The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Wiki video: Wikipedia will soon allow users to search for open-source videos and add them to existing pages.
Wikimedia Foundation
The online encyclopedia is poised to let users find, edit, and embed clips.
The organization behind Wikipedia is close to launching an editable online video encyclopedia to enhance the current textual one. The hope is to revolutionize the popular reference site and goad content providers--from public broadcasters to the music industry--into allowing more video to enter the public domain.
Within two to three months, a person editing a Wikipedia article will find a new button labeled "Add Media." Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video--initially from three repositories containing copyright-free material--and drag chosen portions into the article, without having to install any video-editing software or do any conversions herself. The results will appear as a clickable video clip embedded within the article.
Later, Wikipedia plans to offer ways for users to search the entire Web for importable videos, and plans to provide tools to edit, add to, and reorganize the clips within the Wikipedia website, just as is now done with text.
"To have people be able to go in and annotate your video, edit your video, and improve upon it--in the same way people have been doing to your text posts--is pretty outstanding, and will create an audio-visual representation of our world that will rapidly become as definitive and collaborative as Wikipedia is in the textual world," says Peter Kaufman, executive producer atIntelligent Television, a documentary production company in New York City that works with cultural and educational institutions, helping them bring their works online. "That may just be the holy grail."
The initial video repository tapped by the new tool will be the Internet Archive, which holds nearly 200,000 videos, including documentaries, interviews, and oddities such as 1950s educational clips. Another source will be Wikimedia Commons, a database of more than four million media files, including many videos. (The database is maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation, which also created Wikipedia.) The third source, Metavid, is a repository of Congressional speeches and hearings. The closed-captioning text that accompanies such videos serves as a handy tagging system, and users can search for words or phrases and find the right section of a speech to import.
Key to Wikipedia's video effort--funded partly by the Mozilla Foundation, makers of the open-source Firefox browser--is Wikipedia's insistence that any video passing into its pages be based on open-source formats. In the future, the offerings behind the "Add Media" button will include a search function for scouring the Web for video content. The hope is that this requirement will force content holders--motivated by the desire for exposure on Wikipedia--to put their material into the public domain. "Once people see how open-source video will get much more visibility on the open Web, it will motivate the content providers to jump on board--or miss the ship," says Michael Dale, a software engineer from Kaltura, a video startup based in New York City that is collaborating with Wikimedia on the effort.
I'm thrilled to hear that the video formats will need to be open. While ogg video is still not as good as some other formats, it's open, and .flv and .mov files are a nightmare to deal with if you want to do anything besides play it in the proprietary players offered by the manufacturers.
I love the closed caption search integration, hopefully this will inspire some standards there as well.
Kudos to the wikipedia team!
Wikipedia already supports video
This isn't any big news. Wikipedia already supports video and has supported it for at least a year now.
The main problem is that currently video on Wikipedia is far from easy, requiring non-commercial "free" video codecs like Ogg/Theora/Vorbis and annoying, difficult to use command-line transcoders (ffmpeg2theora), and no guidance on video streaming rates or acceptable video resolutions. For quite a while they capped file uploads at 20 megabytes, but recently increased to 100 megabytes.
(I am currently one of the big video contributors to Wikipedia and the Commons. Some of my videos can be found in the "Silo", "Baler", and "Otto engine" articles.)
I don't know how Wikipedia intends to get around the free licensing issue for video codecs. Most of the stuff on archive.org is encoded with non-free codecs like MPEG. Unless Wikipedia plans to transcode all that to the free Theora encoder? I suppose that can be done, but it seems unlikely.
For a long time Wikipedia has held firm against Adobe Flash even though it would make diagrams and illustrations FAR easier to provide in articles. If they are going to backslide on non-free MPEG from archive.org, will they now allow Flash as well?
Re: Wikipedia already supports video
We address the command line transcoder issue by integrating an extension called firefogg. ... It lets users choose any local file in any format and handles the transcoding and uploading of the file.
We have worked with archive.org to make all their footage available in ogg format.
We only plan to support free formats. Diagrams and figures should be possible via web technologies like svg & styled html. We will want to work on writing figure editor interfaces in javascript.
more about the mediaWiki media projects
The participation of Apple and technology
Serious engagement with you to identify the technology
http://apple-jewels.blogspot.com/
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Phineas
127 Comments
A Little Latitude, Please
Wikipedia is a pearl of great price and video will enhance it. The eight hundred pound gorilla is DRM (copyright). I would hope that the content owners would give Wiki a bit of latitude. I expect they will not.
Reply
fchieux27
1 Comment
Re: A Little Latitude, Please
What I have seen is that there are two big issues in the open vs. commercial video formats. One issue is DRM. If you are a publisher that has to make a living (or planning on it) on you content, or you just don't want the whole world to see your content, you may be wary of giving it all away once and for all. The second issue I see is the tools environment. The commercial vendors offer lots of tools, making it easy to create the content...and of course the tools is where they really make their money. My company has developed a solution that provides publishers a third way. We have developed a OGG/Theora/Vorbis player which can be deployed using with a la carte support for DRM/advertising/sponsorship/subscription so you can protect and/or make money of the content if that is a requirement but you don't need to pay one of the major vendors for tools.
Reply