Jump to content

Wikinews:Poll: Allow an embedded Player?

Add links
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

This is a poll to vote on whether to allow an embedded video player on Wikinews, made especially for Wkinews by Symode09. Embedded videos will not be used for every article (or at least not in the near future) but, will be used as a way to publish video wikinews which is not almost in shooting. The format is popular, fast loading (the preview is on a sluggish server and, is stoll fast loading. The quality is low because I stretched the video. (vidoe owned by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The security would not be a problem - It would be hosted within wikinews. A mock up of what it could possibly look like is located here.

If the video player is set up within wikinews (the mock up of what it could look like is set up and has no external sections. only a safe core and, then you simply need to upload the video... no linking etc like youtube. It would be extremely safe.

UPDATE If we allow an embeddable player, there willbe two made (to cater for the wider community), the video will play in a java and a flash flayer. Please reassess your vote. --Symode09 01:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that Brion said no, so a flash player is not happening regardless of this vote as far as I understand. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Votes

[edit]

Oppose Votes

[edit]

Comments

[edit]
This email I found as I was going through some lists [2] seems to indicate flash isn't free. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How many sites use flash? How many use java? Java permenantley need updates. --Symode09 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flash is free in the same way, you can use a picture you drew in paint. Are png images unfree (png a format, flash a format, both Adobe)) --Symode09 17:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PNG is created by the w3c I thought (the png standard). Flash from a technical point of view was created by Macromedia, and owned by adobe. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Point is we need a player...flash or not. DragonFire1024 17:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Flash is proprietary, it is not the same as paint which outputs a standard format. I can email a mac user a copy of a .bmp file, they'll have a selection of tools to open it with, likely none of them paint. with a .swf file you are at the mercy of Adobe. They define the standard and need not divulge it freely, all those author of Flash books that you see have likely paid for a copy of the specification and will have to pay again when it changes. Open standards such as Ogg and Theora have a published standard (as well as usually a reference implementation). This information is available freely, so anyone can build a player or encoder. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flash video will not be accepted on the site at this time given the current licensing and patent issues. (There is some lanning for conversion to Theora on upload if there isn't a legal issue there, and we are going to go ahead and finish integrating the Java player as well.) --brion 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in the audio player, that would be so much better than how we currently present audio reports. We could even have a latest headlines on the main page. Thanks for linking to that Bawolff, looks really good and gets round the proprietary nature of Flash. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually some free flash editors which the public can use which, are not owned by Adobe. Also. we would have alternative downloadable versions. If you buy a program similar to Fireworks or Flash, you can use it's output in the way it was intended to be used as much as you want. Why does it have to be free? --Symode09 01:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Well theres a geat many arguments for that. Before I start my rant i would like to mention that no one is opposeing it also being avalible on youtube in flash. Just the main official version should be free. Okay rant start time: Say you want to write a book. You want everyone to read it, learn from it, make additions to its betterment, etc, so you write it in english (which for this metaphor is a free format since that lang is pd). But your publisher makes a lock on the book, and only gives people the key you agree to never ever discuss the book, talk about the book, admit the books existence. Wouldn't that be conterproductive? (Okay, that's not a really that good a metaphor, but you get the point.). Bawolff ☺☻ 01:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least you have a sence of humour! Two big points I've thought of, firstly, Java is owned by Sun in the same way Flash is owned by adobe (I am willing to admit, licences may be different) Also, who says we can't have more then one format? Have both flash and java! Then most people are happy! --Symode09 01:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, it is not free to distribute flash software however, the output, if free. --Symode09 01:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the more formats the merrier. but I'm hesitant about allowing the official project to advertise its videos in flash, because of the slippery slope. Once it starts happening, then somebody forgets to make it in both formats, or the less popular one gets shoved to some back page that no one sees, etc. As far as flash and Java goes, theres a huge difference. According to the wikipedia article, your not allowed to look at the flash standard if you plan on developing free software which uses it, Java has free implementations that work, and is more liberally licensed (I think anyways. the last two statements were gathered from associated wikipedia articles). I've been trying to find some well written reason why non-free formats are bad, somewhere on the web, but haven't really found anything (closest is this but that doesn't say too much why). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we give an undertaking that both of the formats will be given equal tratment, then would you mind? --Symode09 02:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer it the other way, but I wouldn't object. However I'm not the person in the end you have to convince, Brion said above no, and he has the ultimate say (well technically the board does, but I believe he's just stating the boards position.). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Brion on the board? Has the board gave a position on this? Last I checked no. I support a java player and would prefer it is the material is already available...but point is we should have one, and if its run by MediaWiki or whatever, then security is not an issue...so exactly why would a player not be allowed? Simply "flash is evil" or whatever is not a valid argument IMO. DragonFire1024 04:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[this is refering to the flash player, not the java one. Note I got confused ealier on what we were talking about, so if this comment doesn't make sense, that's why] no, but he is the cto, and I assume he wouldn't say no unless the board said no, or there was technical reasons not to do it. Since there are no technical reasons (that I'm aware of. Especially considering this is happening in wikia), I would assume it was the board. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well for one, then the board can tell us...if they have an issue with what we are trying to do they can tell us. One...this is ridiculous that its not allowed when its already there and in place. So far no one has yet to give a logical reason as to why not...The material is there and so is the player...what else would need to be done? Why have it if no one or any Wiki does not use it...ridiculous. DragonFire1024 04:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to second-guess Brion and the Board I would say the reason Flash is unacceptable is .swf. This isn't a supported format on Commons, and because they can't share copies of the format specification it is extremely unlikely to end up supported. So, that'd leave you having to host elsewhere, and external content must be marked as such, not embedded.
The license on Java is GPL, anyone can distribute copies of the specification or write their own implementation. The formats supported on commons are similarly licensed.
Hopefully you can see where I'm going with this, in a hundred years time you might can get your hands on some books on Flash that tell you how to create .swf files using whatever tool won't run on current hardware. You're also not going to get hold of a player that is usable, and are there good odds of you getting hold of the program specifications which Adobe will never have released?
With the open formats, you have all the information you need. You could re-implement the Java player or, using whatever the current favourite language of the time, implement codecs for ogg and theora.
I hope this clarifies the idealistic position the Foundation takes. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lets stop worrying about this now

[edit]

This is really of secondary importance. we have the java player on the toolserver, the content will be cc-by, so they can also go on other sites as well (officialy or non-officialy is a discussion we can have later), seeing as we don't actually __have__ content as of yet, perhaps we should concentrate on that first. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most agreeable...before we have content, we need an opening scene/theme and a pilot...and so far we don't even have part of an opening theme or a pilot. DragonFire1024 04:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell your project has enough technical know-how to deal with this, stick to the pieces here or let me know what other song you'd like stuff from and I'll give you an edit (give me an approximate length you need). I can also help you set up your own private web space on the same server as I'm one of the administrators there. You'd need to use FileZilla to upload, but it is probably easier than using YouTube once you've got it installed. You'll need to stick to a widely playable format, .AVI? .MPEG?, whichever is smaller.
My reasoning for keeping this private is that there is less chance of upsetting anyone as the circulation of the beta material is in a restricted circle of people.
Incidentally, I'm expecting a DVD of music from one of the band members, mainly of his own stuff - which makes getting licensing done easier. He's made money (not a living) off some of his music, and a DVD holds a lot. So, this may give other options for use on a trailer.
In the meantime, you could work on opening/closing credits using the edits I've done.
Now, there 'are' uses we could put the embedded player to right now. First off is audio wikinews. Second, articles where instead of using a quote template as decoration we could have an excerpt from CPAN. That would differentiate us from many other news sources that don't do video. If we can compile a list of sources where appropriately licensed video such as parliamentary sessions may be obtained this gives another avenue for doing original reporting. --Brian McNeil / talk 07:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brianmc's idea. That sounds like a great idea actually. DragonFire1024 11:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Flash and free formats

[edit]

The board has always been very clear about the requirement that our materials be accessible with free software. Proprietary-only formats and formats which cannot be worked with legally without a patent license have always been explicitly forbidden.

If you would prefer to ask the board to restate that instead of taking the CTO's word for it, feel free.

There are free software, non-Sun implementations of Java which can run the Cortado applet (itself open source); Sun is also in the process of open sourcing their own Java implementation. The patents covering the Theora codec were opened when it was made free (from its predecessor codec VP3), so Theora sidesteps the patent issues in MPEG-4, H.263, etc.

Hence the preference for Theora with a Java player.

As far as I know, the Flash player only supports patent-encumbered video formats at this time (eg H.263). If someone can point out otherwise, and if free software alternatives (eg the GNASH free software Flash player plugin) as well as Adobe's proprietary Flash plugin can play it, then that would be good to know about. :) --brion 13:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the basis that we have already content that would benefit from an embedded player, what is involved in getting the sample Java one posted earlier on this page on here? --Brian McNeil / talk 14:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Poll:_Allow_an_embedded_Player%3F&oldid=406081"