accurate. 
Finally, a word about the Wikipedia article itself, or more precisely,  its 
image (_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kaltura_editor.jpg_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kaltura_editor.jpg) ). Note the URL in the image itself—it 
is a  Wikipedia URL, not a Kaltura URL. Also, there is no author information 
but it is  released under a CC license. I am curious. Does that mean that I 
can trim all  the Kaltura fluff and just keep the whale image, as long as I 
attribute it to an  unknown author?  
Danny



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489