Firefogg and Video on Wikipedia

Impressive potential for open video on Wikipedia. How user-friendly are the tools, I wonder? If the barriers to entry are high for the user, then it becomes less open (something I've tussled with when discussing development of UGC video comments / uploads on the BBC website).

Also, will the form for edits be the same principle of Wikipedia pages or will a new guidance emerge for video?

Jimmy Wales just guest blogged on BBC's Digital Revolution project (an open source documentary about the web) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/digitalrevolution/2009/07/what-was-my-goal-when-i-came-u.shtml regards his views on there being an accepted elite in Wikipedia, which is well argued; will open video inspire further wikipedia hierarchies?

~danb

As I understand it the tools are not user friendly to the layman. And from what I’ve seen, relative to existing platforms - youtube, google video, vimeo, blip, and now a myriad of new streaming to download and embed services like Twitcam and Wetoku, along with hardware (iphone, and low cost vid. cameras etc..) packaged with software for seamless editing to publish makes the barrier to entry for open source video on Wikipedia almost TOO high. To use an analogy “closed” then represents the bell curve.

All bad? No, to the contrary, Wikipedia has no choice but to use an open video codec, a given, but the likeness of open codec is where we were 5 years ago with proprietary formats. If anything they’re forward thinking in their direction and that’s the inherent win with open source video on Wikipedia. In my own brief limited understanding of video on the web, codec, standards, formats evolve WMV, Real, Flash etc… next step, adaptation of open source video. At least that’s my hope.

I tend to agree with the viewpoint that hierarchies are in place and thriving in the Wiki community, even with Theora, and a plugin although be it Firefox a new tiered hierarchy will follow suit with video. As a result Wikipedia will eventually implement new standards. They may not do so readily but they’ll have no choice.

Video is a relatively new medium on Wikipedia, at least open source video, and with that, the requirement of a new set of standards. The challenge for Wikipedia and moderation is leveraging their existing policies, particularly their policy of “semi-protection”. Just looking at rich media content, I don’t see how the implementation of their existing photo policy, for example, will work with video. Video will require a new or hybrid set of standards – i.e. working within a framework that addresses the complexity of copyright for example.

What are the implications of a new set of standards on the community, and the very content that gets published and subsequently edited? Is it less or more open? Have you reviewed their standards for photos? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_use_policy A monumental challenge when it comes to video, particularly with issues of fairness, impartiality, parity between users, and above ALL, to your point, access.

More questions than answers I’m afraid to say. But it’s a fascinating to follow. I enjoy the articles on BBC Rev by the way, often tweeting them @benjaminjtaylor.

If you’re looking for services that may lower barriers to entry for UGC/Video comments on BBC look at new services like Twitcam and Wetoku. If I understand you correctly those services may work as a jumping off point.

Cheers.