Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Oliver Keyes wrote:
I would disagree that the scale does not match. I'm not sure how many 
people the fundraising banners reach, but I imagine it's a subset of 
people who use wikipedia. Almost /all/ of our external links are going 
to be linking to somewhere with a non-compliant privacy policy.


I'm not sure about fundraising banners, but I know for a fact that the 
Wiki Loves Monuments campaign last September, which used fairly 
unintrisive banners as compared to the fundraising ones and was only 
visible in 35 countries (including some big countries, but not all of 
them) received around 200,000 pageviews /every single day/, and this 
number does not reflect on all countries since some of them used Google 
Analytics which I don't have any statistics about.


Fundraising banners, which are much more intrusive and are visible on a 
higher percentage of page loads certainly have a wider reach than that, 
and directing people to a page that infringes their privacy (even if 
just a small percentage of them actually click on the video play button) 
still is just evil, especially as there ways to avoid that.


I agree that most of our external links probably link to pages with 
non-compliant privacy policies, but (1) they are not visible on top of 
your browser window and (2) this isn't anything that the WMF can control 
anyway.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Ryan Lane
A few clarifications inline.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 On the fundraising team we had used banners to host still images (.jpgs) in
 the past. We wanted to make a video we could put into banners but in July
 2012 there was no open source HTML5 video player built into mediawiki.
 .Webm was not deployed on commons and I was told that Wikimedia did not
 have the technical capabilities to host video on that scale.


TimedMediaHandler had been deployed around this time, a while before the
blog post was written. I had looked through the threads related to the
banners to confirm this.


 Nevertheless I insisted and wanted to use open source video. I thought it
 was crazy that every other site on the internet could do this and we
 couldn't. Basically I asked everyone I could find at WMF who had anything
 to do with open source video (a little bit abruptly) 'Pretty please with
 sugar on top can we make open-source video work for Wikimedia?'

 Rob Lanphier told me that (the technical elements of this were over my
 head) we were painfully close to having .webm done, and it was going to be
 a bunch of details for his team to fix.

 I got in touch with Michael Dale and told him that if Kaltura could make
 .webm a reality, the fundraiser would be his first 'customer' - when I say
 that all I meant was that the fundraiser would be the first to use the
 video format on a mass scale.


Replace webm with h264. The threads all mentioned that the video formats we
support wouldn't work for mobile, and we'd need to look at adding h264
support to TimedMediaHandler. h264 is a proprietary format and it would
have been necessary for that to go through legal and some other hoops.

The end-result is the same, though. It was impossible to provide an open
format to all users. It was likely easier to send people to youtube than to
deal with the issues around h264.


 In November 2012, the new player was deployed:


 http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/08/introducing-wikipedias-new-html5-video-player/

 My thanks to everyone who made it happen - we actually had a player that
 would work on many (but not all) devices and it had the added benefit of
 open source closed captions, which I had never seen anywhere else. It was
 awesome, but the reality of it was that WMF just didn't have enough servers
 or bandwidth to support video on that scale - even if it was open source.
 Everyone in the engineering department who I spoke to agreed that it was
 impossible. I had to speak to the legal department about embedding a video
 from a third party (if that was even possible). I was told that if we were
 to have a link from a third party, on each and every video we would have to
 provide this disclaimer:


Threads indicate that we had enough bandwidth and ops was interested in
seeing the load associated with this. I thought we had some issues with
varnish or squid, but searching my email indicates that we had video issues
when moving upload.wm.o to varnish (which was much later). At the time in
question we likely would have been able to handle the load.


 This video is hosted by YouTube.com subject to its Terms of
 Usehttp://www.youtube.com/t/terms
  and Privacy Policy http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/. If
 you prefer,view on Wikimedia
 Commonshttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Thank_You/Dumisani_Ndubane
 .

 I disliked this workaround because it was inelegant and counter to the open
 source philosophy of Wikimedia, *but it would function*. It would play the
 video on a large scale to millions of potential viewers and if users didn't
 want to use Youtube.com a link to the video on Commons would be under each
 and every video.

 When the banner went live in late December


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true

 , it was great that it worked. I thought maybe this might spark
 conversations about open source video within the Wikimedia community and
 (to be really honest Tomasz) I was expecting to see this thread start the
 moment that the banners went live, because I think it is something that the
 community should concern itself with. Video production is something that
 every smartphone owner now has in their pocket. Think about where that will
 be in ten years.

 Even if it's a site that could mine data, I disagree that just providing
 links is a bad thing. How many links at the bottom of Wikipedia articles
 provide links to all kinds of sites that mine data? Those pages don't link
 to the policies of those sites, they just show an external link. To be
 fair, Yes it's a prominent, big button that we linked to Youtube.com and
 the disclaimer link to commons is small text. I'm a visual person and I
 like to avoid text if I have a big flashy button to click instead.

 In my view, this whole argument would provide reason to:
 1.) Only use a third party video option sparingly, as-needed until there
 are better open-source video 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Tilman Bayer
I'd like to hijack this thread a bit to advertise
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:YouTube_files , for cases
when one sees a freely licensed video on YouTube that ought to be on
Commons too. With WebM available both  on YouTube (as one of several
download formats, for many videos) and on Commons (as upload format),
the transfer has become a lot easier, eliminating the time-consuming
conversion with ffmpeg2theora etc. And since earlier this year, the
chunked upload option on Commons allows uploading files beyond the
earlier 100MB limit (up to 500 MB currently).

It's admittedly offtopic here,  as in this case the video was
available both on Commons and on YT from the beginning, as Tomasz and
Victor have said. But for example I have noticed that some chapters
are uploading event videos to YT or Vimeo only, and it's also useful
for Google Hangout recordings, like those of the monthly metrics 
activities meetings.

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 Hi,
 it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
 been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people by
 default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube iframe /
 element.

 There's been a small discussion about this on IRC, and I've been asked to
 seek the opinion of the wider community on this matter, which I hope to
 achieve by starting a thread on this list.

 I wonder how the solution used in the banners reflects on our values,
 especially since we prefer to use a proprietary service over our own
 Wikimedia Commons, and effectively invite our users to expose their data
 (such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's going to
 read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).

 I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to prefer
 YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I generally
 think that we should not include links to websites that can track our users
 in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that use Google Analytics
 for statistical purposes) definitely falls under that definition.

 [On an unrelated note, it might be worth pointing out that the video on
 YouTube is listed as CC-BY and as CC-BY-SA on Commons, which introduces
 confusion and might lead to creation of derivative works that are released
 without the ShareAlike clause, which - I believe - it's not what the author
 of the video was after.]

 == References ==
 * [1]
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true

   Tomasz

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe



-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Operations Analyst (Movement Communications)
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Steven Walling
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 In my view, this whole argument would provide reason to:
 1.) Only use a third party video option sparingly, as-needed until there
 are better open-source video options to use.
 2.) Put more resources into open source video.


On a positive note, it seems like progress on #2 is hopefully around the
corner, with the new Multimedia team being staffed.[1]

1.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/04/08/breaking-through-walls-of-text-richer-wikimedia-experience/
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread K. Peachey
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
 The fundraising team is very careful about making banners that the editors
 don't notice. Trying to check how the banners are doing is like playing hide
 and seek, and only a true masochist would do so given how invasive they are.
 It's better to try and forget they exist.

Yes, I will just forget about that big bright yellow/orangy banner
whenever I view wikipedia at the place I volunteer.

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann
* Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has 
been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people 
by default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube 
iframe / element.

I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to 
prefer YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I 
generally think that we should not include links to websites that can 
track our users in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that 
use Google Analytics for statistical purposes) definitely falls under 
that definition.

There is a huge difference between a a link and an iframe to a third
party site. The third party would receive information in the a case
only if someone clicks the link to go to the third party site, while the
iframe would usually cause information to be sent without action.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjo...@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Ziko van Dijk
Dear Victor,

Thank you for the great explanation. I myself have often experienced
problems with the videos on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons, especially on a
mobile device. So if youtube makes it (realistically) possible that people
can our videos, I am fine with that. You pointed out rightly that Wikipedia
articles have external links too, although the analogy may not fit 100%.

Sometimes discussions about FLOSS reminds me of some Esperanto speakers who
prefer it if communication does not happen at all, if in the wrong language
(such as English)...

Kind regards
Ziko






Ziko van Dijk
voorzitter / president Wikimedia Nederland
deputy chair Wikimedia Chapters Association Council

Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland
Postbus 167
3500 AD Utrecht
http://wikimedia.nl



2013/7/17 K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com

 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
 nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
  The fundraising team is very careful about making banners that the
 editors
  don't notice. Trying to check how the banners are doing is like playing
 hide
  and seek, and only a true masochist would do so given how invasive they
 are.
  It's better to try and forget they exist.

 Yes, I will just forget about that big bright yellow/orangy banner
 whenever I view wikipedia at the place I volunteer.

 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Bence Damokos
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

 However, as you correctly write, that banner only served those millions of
 our viewers a cached image that was uploaded to donate.wm.org (so it was
 cached the usual way) and /only/ if they had clicked the play button were
 they served the full video. I'm no specialist when it comes to server
 loads, but if YouTube does not lie to me, that particular video was viewed
 only 78,000 times, which does not seem that much.


As far as I understand, YouTube does not count views when the video is
played automatically (as happened in the banner when a person clicked on
the placeholder image), so the actual view count is probably quite higher.
(Don't know if  Wikimedia servers would have been able to handle it at the
time.)

Best regards,
Bence
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Victor Grigas


On Jul 17, 2013, at 6:50 AM, Bence Damokos bdamo...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:
 
 However, as you correctly write, that banner only served those millions of
 our viewers a cached image that was uploaded to donate.wm.org (so it was
 cached the usual way) and /only/ if they had clicked the play button were
 they served the full video. I'm no specialist when it comes to server
 loads, but if YouTube does not lie to me, that particular video was viewed
 only 78,000 times, which does not seem that much.
 
 As far as I understand, YouTube does not count views when the video is
 played automatically (as happened in the banner when a person clicked on
 the placeholder image), so the actual view count is probably quite higher.
 (Don't know if  Wikimedia servers would have been able to handle it at the
 time.)
 

This requires an explanation- so this particular banner was live for (If memory 
serves) three or four days in 5 mostly English-speaking countries only. This 
was because much of the material surrounding the video was written in English, 
and there was a lot of it, so translation would have been slow, expensive and 
prone to error.

Also, auto play of video was something totally out of the question, even if it 
was from commons. We didn't want users to load a Wikipedia page to have video 
(and audio) start playing without them clicking it. I wouldn't want that myself.

So, we did not have a video that auto-played, but none of us knew at the time 
that the view counter on YouTube would be inaccurate. We learned that YouTube 
does not count views from embedded videos on external sites. (The actual view 
count for that video is more like around half a million views.) 


 Best regards,
 Bence
 ___
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
 mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Bence Damokos
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net
 wrote:

 Victor Grigas wrote:

  This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
  written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
  have been slow, expensive and prone to error.

 That's what community translations are perfect for; they are free (in
 terms of licence) and gratis (in terms of WMF costs), and if properly
 managed might be quick in creation and might not contain too many errors
 (just require a peer review before publishing).


  We learned that YouTube does not count views from embedded videos on
  external sites. (The actual view count for that video is more like
  around half a million views.)

 My Wikipedia nature tells me to ask you for a source that can back up
 these claims; both for the number of views and the fact that YouTube does
 not count views from videos embedded in iframe / elements. I'd personally
 be very suprised if they didn't; lots and lots of websites include their
 videos that way, and not counting views would result in serious
 miscalculations that would go into tens (or perhaps hundreds) of millions.


https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1714329?hl=en  Note that just
active views will be counted and that it won’t include views from videos
set to autoplay.

Best regards,
Bence



   Tomasz


 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=**unsubscribe

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Victor Grigas


On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:48 AM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net 
wrote:

 Victor Grigas wrote:
 
  This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
  written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
  have been slow, expensive and prone to error.
 
 That's what community translations are perfect for; they are free (in terms 
 of licence) and gratis (in terms of WMF costs), and if properly managed might 
 be quick in creation and might not contain too many errors (just require a 
 peer review before publishing).
 
  We learned that YouTube does not count views from embedded videos on
  external sites. (The actual view count for that video is more like
  around half a million views.)
 
 My Wikipedia nature tells me to ask you for a source that can back up these 
 claims; both for the number of views and the fact that YouTube does not count 
 views from videos embedded in iframe / elements. I'd personally be very 
 suprised if they didn't; lots and lots of websites include their videos that 
 way, and not counting views would result in serious miscalculations that 
 would go into tens (or perhaps hundreds) of millions.
 

http://m.techcrunch.com/2008/07/18/does-google-know-how-to-count-some-youtube-views-dont-seem-to-register/

  Tomasz
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Bence Damokos wrote:

https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/1714329?hl=en  Note that just 
active views will be counted and that it won’t include views from videos 
set to autoplay. 


The video that was included in the banners was not set to autoplay, so I 
can hardly see your point.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-17 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Victor Grigas wrote:

 This was because much of the material surrounding the video was
 written in English, and there was a lot of it, so translation would
 have been slow, expensive and prone to error.

That's what community translations are perfect for; they are free (in 
terms of licence) and gratis (in terms of WMF costs), and if properly 
managed might be quick in creation and might not contain too many errors 
(just require a peer review before publishing).


 We learned that YouTube does not count views from embedded videos on
 external sites. (The actual view count for that video is more like
 around half a million views.)

My Wikipedia nature tells me to ask you for a source that can back up 
these claims; both for the number of views and the fact that YouTube 
does not count views from videos embedded in iframe / elements. I'd 
personally be very suprised if they didn't; lots and lots of websites 
include their videos that way, and not counting views would result in 
serious miscalculations that would go into tens (or perhaps hundreds) of 
millions.


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

[Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Hi,
it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has 
been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people 
by default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube 
iframe / element.


There's been a small discussion about this on IRC, and I've been asked 
to seek the opinion of the wider community on this matter, which I hope 
to achieve by starting a thread on this list.


I wonder how the solution used in the banners reflects on our values, 
especially since we prefer to use a proprietary service over our own 
Wikimedia Commons, and effectively invite our users to expose their data 
(such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's 
going to read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).


I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to 
prefer YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I 
generally think that we should not include links to websites that can 
track our users in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that 
use Google Analytics for statistical purposes) definitely falls under 
that definition.


[On an unrelated note, it might be worth pointing out that the video on 
YouTube is listed as CC-BY and as CC-BY-SA on Commons, which introduces 
confusion and might lead to creation of derivative works that are 
released without the ShareAlike clause, which - I believe - it's not 
what the author of the video was after.]


== References ==
* [1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true


  Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Oliver Keyes
From what I understand the technical limitations are actually real; mostly
they operate around throwing the number of donors (or potential donors) we
get at the video.

(Having said that, I'm neither opsen nor fundraising, and will promptly
cram it. But: to the best of my knowledge there is a lot of reasoned
thinking behind the decision)


On 17 July 2013 03:44, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:

 Hi,
 it came to my attention very recently that a link to a YouTube video has
 been included in our fundraising banners[1] last year, enabling people by
 default to watch a video about Wikipedia loaded through a YouTube iframe
 / element.

 There's been a small discussion about this on IRC, and I've been asked to
 seek the opinion of the wider community on this matter, which I hope to
 achieve by starting a thread on this list.

 I wonder how the solution used in the banners reflects on our values,
 especially since we prefer to use a proprietary service over our own
 Wikimedia Commons, and effectively invite our users to expose their data
 (such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's going
 to read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).

 I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to
 prefer YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I
 generally think that we should not include links to websites that can track
 our users in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that use Google
 Analytics for statistical purposes) definitely falls under that definition.

 [On an unrelated note, it might be worth pointing out that the video on
 YouTube is listed as CC-BY and as CC-BY-SA on Commons, which introduces
 confusion and might lead to creation of derivative works that are released
 without the ShareAlike clause, which - I believe - it's not what the author
 of the video was after.]

 == References ==
 * [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_**
 ThankYou_5pillars**forceBannerDisplay=truehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true

   Tomasz

 __**_
 Wikimedia-l mailing list
 Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.**org Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 Unsubscribe: 
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
 mailto:wikimedia-l-request@**lists.wikimedia.orgwikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
 ?subject=**unsubscribe




-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Fajro
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
 (such as their IP address) to an external website (because no one's going to
 read the small information about YouTube privacy policy).

Except for the good people of tosdr.org:

http://tosdr.org/#youtube
http://tosdr.org/blog/suzanne-youtube.html


 I am told that there are technical limitations behind the decision to prefer
 YouTube over Commons, but I'm not really convinced about that; I generally
 think that we should not include links to websites that can track our users
 in our banners, and YouTube (as well as websites that use Google Analytics
 for statistical purposes) definitely falls under that definition.

+1
Youtube does not need free advertising on Wikipedia.

Also, why the Wikimedia shop uses Shopify.com instead of the many FOSS
alternatives?
http://shop.wikimedia.org/


--
Fajro

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread James Alexander

 Also, why the Wikimedia shop uses Shopify.com instead of the many FOSS
 alternatives?
 http://shop.wikimedia.org/



I have transitioned away from the shop (it's now moving to the fundraising
team) so the future of that is in their hands but I can say that the
biggest thing was that the FOSS alternatives required more resources then
we were able to give at the time and the decision was made that getting it
up and running made a lot more sense then not doing anything for now. There
are a couple very powerful FOSS options for stores that I would love to see
us move to eventually (and would offer us more then we are getting now to
be honest) but they will require some investments of time/money/staff
resources that we need to decide are worth it and that question is not easy.

James


James Alexander
Legal and Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation
(415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Oliver Keyes
On 17 July 2013 04:12, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:


 Youtube does not need free advertising on Wikipedia.


To be frank,[1] youtube has twice our annual unique visitors every /month/.
I would agree: they don't need advertising.

[1] my apologies to Frank - I'll be Oliver from hereonin

-- 
Oliver Keyes
Community Liaison, Product Development
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Victor Grigas
Hi Tomasz  everyone else,

I think it's appropriate I respond to this issue, since it was the video
that I directed that was used in the campaign last year that you talk about.

So last year at Wikimania in Washington D.C. (July 2012) my team conducted
a series of interviews with around 100 Wikipedians which resulted in a
series of videos being produced:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Impact_Of_Wikipedia.webm
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Impact_of_Wikipedia
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Thank_You_All

Once I took a breath after all the video production was done at Wikimania,
I started to evaluate what our options were for where this video could go.

On the fundraising team we had used banners to host still images (.jpgs) in
the past. We wanted to make a video we could put into banners but in July
2012 there was no open source HTML5 video player built into mediawiki.
.Webm was not deployed on commons and I was told that Wikimedia did not
have the technical capabilities to host video on that scale.

Nevertheless I insisted and wanted to use open source video. I thought it
was crazy that every other site on the internet could do this and we
couldn't. Basically I asked everyone I could find at WMF who had anything
to do with open source video (a little bit abruptly) 'Pretty please with
sugar on top can we make open-source video work for Wikimedia?'

Rob Lanphier told me that (the technical elements of this were over my
head) we were painfully close to having .webm done, and it was going to be
a bunch of details for his team to fix.

I got in touch with Michael Dale and told him that if Kaltura could make
.webm a reality, the fundraiser would be his first 'customer' - when I say
that all I meant was that the fundraiser would be the first to use the
video format on a mass scale.

In November 2012, the new player was deployed:

http://blog.wikimedia.org/2012/11/08/introducing-wikipedias-new-html5-video-player/

My thanks to everyone who made it happen - we actually had a player that
would work on many (but not all) devices and it had the added benefit of
open source closed captions, which I had never seen anywhere else. It was
awesome, but the reality of it was that WMF just didn't have enough servers
or bandwidth to support video on that scale - even if it was open source.
Everyone in the engineering department who I spoke to agreed that it was
impossible. I had to speak to the legal department about embedding a video
from a third party (if that was even possible). I was told that if we were
to have a link from a third party, on each and every video we would have to
provide this disclaimer:

This video is hosted by YouTube.com subject to its Terms of
Usehttp://www.youtube.com/t/terms
 and Privacy Policy http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/. If
you prefer,view on Wikimedia
Commonshttp://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Thank_You/Dumisani_Ndubane
.

I disliked this workaround because it was inelegant and counter to the open
source philosophy of Wikimedia, *but it would function*. It would play the
video on a large scale to millions of potential viewers and if users didn't
want to use Youtube.com a link to the video on Commons would be under each
and every video.

When the banner went live in late December

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?banner=B12_1227_ThankYou_5pillarsforceBannerDisplay=true

, it was great that it worked. I thought maybe this might spark
conversations about open source video within the Wikimedia community and
(to be really honest Tomasz) I was expecting to see this thread start the
moment that the banners went live, because I think it is something that the
community should concern itself with. Video production is something that
every smartphone owner now has in their pocket. Think about where that will
be in ten years.

Even if it's a site that could mine data, I disagree that just providing
links is a bad thing. How many links at the bottom of Wikipedia articles
provide links to all kinds of sites that mine data? Those pages don't link
to the policies of those sites, they just show an external link. To be
fair, Yes it's a prominent, big button that we linked to Youtube.com and
the disclaimer link to commons is small text. I'm a visual person and I
like to avoid text if I have a big flashy button to click instead.

In my view, this whole argument would provide reason to:
1.) Only use a third party video option sparingly, as-needed until there
are better open-source video options to use.
2.) Put more resources into open source video.

As for the licensing options on YouTube -- There are only 2 licensing
options that YouTube provides and nevertheless people have used that video
in creative ways:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbfGP43bjI

I'm also aware that the German chapter produced a very nice video last year
as well that links from Vimeo.com that displays on their homepage:

http://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Hauptseite

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Philippe Beaudette
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Victor Grigas vgri...@wikimedia.orgwrote:

 My thanks to everyone who made it happen - we actually had a player that
 would work on many (but not all) devices and it had the added benefit of
 open source closed captions, which I had never seen anywhere else. It was
 awesome, but the reality of it was that WMF just didn't have enough servers
 or bandwidth to support video on that scale - even if it was open source.
 Everyone in the engineering department who I spoke to agreed that it was
 impossible. I had to speak to the legal department about embedding a video
 from a third party (if that was even possible). I was told that if we were
 to have a link from a third party, on each and every video we would have to
 provide this disclaimer:



The other bit that Victor didn't mention (and I was in the room for these
meetings too) is that the links that were used were Youtube's privacy
enhanced mode links.  They don't actually store any user data unless the
user plays the video (and ours weren't set to play by default) - you had to
choose to play them, presumably after you read the disclaimer that Victor
mentions.  There was certainly informed consent there - I may be
misremembering, but I believe all the videos were also hosted on commons as
well, so that one could search and watch them there instead.  Victor could
confirm that, though.

pb


*Philippe Beaudette * \\  Director, Community Advocacy \\ Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc.
 T : 1-415-839-6885 x6643 |  phili...@wikimedia.org  |  :
@Philippewikihttps://twitter.com/Philippewiki
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Use of YouTube videos in fundraising banners

2013-07-16 Thread Tomasz W. Kozlowski

Hi Victor,
thanks for your e-mail, I does indeed provide a lot of valuable 
background information!


I'm being told that the technical limitations I mentioned in my opening 
e-mail are somehow related to Squid and Varnish (the caching software we 
use) and our infrastructure being unable to serve videos at this scale.


However, as you correctly write, that banner only served those millions 
of our viewers a cached image that was uploaded to donate.wm.org (so it 
was cached the usual way) and /only/ if they had clicked the play button 
were they served the full video. I'm no specialist when it comes to 
server loads, but if YouTube does not lie to me, that particular video 
was viewed only 78,000 times, which does not seem that much.


The solution that was used was indeed inelegant and contrary to our free 
culture (not the open source crap) values; effectively, people were 
directed to use a proprietary service which (1) infringes their privacy, 
(2) does not even allow to correctly licence the video. (I wonder if the 
author of the remix is aware that their work should be released under 
CC-BY-SA.)


I can't speak about others, but I block fundraising banners by default 
and did not see that until Steven W. mentioned it to me at the 2013/14 
WMF budget discussion page on Meta.


Providing links to websites that hurt our readers' and users' privacy 
directly from banners which are visible to tens of millions of them /is 
an evil thing/ and cannot be compared to including links inside 
Wikipedia articles; the scales just don't match. This includes linking 
to websites that use Google Analytics to track their visits as well as 
websites such as YouTube which use different techniques to achieve this 
goal (and perhaps some others as well).


Giving users a very visible 'play' button and adding a short sentence 
about privacy is not that far from that; nobody's going to read it, and 
even if they do, they might not be exactly aware of what those long 
documents written in complicated legalese mean.


I believe that in addition to the two options you mentioned, there is 
also a third way: not to include any videos unless we are capable of 
using our own resources, ie. serving people content governed by our own 
privacy policy and served by our own machines.


(I see that Philippe sent another e-mail in the meantime; let me just 
mention that /not/ autoplaying videos on page load is no achievement; 
/playing/ them, on the other hand, is a good reason for painful death 
and reincarnation as a demon. Also, uploading videos to Commons without 
actually using them and preferring a proprietary service is in no way 
better.)


   Tomasz

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe