Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Wikipedia To Add Video

Posted by Soulskill on from the there-goes-another-five-percent-of-my-day dept.

viyh writes "Wikipedia will be adding a video option within two or three months, according to the MIT Technology Review. '... a person editing a Wikipedia article will find a new button labeled "Add Media." Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video — initially from three repositories containing copyright-free material — and drag chosen portions into the article, without having to install any video-editing software or do any conversions herself. The results will appear as a clickable video clip embedded within the article.' They will be requiring all video to use open-source formats. This is in hopes of getting content providers to open up their material to gain wider exposure on the Wikipedia website. There is also an in-browser editor that removes a lot of the headache often associated with any kind of video editing. With the new Wikipedia system, 'people will be able to easily inject media into pages, in a way that wasn't possible before,' says Michael Dale, a software engineer from Kaltura, the company assisting with development of the tools."

9 of 165 comments (clear)

  1. Rather not. by Nylathotep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I like wiki because it's such a clean, fast, text layout with nothing special. I don't see how this is going to improve things.

    1. Re:Rather not. by Omestes · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're all inherently evil, except that google is smart enough to know that a good image counts.

      I'm pretty far to the left here, and really dislike most corporations, greed, and economic sociopathy, but I'd say you are wrong there.

      There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil. I doubt your incorporation papers have a hidden sub-clause demanding you be "evil", and I really doubt that many existent corporations set out to do evil. Corporations are morally gray.

      It how they choose to act which would color them as good or evil, not their very existence. Just like pretty much all human constructs, it exists as a neutral tool, its ultimate ethical/moral value comes from the use of it.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  2. Hipocrisy or something near that. by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It amazes me that the company that "promotes" open source uses a proprietary or not fully open method (read Flash), to deliver video. What's going on?

    1. Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. by icebike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its also proprietary, requiring a license to use their tools.

      Its an abusive technology, allowing no view controls other than blocking or de-installing flash all together.

      With the advent of HTML5, flash is NOT the way to go.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  3. Less is more. by owlnation · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, presumably it will only be notable video that's allowed.

    And presumably also, every band on Earth will have a sample of their video on every page they can get away with, as well as every company that now successfully uses Wikipedia to astroturf their products will get a nice demo video up too.

    It seems that as each month passes wikipedia becomes less and less relevant, and less reputable. Wholly because of bad administrative decisions.

    1. Re:Less is more. by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And presumably also, every band on Earth will have a sample of their video on every page they can get away with

      In the same way that they advertise their band on every page? Except they don't. Same for the companies. (Yet the sad thing is that other people whine about Wikipedia precisely because too much stuff is deleted...)

      It seems that as each month passes wikipedia becomes less and less relevant, and less reputable.

      You are mistaking your preference, and your opinion, with actual general fact. Like it or not, it's still a Top 10 website, and if you as a random person posting of a forum are going to make claims about it becoming less reputable, I do hope you have a reference?

  4. Re:Weird story gender... by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you acknowledge that all three possibilities offered by the English language are flawed, but you still criticise the author for picking one you evidently have a problem with?

    For heaven's sake - get over it.

  5. Re:There's just one problem... by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apparently the feminists won and we're so fucking PC now that there are no males on the internet.

    Let's face it: in English, if you talk about someone, you either have to specify his/her gender, or pretend they're more than one person.

  6. Re:There's just one problem... by gigabites2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically, that's grammatically incorrect. A singular object referred to as a plural object, as was mentioned above. The correct way to do so would be to say he or she or his or her. I suppose we could be like the French and assume the male gender. Then again, why assume? This is Slashdot!