[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

;> -- >> *From:* Samuel Klein >> *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2024 8:56 AM >> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List >> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are >> doing it wrong >> >> Thoughtful mirroring would

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

pproach is "don't do anything".  A complete waste of time. Galder From: Samuel Klein <meta...@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2024 8:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: w

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

l Klein > *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2024 8:56 AM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are > doing it wrong > > Thoughtful mirroring would address some of Amir's concerns. (Amir: which > ones remain?) > > Co

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

_ From: Samuel Klein Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2024 8:56 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong Thoughtful mirroring would address some of Amir's concerns. (Amir: which ones remain?) Could you use the gadget wit

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Thoughtful mirroring would address some of Amir's concerns. (Amir: which ones remain?) Could you use the gadget with a mirror? On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 1:50 PM James Heilman wrote: > The other option would be to have a copy of the OWID software on our own > servers (it is all openly licensed).

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Very well, I just deactivated the gadget from the Spanish Wikipedia and removed the now broken template from the two articles that used it, until some decision is made about it. I shared my views at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:OWID_Gadget#Three_ideas, in case anyone's interested. Kind

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

The other option would be to have a copy of the OWID software on our own servers (it is all openly licensed). We tried this sort of with the OWID mirror which you can see here on the wmcloud https://owidm.wmcloud.org/ And functional within a mediawiki install here

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

(Not Andy, but a global interface admin in my volunteer capacity) Hi, The difference is that here the third party code is being run under the context of Wikipedia. That means even with sandboxing mitigation such as iframe (which has been broken before), it's much easier to break out and collect

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hey Andy How is the risk any different than having a reference for a graph that includes a url which links to OWID? When one clicks on such a url it brings you to OWID and shares your IP address with them. We have millions of references that include urls without warnings or consent before

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hello Andy,There was a solution involving adding the software to our own platform instead of loading it. It was dismissed by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's not disappointment the word I'm looking for.BestGalder2024(e)ko api. 26(a) 21:38 erabiltzaileak hau idatzi du (acoo...@wikimedia.org):Hello

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hello everyone, I’m Andy Cooper, the Director of Security at the Wikimedia Foundation. Over the past week, teams within the Wikimedia Foundation have met to discuss the potential legal, security, and privacy risks from the OWID gadget introduced on this thread. We’re still looking into the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hey Andy We have added alt text https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Template:OWID Not sure how well the OWID website works with screen-readers. Would be interested in hearing feedback regarding this. James On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 5:51 AM Andy Mabbett wrote: > On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 22:14, James

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 at 22:14, James Heilman wrote: > > We have Interactive graphs from OWID working What are the accessibility implications of presenting data in this manner? How is the data available to people with a visual impairment, for instance? Has anyone done an audit, to check

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

nabled the template on the Spanish Wikipedia (see >>>>> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantilla:OWID) but we're having some >>>>> local trouble with template gadgets so it's not working right now. I >>>>> should >>>>> be able to fix it in

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

ut we're having some local >>>>> trouble with template gadgets so it's not working right now. I should be >>>>> able to fix it in the next few hours. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga >>&

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

gt;> >>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 6:34 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < >>>> galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks, James, for all the work done, >>>>> We now have 14 articles with interactive graphs, as we are explor

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

w have 14 articles with interactive graphs, as we are exploring >>>> this new feature: >>>> https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategoria:Our_World_in_Data_grafikoak_dituzten_artikuluak. >>>> The deployment is pretty easy, it took around 10 minutes with only four >>>> th

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

>>> The deployment is pretty easy, it took around 10 minutes with only four >>> things: a template, a css, a js and a gadget definition. This is so simple, >>> that I think it should be implemented by everyone. >>> >>> We should think on how we make it multilingu

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

think it should be implemented by everyone. >> >> We should think on how we make it multilingual. >> >> Thanks again to all the members of WikiProject Med for the step forward. >> >> Galder >> ------ >> *From:* James Heilman &

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

t; Thanks again to all the members of WikiProject Med for the step forward. > > Galder > -- > *From:* James Heilman > *Sent:* Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:14 PM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive con

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Heilman Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:14 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong We have Interactive graphs from OWID working on Basque Wikipedia, following a consent popup. https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haurdunaldi

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

We have Interactive graphs from OWID working on Basque Wikipedia, following a consent popup. https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haurdunaldi#Nerabezaroa Still need to figure out a way to make them multilingual. -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian ___

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

o years ago, and this seems that a good option to add some > interactive content. Anyway, I have tried to replicate it and can't make it > work (https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Txantiloi:Vivarium). Is the > documentation right? > > Best > > Galder > ------ > *

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

_ From: Samuel Klein Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2024 3:37 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong Beautiful. Thank you Felipe!!  On Sat, Mar 23, 2024, 5:54 AM Felipe Schenone mailto:scheno...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Ga

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

kipedia.org/wiki/Txantiloi:Vivarium). Is the >> documentation right? >> >> Best >> >> Galder >> -- >> *From:* Felipe Schenone >> *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2024 10:39 PM >> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List >> *Subje

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

ipe Schenone > *Sent:* Friday, March 22, 2024 10:39 PM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are > doing it wrong > > Hi everyone, good news! > > Thanks to this humble change > <https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/med

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

right? Best Galder From: Felipe Schenone Sent: Friday, March 22, 2024 10:39 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong Hi everyone, good news! Thanks to this humble change<ht

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi everyone, good news! Thanks to this humble change (deployed today) it is now possible to load a specific gadget when a specific template is used in a page. This opens the door (or perhaps a window?) to interactive

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

> -- > *From:* James Heilman > *Sent:* Sunday, February 25, 2024 11:00 AM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are > doing it wrong > > But... > > We have managed to put maps i

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

move anywhere. Galder From: James Heilman Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2024 11:00 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong But... We have managed to put maps into Wikivoyage

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

is already written in the annual plan. Claiming that there's no budget >> is also a bad move, because we don't know how much would this cost. In >> fact, knowing the cost would be the result of having a plan, but if there's >> no plan, we can't know if we can pay for it. >> >&

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

or is something that could be payed for. > > Thanks > > Galder > -- > *From:* Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:09 AM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactiv

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

is totally out of scope, or is something that could be payed for. Thanks Galder From: Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 9:09 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi everyone, I agree that Wikipedia needs to spend a few quarters spending time on our main product. The website is very impressively still the top result of a huge number of searches and in this new AI age; despite the controversy around it, wikipedia is the top source for many LLMs. Therefore

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

I agree with Butch Bustria. Considering that the WMF is not short of funds, and there appears to be adequate funds to establish fund deposits outside WMF and fund third party organisations not directly involved in the core vision of the Movement, i.e. to make the sum of human knowledge available

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi I just like to highlight one point, that raises concerns; perhaps enabling other platforms/apps to use our content to make interactive or video materials there. While this sounds like an easy solution we run into a number of hidden costs. These are significant when we push for reusers to

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

e other priorities we’ve been working on") because we have been solving other issues is the worst news we can have. Have a nice day Galder * ________________ From: Butch Bustria Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2024 5:19 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive con

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi Everyone, My earnest hope that the Wikimedia Foundation on its 2024-2025 Annual Financial Plan prioritize and I mean put first among all is the technical infrastructure among all its budgetary items. We can scale down budgets to 3rd party organizations like the Knowledge Equity Fund, Movement

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Thanks for weighing in, Marshall! I agree wholeheartedly that we need to do a proper architecture for a sandbox for interactive media, that will be safe (first and foremost), perform well in the browser, work across device types (desktop web, mobile web, mobile apps), and maintain our key

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi everyone – My name is Marshall Miller, I am a Senior Director of Product at the Wikimedia Foundation, and I work with many of the teams that are involved with the user experience of our websites and apps, such as the Editing, Web, Growth, and Mobile Apps teams (among others) [1]. I’m part of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

We at Wiki Project Med Foundation are looking for contractors to work on aspects of this problem. Reach out if you are interested. James On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 3:32 AM Paulo Santos Perneta wrote: > WMF is doing it wrong, not we. > Many people in the movement have been alerting to this

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

WMF is doing it wrong, not we. Many people in the movement have been alerting to this situation over the years, apparently to deaf ears. Paulo Felipe Schenone escreveu (quinta, 1/02/2024 à(s) 07:09): > Well, perhaps you'll be elated to know then that the grants for tech seem > to have been

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Well, perhaps you'll be elated to know then that the grants for tech seem to have been removed after many months of waiting for them

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Before the WMF starts hiring, we need to be very clear exactly what pathways and objectives we want to pursue, along with what functions should be internally maintained. With that what happens with community built tools that cross over from great tools to essential community infrastructure that

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

I also think the WMF should prioritize hiring more developers over other roles and expenditures. The WMF has only a few hundred developers while other top sites have many thousands. While this efficiency is something to be proud of, it evidently comes at a cost. El mié., 31 de ene. de 2024 4:08

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 1:27 AM Gergő Tisza wrote: > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:57 PM Ori Livneh wrote: > >> If we're collecting exemplars, I'd like to add Bartosz >> Ciechanowski's superlative articles , >> like the ones on bicycles

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi Just chiming into this discussion on *Graphs*. During the pandemic, I devoted much time on Wikidata building large datasets such as poverty incidence data and financial data. It is live now with at least being queried in 1700 Wikipedia articles multiplied by 8 languages and one chart contain

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:57 PM Ori Livneh wrote: > If we're collecting exemplars, I'd like to add Bartosz > Ciechanowski's superlative articles , > like the ones on bicycles and sound > . His

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:03 PM Galder Gonzalez Larrañaga < galder...@hotmail.com> wrote: > We have plenty of roadmaps, but no vehicle to reach our destination. > Seven years ago, we were discussing our Strategy for 2030. We used > thousands of volunteer hours, thousands of staff hours and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 2:52 PM Samuel Klein wrote: > Galder: fair enough, let's keep this thread for interactive content. > Brion's excellent suggestions deserve their own thread. > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:14 PM James Heilman wrote: > >> With respect to OWID, one can see the interactive

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Galder: fair enough, let's keep this thread for interactive content. Brion's excellent suggestions deserve their own thread. On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 1:14 PM James Heilman wrote: > With respect to OWID, one can see the interactive graphs working within a > mediawiki environment here

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

gt;extremely weird, because both are our projects. > > > So, we have two different problems. Video playing is quite evident. But > lack of interactivity will add to the cost, because there are other > platforms doing it way better. > > I would really like to have an answer by t

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

_ From: Ivan Martínez Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 8:25 AM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong It is not difficult to do something that is already happening. By referring to encyclopedic videos I am talking a

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Den tis 30 jan. 2024 kl 02:37 skrev effe iets anders < effeietsand...@gmail.com>: > I can see one solution to that (albeit farfetched): an analogue to a super > rigorous referencing approach. I am imagining it's possible to verify in an > automated way that an edited video is exclusively

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

It is not difficult to do something that is already happening. By referring to encyclopedic videos I am talking about multimedia that can enrich existing content. I understand your point, it's a bit like what happened with the project of reading recorded Wikipedia articles that after years seem

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Thanks Asaf, very true: I can totally see how the copyright issue would remain a big problem, even if you solve the technical challenges... I can see one solution to that (albeit farfetched): an analogue to a super rigorous referencing approach. I am imagining it's possible to verify in an

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 10:29 PM geni wrote: > On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 05:07, Samuel Klein wrote: > > > ? Many creators say they are glad to relicense their existing > fantastic work, but don't have time/will to overcome the current obstacles > to such reuse that they have to [personally]

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 at 05:07, Samuel Klein wrote: > ? Many creators say they are glad to relicense their existing fantastic > work, but don't have time/will to overcome the current obstacles to such > reuse that they have to [personally] overcome for each video. So we only get > bulk

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Sat, Jan 27, 2024 at 12:57 PM Erik Moeller wrote: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:44 AM Brion Vibber > wrote: > > 1) Overturn the requirement to avoid handling h.264 files on Wikimedia > servers or > > accept them from users or serve them to users. Allow importing h.264 > uploads > > and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:44 AM Brion Vibber wrote: > 1) Overturn the requirement to avoid handling h.264 files on Wikimedia > servers or > accept them from users or serve them to users. Allow importing h.264 uploads > and creating h.264 transcodes for playback compatibility. The last RFC [1]

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

>From my non-lawyer reading of the Wikipedia page on the topic, the patent is for the devices or hardware that reads the files, not on those that distribute or make the files. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Video_Coding Since we do not manufacture hardware. Not seeing the issue.

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 1:23 PM Kimmo Virtanen wrote: > Could somebody explain what is problem with VP9 or AV1 with WebM > container? These are supported in Wikimedia Commons. > OK, I will try to answer my own question: AV1 is technically superior to h.264 in terms of file size and quality as

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 2:53 AM Jan Ainali wrote: > Brion wrote: >> > 1) Overturn the requirement to avoid handling h.264 files on Wikimedia >> servers or accept them from users or serve them to users. Allow importing >> h.264 uploads and creating h.264 transcodes for playback compatibility. >>

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Yes, we have videos. And we even have video creation projects. https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari: Hezkuntza/Ikusgela is a good example of that.Still, those are multimedia but not interactive. And adding subtitles is complex (we could have a translation tool for those). We can't dub videos

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

And here we have >300 videos donated by Osmosis https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Videos_from_Osmosis James On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 11:45 AM Amir Sarabadani wrote: > Maybe people don't know but video donation happens in Wikimedia already > and it doesn't need to be from Youtubers. >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Maybe people don't know but video donation happens in Wikimedia already and it doesn't need to be from Youtubers. Here is my favorite example: German public broadcaster (ARD) donates short informational videos to Wikipedia and they are used in articles in German Wikipedia. They get a lot of

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On 1/26/24 12:05 PM, geni wrote: On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 22:24, Ivan Martínez wrote: By not having a Youtube 2.0 we are avoiding a Wikipedia 2.0 with pure encyclopaedic videos. I see a false dilemma there. Creating good encyclopaedic videos is from a video production point of view a far

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

I'm not an expert in multimedia codecs or patents so I leave the actual decision to people who know better (maybe legal team in WMF?) but according to tech news, major patents for mp4 have already expired and the rest will expire soon, a large batch of them expired in November 2023 and a major

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 at 22:24, Ivan Martínez wrote: > By not having a Youtube 2.0 we are avoiding a Wikipedia 2.0 with pure > encyclopaedic videos. I see a false dilemma there. Creating good encyclopaedic videos is from a video production point of view a far harder problem that dealing with the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 07:00, Gnangarra wrote: > Simple mp4 upload option would be a starting point, surely we are big enough > for any copyright holders to donate the licensing if wmf comes made a request > No. There are still members of the MP4 patent pool who expect that at some point they

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

weekends, Galder From: Kimmo Virtanen Sent: Friday, January 26, 2024 12:23 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong Hi, Could somebody explain what is problem with VP9 or AV1 with WebM

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi, Could somebody explain what is problem with VP9 or AV1 with WebM container? These are supported in Wikimedia Commons. Br, -- Kimmo Virtanen / Zache On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 11:05 PM Brion Vibber wrote: > Converting them to suitably compact files in h.264/aac in .MP4 format > would be by

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Bon dia/Hi, I don't want to add even more seriousness to the thread; I am happy to read that there is an absolute agreement on the topic. But interactivity is not only about embedding video: we currently must leave each project to Toolforge for supporting editing tools, to Humanwiki to read

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Den fre 26 jan. 2024 kl 04:10 skrev Samuel Klein : > > Brion wrote: > > 1) Overturn the requirement to avoid handling h.264 files on Wikimedia > servers or accept them from users or serve them to users. Allow importing > h.264 uploads and creating h.264 transcodes for playback compatibility. > >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi all, Who is in charge to make the call for this to happen? It just seems so necessary and yet, here we are. Video handling is not the future, is the present, and that's just the beginning... Cheers, On Fri, Jan 26, 2024, 00:10 Samuel Klein wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 9:51 PM Ivan

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 9:51 PM Ivan Martínez wrote: Strategy 2030 was clear that the way was in the opposite direction > > . > Absolutely. That has only become more true. (Happy new year, my friend.)

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

cess, which is the point of this message. > > Thanks > > Galder > > > -- > *From:* Yaroslav Blanter > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 24, 2024 5:59 PM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are > doing

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

bition and goals. Cheers, Galder From: James Heilman mailto:jmh...@gmail.com>> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:49 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List mailto:wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

ake directly images or videos from Commons. This has been >>>> known since... 2010! >>>> >>>> >>>>- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T27854 >>>>- https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T309101 >>>> >>>> >>>> Aga

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

ece of >>> code. The problem is lack of direction, ambition and goals. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Galder >>> -- >>> *From:* James Heilman >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:49 PM >>> *T

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

t;> Cheers, >> >> Galder >> -------------- >> *From:* James Heilman >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:49 PM >> *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List >> *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are >> doing it wrong &g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

> The problem is lack of direction, ambition and goals. > > Cheers, > > Galder > -- > *From:* James Heilman > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:49 PM > *To:* Wikimedia Mailing List > *Subject:* [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interact

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

s, Galder From: James Heilman Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 10:49 PM To: Wikimedia Mailing List Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong Yes we see this sentiment regarding a number of issues in our movement. The existing

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Yes we see this sentiment regarding a number of issues in our movement. The existing community wants to keep certain processes more difficult / time consuming to make sure that those involved in the process are sufficiently "dedicated". Maybe we just need a flag which can be given to allow

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Specifically related to video uploads, we had discussions on Commons on different strategic issues recently, in particular, about this. The general sentiment was, to my understanding (pls correct me if I am wrong) that Commons has no ambition to become Youtube 2.0 and we do not have any resources

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Converting them to suitably compact files in h.264/aac in .MP4 format would be by far the simplest way. Use ffmpeg as we do on the server side for online playback. Conforming to the arbitrary Wikimedia prohibition on h.264 you could use mpeg-4 visual instead, still in .mp4 - afaik patents are

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

It would be amazing if one could play videos on iPhones when the videos are within ZIMs in an offline environment aswell. Brion not sure what barriers there are to this currently? James On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 12:48 PM Paulo Santos Perneta < paulospern...@gmail.com> wrote: > Should read 2030

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Should read 2030 Strategy, not 2023 strategy, sorry. Paulo Santos Perneta escreveu (terça, 23/01/2024 à(s) 19:41): > I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. We are currently grappling > with rather rudimentary approaches when it comes to uploading and reusing > video and music files... >

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

My recommendations for Wikimedia Foundation on this subject: 1) Overturn the requirement to avoid handling h.264 files on Wikimedia servers or accept them from users or serve them to users. Allow importing h.264 uploads and creating h.264 transcodes for playback compatibility. 2) Create an

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. We are currently grappling with rather rudimentary approaches when it comes to uploading and reusing video and music files... The incredibly useful Graph has been down for quite some time. The extensive capabilities of Wikidata query representations,

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Also, note that Wikimedia can choose to ship h.264 files at any time, just like we use CPUs full of patented technology; not doing so is a choice the Commons community made in 2014 and we could revisit that choice in the light of the fact there's no actual downside of working with h.264 when we're

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hard email to read, but Galder's are quite of indisputable thoughts and the harsh reality of Wikimedia's technological state of the art. Yet this incontestability is, at the same time, the very profound problem: the WMF will not refute it, nor structurally change it, besides silences and

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

(What I *have* been able to do, with the help of volunteers and a little spare time from colleagues, is produce an iOS-compatible HTTP Live Streaming packaging for video transcodes. This gets full-featured video playback working on iPhones that are new enough to decode VP9, though may still have

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Agreed, there is a *lot* we could do if there were resources assigned to interactive media. -- brion On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 10:29 AM James Heilman wrote: > Thanks Galder > > As mentioned Wiki Project Med is working to improve some of these issues > this year, supported by funding from the

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Thanks Galder As mentioned Wiki Project Med is working to improve some of these issues this year, supported by funding from the WMF. 1) We are still trying to get OWID working on Wikipedia. Here is what it looks like on MDWiki . 2) We are also

[Wikimedia-l] Re: We need more interactive content: we are doing it wrong

Hi Galder, I certainly share your sentiment. The world is undoubtedly moving at such a speed that other sites have invested millions to make the experience better. But ours has millions as well, and those of us who edit on a day-to-day basis still have the worst internet experience when it comes