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.
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
--
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
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo