User talk:Mark Kilby

Until I created this login I used Wikipedia under this IP.

Sorry I took a while to get back to you.

If you want to raise a policy discussion, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is probably the best place for it. The suggestions you have - single imaged with the video feed behind - aren't technically feasible with MediaWiki as it stands today, but may be possible in the long run. On the other hand, if it were possible, those videos would almost certainly be hosted on site.

Discussing the usefulness of Java video might be productive; I know we have very little video of any form. Shimgray | talk | 16:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Hi Mark! Have you considered writing something brief in your user page? This will turn all your links blue, and let people know something about you at the same time. Stephen B Streater 08:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise your daughter was born this year - that makes her younger than Sophie! Stephen B Streater 22:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - only two months old and walking already, something is definitely wrong here. Ah yes I have the year wrong - Elena was born in 2005 - thankyou Stephen. I will have to try harder to catch you out next time. mk 22:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORscene

Hi Mark! You might be interested in my prototype FORscene article. Any comments welcome. Stephen B Streater 10:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am printing it off now. Will return with feedback as soon as. mk 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. An Admin has made it into a real article now. Stephen B Streater 08:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - informative yet succinct! mk 19:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the last version got voted out at AfD, someone has re-proposed it here. As you contributed and know about the subject, you might want to look at the discussion. Stephen B Streater 13:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External linking to videos

Oops I've somehow ended up with two copies of this section on the one page. I'm deleting this one... mk 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External linking to videos

Please don't external link to videos. Upload them in Ogg/Theora format. We'll soon have an inline player for ease of use. An example of properly uploaded videos can be found hereIf you need help, just let me know. --Gmaxwell 01:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking of adding a Ogg/Theora publish button to FORscene since this lot came round to Forbidden's stand at IBC last year. It's a free codec and runs under Linux, so if it's supported by the standard Linux tools, this should take a matter of minutes. The thing that's help me back is the lack of a Java player, but this is now going to be available "soon" (see above). To republish in this format, all you will need to do is to drag your file icon onto the Wikipedia icon (I'll need permission to use this as the Wikipedia intellectual property is copyright). I'm working with Gmaxwell on ways to automate this upload when Wikipedia video is published in FORscene. If you have any requests for user interface, please let me know - perhaps on my talk page or on FORscene's own chat system. Stephen B Streater 06:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark! We've added in an Ogg publish button to FORscene. If you'd like to beta test it, let me know. Stephen B Streater 14:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stephen, yes I would like to Beta test whatever will help me publish these videos in a WP friendly manner via FORscene. For the immediate I would like the deleted external video links restored. mk 01:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've been upgraded now. Uploading to WIkipedia is a lot more effort than using FORscene hosting, and you are not allowed to keep control of videos you upload - you can't necessarily "unpublish" videos - so check your videos for rights before you put them up. I'm planning to make a one-step upload button, but haven't had any feedback on this yet. Stephen B Streater 12:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou Stephen I will give it a go. Yikes there really is no going back is there. Far better to work with a safety net if you can. The video I will try it with is the one I have referenced below i.e. this one. Both actors gave their services in its making without restriction.

mk 00:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is where I've gotten...

Output video from FORscene - dragged and dropped my edited video onto the Ogg icon
Extract ogg video out of FORscene - click on published icon - then click on download link - saved file to my hard disk
Uploaded to wikimedia commons - firstly I uploaded to the wrong place (meta wiki!) - if someone can delete the file described as 'Motorcycle Wheelie' that would be great (I couldn't find the damn thing! - I needed to upload to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - this was relatively easy (browse to the file on the disk and press upload) - my main issue was what to say in the licensing bit - there are far too many options for casual uploaders
Trying to find the file on wikipedia commons - I have tried but failed to find the file - I could initially confirm it was uploaded because it appeared on the 'latest uploads' list - but otherwise I cannot see it - perhaps it's an overnight index refreshing thing that needs to happen.
Trying to link from a WP page to the media file - I have tried to locate an example of a media file 'link' but I cannot see one easily - the link gmaxwell gave below has a 'multiple file' syntax and I'm unsure whether this is the one I want (I only want to insert one file!)
Playback of the ogg video - I tried to find out how to do this on WP but gave up - the help files are too helpful - so I entered a search string into google and found a player that way. Later on I found a page telling me what I needed to know on wikimedia - and what do you know it was advising I use the same player I had downloaded from google (which is a good thing). I installed the video player software and managed to play the video OK that was still sitting on my hard disk.

It all works - but it is reasonable to say that this is by far and a long way not something your ordinary person (unlike myself) would be willing to tolerate!!

mk 22:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame - the videos you removed had attracted thousands of viewings. I have contributed almost 20 videos as links (I also have a handful in the pipeline). I think there are no more than 200 Ogg videos on WP. I think it is fair to say that Video on WP is woefully under represented given that I as an individual could boost the library by 10%. If I were a very reactive and negative person, I might ask how on earth WP ever expects to accumulate any more video material than it already has if serious amateur videographers like me are treated this way. I.e. dictated to in terms of which tools must be used. I want to use FORscene to edit my videos. I rather like using FORscene, it is easy and convenient to use. It all works in a browser. Any other method of working will take far far longer. For example:

I will need to upload my DV footage from my camera and keep it on my hard disk (this is expensive and very time consuming)
I will need an editing package installed on my computer (and I will need to learn this package and be confident it will give me the results I want - e.g. is it frame accurate - assuming I cannot get a free one I will have to pay for it too)
I will need to redo all my edits (i.e. the finished versions you see will have to be redone by ploughing through raw footage)
I will need to obtain / install software to convert to ogg format and learn how to use this
I will need to upload the final edits back to WP

All this will take more time in fact than I probably have available to invest. I only do this as a hobby - I have a regular job and other responsibilities on top of that. Do you know how long it took me to compile these edited videos?! Do you do any video editing at all yourself?

On WP linking policy

The linking policy does not even prohibit direct links to rich media. And it even explicitely says that indirect links are acceptable. It stipulates you make clear the technology being used for direct links - which I have done. There is also a test of 'appropriateness'. There are specifically no black and white statements relating to the placing of content on Wikipedia under all circumstances / no external links to rich media.

What is 'appropriate'?

If there was a similar video to mine in Ogg format, it could be deemed appropriate to delete my video link from an article. E.g. some of the videos I provided are NASA videos which could quite easily be encoded in Ogg format. Quite appart from the fact that nobody appears to have the energy to do this - the rest are shot and edited by myself and are unique. Therefore it is appropriate to keep the unique externally linked video IMO.

Direction of video on WP (as an aside)

Who is directing the path that WP takes regarding video? Whoever it is should take a serious step back. It looks to me like a very technology dominated forum. That is not in itself a problem. What is a problem is a forum that excludes a real user community. In the case of video it needs to encourage views from people like me (how modest a fellow I am) i.e. by this I mean people who are willing to put the effort in to collect and deliver video content to WP and by implication the viewer as well. All this wonderful technology means nothing if nobody is contributing/viewing content. And that is how it seems things are at the moment. There are already too many disincentives to add/view video on WP with Ogg - we do not need any more. I can see the theory of how an inline Java player for Ogg is a step in the right direction but what evidence is there that this will set WP alight with video? And how does this fit into the overall strategy for video on WP? In fact what is the overall vision - does WP even have one? If not then how about this for starters; that editors are able to edit, re-edit, 'donated' video material and publish this from a browser in the same fashion as text.

Status of external links

If I can continue to use FORscene to edit / publish videos that's progress IMO. I would much prefer it if FORscene were better integrated with WP but that's a different matter. If it is possible by the method Stephen suggests that would be fantastic. But until this is working I think the current method of external links works fine. I am happy to remove the NASA videos too - when the inline WP Java video is working and there are NASA Ogg versions available to stream. But to just remove video links because an alternative might be along soon is not good enough justification IMO. It not only needs to be here now, it needs somebody to put in the time to prepare the NASA videos in Ogg format as well. When a WP-native alternative exists then fine - go ahead and delete the links. But it is unreasonable in the extreme to censor these video links just because there is no WP-native alternative at present.

Thanks, mk 01:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First an off topic question, I'd gotten the impression that you currently or previously work(ed) for/with Stephen, but that's not stated anywhere, can you please clarify your relationship so that there is no lingering confusion? Please be clear and complete in your response.

I don't see why I should - but I will do so to dispel any paranoia and or issues of trust that might otherwise linger. Hopefully this is enough to make plain have no agenda to hide.

Perhaps it is unsurprising there is ‘confusion’ when a CEO of a company contributes to Wikipedia as I expect there is a danger of it being hijacked. I expect also that there are some that will assume a guilty verdict until proven otherwise but I'm sure that's not all people. From the brief time I have spent looking at some of his FORscene threads it looks to me that Stephen has been forced to march the long way round to get to his destination. However I would be very surprised if his motives are anything but altruistic.

I have followed the progress of Forbidden Technologies over a number of years. Now and then I had emailed them questions about their technology. The organisation’s open attitude and passion for what they do is a breath of fresh air and I am guessing this is the reason why emails happened to be answered by the CEO. That was my introduction to Stephen, I have no business relationship with him or any of his companies past or present.

To pre-empt your next question; like many people in the run up to the millennium I invested in many companies simply because they had ‘tech’ in their name. Many people at the time didn’t know or even care what these companies did. All those companies I sold a long time ago except Forbidden Technologies which were different to the others, in particular they were very open in sharing their progress. Furthermore their news flow (on balance :-) ) had more substance to it. Their news items gave a lot of the technological information about their products that you don't get from other organisations. This held my interest and when FORscene arrived I started to use it to put videos onto the internet. This I found so addictive an activity that it has turned into a hobby for me. There are no other technologies available that I have found that completely hide the technical drudgery of managing video production and publication on the internet like FORscene does. And if I had to deal with the drudgery I simply would not bother. Nowadays – as I mentioned - it’s pretty much a hobby for me; putting videos on the internet. I’ve never had so much use out of a video camera for which you feel there is some purpose to it.

I wrote off my money in Forbidden Technologies a long while ago. I remain a shareholder to keep up to date with their progress, such as receiving reports, but also because shareholders are treated IMO better than by other companies (though I hear dividends are nice to have!). For example when FORscene was first released shareholders were invited to trial it and annually are offered free credits to use it.

I am confident they will make a commercial success of what they do – and if that happens then good for me and everyone else that supported them and their vision!! I doubt this success will have anything to do with WP getting any closer to FORscene than it is at present. In fact I would say WP authors and readers have far more to gain than Forbidden Technologies do.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you could say that video is underrepresented, but then again video is under represented in most sources of free content on the web. Since the vast majority of media on Wikipedia today was not created by Wikipedians, this should be expected.

I see the pioneering spirit is alive and well at WP! When WP arrived I imagine it heralded a revolution in terms of empowering people to contribute and build and resource of text / pictures. If it is to do the same for other media like video it needs to think and act like it can out-perform its peers rather be happy with keeping pace with them. Or would this be too risky?

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If I were a very reactive and negative person, I might ask how on earth WP ever expects to accumulate any more video material than it already has if serious amateur videographers like me are treated this way. I.e. dictated to in terms of which tools must be used."

It wasn't my intention to offend you, and I apologies if I did so. Like we require that our content be released under free licenses, we also require that our content be in free formats. Perpetual freedom for our content is simply one of the core goals of Wikimedia. We don't require you to use any particular tool to produce the content, and a lot of content is produced using unfree tools... Although it is preferable if you use free tools so that everyone can work from the same toolbox. What is required is that you use free formats. Stephen his indicated that his tools can now save Theora files, so you should be able to use them to prepare content.

I am not offended, just exasperated. This is the second time somebody has removed them. The first time I went through the same discussion and the outcome was that it is far better they are kept, and that I place them at the bottom of an article and make sure they are clearly labelled as requiring Java format. Clearly your views are different - why do yours carry more weight than the previous objector? Are you going around removing all external references to videos not in Ogg format? Can you state whether this is the case and if so then why not?

I'm looking forward to exporting to ogg, however it is useless without a Java wrapper. That is why I have links to Java enabled video so nine out of ten people on the internet can view this video material. Think how absurd it would be if the same situation presided over text and pictures. I.e. you had to download a special viewer for it.

I know FORscene has a library pool facility but it is not available to general users like me at the moment. If there were a ‘wikipedia’ library I would gladly deposit my footage in there for others to use.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the growth of contributors goes, I sincerely hope the situation improves...

More than hope is required to make it happen; easy to use tools (like text is easy to edit) as well as some sort of expectation there is an audience our there to reach.

Don’t want to rain on any party but if WP can be built it can be rebuilt by another bunch of people. If people perceive there is a better alternative they will go elsewhere. At the moment there are too many hoops to jump through for video - and I'm one of the tolerant people so far as hoops are concerned!

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia is a long term project. There are things we could do to increase the number of videos in the short term which would be a huge mistake in the long term, for example, accept videos which are distributed under a non free-content license. Wikipedia will not be built in a day. :)

How long term?

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I want to use FORscene to edit my videos. I rather like using FORscene, it is easy and convenient to use. It all works in a browser. Any other method of working will take far far longer. I will need to upload my DV footage from my camera"

I'm puzzled, how on earth does FORscene save you from transferring footage from your camera?

I’m glad you asked. I can upload video content a number of ways. Either direct from my mobile phone via the FORmobile software. Or by installing FORupload onto my computer. With FORupload I either upload a video file from the hard disk or plug my DV camera in via a firewire cable. In the latter case I never see the video file, it simply sucks the signal from the camera and plops it onto the internet. No files, no formats, no mess!

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The linking policy does not even prohibit direct links to rich media. And it even explicitly says that indirect links are acceptable. It stipulates you make clear the technology being used for direct links - which I have done. There is also a test of 'appropriateness'. There are specifically no black and white statements relating to the placing of content on Wikipedia under all circumstances / no external links to rich media."

The mention of rich media in the linking policy is not a blanket permission to link rich media. It is instead a further set of restrictions on rich media links which are otherwise permitted by our policy. In particular, external linking to these videos falls under the prohibitions on "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article." and "Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media.". The sort of rich media we generally support linking directly to is official documents, and source material for citations. Furthermore, our overall external link policy is broader than the Wikipedia:External_links and is documented in bits and pieces about the Wiki. If you'd like I can provide additional backup (by means of comments from other users, or by links to other documents) to further support what I'm telling you... although I'd rather you save me the time and trust me that external links to media in lieu of direct inclusion is strongly discouraged and has previously resulted in users being blocked.

Let’s get back to the basics here. I want to add videos that most people can watch so they can be informed – the Java applet is simply a vehicle for that until a better alternative comes along.

There is no explicit policy stating I should not do this. If you have to plough through several tomes of text and a labyrinth to find an answer in the policy - when there is a section for that particular purpose (i.e External Links / Rich Media) then I declar the policy in that area is terminally confused.

The definition of rich media as being an "official document" is a first for me. Other people on WP have referred to rich media as generally being accepted as video, i.e. not text nor graphics. That’s what I regard it as.

The videos I added are adding value and the rules ought to be changed to explicitly allow them. They have attracted thousands of viewings. I think people voted in my favour with their mouse clicks.

I’m rather sad to see it is felt necessary to hang a threat of being blocked over me. Who polices the policemen (and policewomen for that matter)?

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"E.g. some of the videos I provided are NASA videos which could quite easily be encoded in Ogg format. Quite appart from the fact that nobody appears to have the energy to do this - the rest are shot and edited by myself and are unique. Therefore it is appropriate to keep the unique externally linked video IMO."

We have many NASA videos, I'm surprised you haven't noticed them. More will be added over time, I understand there was some discussion about trying to work with NASA to obtain better quality material and automate the process. I'm not sure of where that is. I was unaware that the other videos were your authorship when I removed them, based on the information I had available (before noticing the gear list on your page) I would have guessed someone pulled them off youtube. :) I must, however, reject your argument:. That we currently have no alternative video is not a reason to link to yours, this argument has been made in the past by several people who were trying to insert content without complying with our requirement for free licensing, and this is primary reason we have a clear requirement in our external linking policy to not link to material which belong in the article.

"Who is directing the path that WP takes regarding video? Whoever it is should take a serious step back. It looks to me like a very technology dominated forum. That is not in itself a problem. What is a problem is a forum that excludes a real user community. In the case of video it needs to encourage views from people like me (how modest a fellow I am) i.e. by this I mean people who are willing to put the effort in to collect and deliver video content to WP and by implication the viewer as well. All this wonderful technology means nothing if nobody is contributing/viewing content. And that is how it seems things are at the moment. There are already too many disincentives to add/view video on WP with Ogg - we do not need any more. I can see the theory of how an inline Java player for Ogg is a step in the right direction but what evidence is there that this will set WP alight with video? And how does this fit into the overall strategy for video on WP? In fact what is the overall vision - does WP even have one? If not then how about this for starters; that editors are able to edit, re-edit, 'donated' video material and publish this from a browser in the same fashion as text."

Ah, directing? you must be new here. No one directs much of anything around here. :) You've made a number of vague accusations with respect to problems but you haven't cited anything actionable. The best recent discussions with respect to video were at Wikimania, and I have no saved record of them. If you could be more specific I could tell you what, if anything, we are planning to address any single point. Right now video playback is the biggest priority. The person working on the player also has a simple system for wiki based editing of clips which is only suitable for simple editing.

When Wikipedia was originally conceived and before its creators handed it over to the masses, I'm quite certain that to get anything done there was a relatively small community and this community had a system of delegation and executive powers. At that time it must have been quite an innovation but I expect the pace of innovation has slowed somewhat since then.

I read that FORscene was offered to WP free for use. This person developing an editing facility on WP would IMO be far better employed working on integrating an existing tool to WP rather than reinventing the wheel (as good as it will no doubt be when s/he gets around to finishing it).

The black and white approach on WP to anything with a vaguely commercial connection is unnecessary. Academic institutions get along OK working in collaboration with industry. It doesn't have to be a sell out, there can be more productivity, and it does not need to compromise the freeness of content. It's just providing an alternative tool to get a job done. IMO FORscene is a great opportunity and not a threat that just needs a little creative thinking.

For example (or should that be FORexample!):

Content could be fed in to FORscene as Ogg and output as Ogg. FORscene could be used to build a completely open resource of edits and edit histories using EDL in just the same way as is done with text markup language. If things turned sour with FORscene then the resource it helped to build and all the Ogg footage would remain in tact and in the public domain.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general strategy on Wikipedia in the last few years has not been to 'dumb down' the technology unless it really makes sense for both new and advanced users... What we prefer to do is leverage the user community. For example, with text editing this sometimes takes the form of allowing people to do an incomplete job on an article with the expectation that someone more skilled will come fix it up later. In the context of video it's a little less clear, so far what we have is that Raul654 and I both accept video in almost any format and will convert it and upload it. If you'd like to send me raw DV footage (or whatever is easy) and can tolerate sending it over your Internet link, I'd gladly transcode it and get it up for you. I am more than willing to help, and I am truly sorry that we got off on the wrong foot.

Thanks for the offer - seriously. But it takes all my spare time to shoot and edit footage I do not have enough left over to dive into organising and sending files around – apart from their sheer size. It is not very productive.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If I can continue to use FORscene to edit / publish videos that's progress IMO. I would much prefer it if FORscene were better integrated with WP but that's a different matter. If it is possible by the method Stephen suggests that would be fantastic."

My understanding is that since FORscene can now save to Ogg/Theora you can use it to edit and save to files that you can upload here.

Part of the problem of dealing with video is having to get involved in technical complexity. This includes file transfers and transcoding. FORscene negates most of this. I would much rather FORscene either host my ogg video and have WP come get it, or the other way around. Either way it is far less than ideal to get involved with file transfers especially when video has already been uploaded once to FORscene. On FORscene I simply drag and drop my final edit and it’s published to a URL, no messing with file transfers or hosting. Nobody would expect to do that with text content and FORscene proves you don’t have to do it with video. It’s a good example of the double standards people expect video authors are just happy to live with.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Direct FORscene integration is completely out of the question unless it is released as free software (then entire Wikipedia infrastructure from the servers on up is free software). Even it was released as free software, it's unlikely that we would integrate it as we are strongly committed to making sure that users without java are not second class citizens (our java playback will seamlessly use native playing if available, and the proposed simple editing doesn't require java as I understand it).

WP will not restrict video playback for people with Java, but it is happy to restrict people for video editing that have Java. So long as the output of that Java video editing tool is ogg I think this should be allowed. I.e. that third paries can provide tools for WP if they wish providing there is no dependancy on those tools with respect to the content.

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without direct FORscene integration, there are still lots of possibilities to cooperate, for example, the FORscene software could be equipped with buttons to help upload Ogg files to the project.

I agree totally. Hurrah!

mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I hope I've cleared up things for you and that we're closer to understanding each other. My apologies for being long winded, but you gave me a lot to reply to! --Gmaxwell 02:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide a précis of my response here:

(1) I like the suggestion of Stephen’s output to ogg from FORscene, and of your constructive thoughts about pursuing integration with FORscene

(2) I do not like the prospect of manually transferring / uploading files to WP

a. Videos are already uploaded to FORscene

b. When FORscene outputs to ogg, either FORscene can transfer the files to WP for me

c. Or the ogg files can be kept on FORscene and WP can come get them from FORscene when it wants them

(3) I like the idea of a WP Java player for ogg files, this will maximise the number of people that can view video – that is a good thing

(4) Until the WP Java player is available – it should be acceptable to use the FORscene Java player as a stop-gap, by providing external links

a. Either Java is a good vehicle for delivering video or it is not

b. Despite the FORscene Java player not being open source, it is only mirroring material that would be freely available in ogg – there is nothing damaging here

(5) Until FORscene can be organised to output ogg, it should be acceptable to place the FORscene Java videos as external links on articles, there is no explicit policy prohibiting this, only ‘discouraged'

a. Wikipedia is as you point out not directed

b. You say you can sport many people who would support you

c. The FORscene Java videos I have added have attracted thousands of viewings, I’d say that on that basis far more people are in support of what I have done than you could muster against my position.

BTW I thought it would be appropriate to say hello to you via a FORscene Java Player. It was simplicity itself to shoot and upload and edit and publish. I expect you will have no problems viewing it either. :-)

Regards, mk 23:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video experiences

You Wikipedia video experiences with Ogg are interesting. I get the feeling that the systems here are designed by techies ;-)

As you can see, there is much discussion of the issues on my RfA page. I found the system quite good, at only about 100 times more effort than using FORscene's player. Expectations here are just too low at present.

Things worked well on my home machine, but I don't install software on my work PC as it used for demos, so nothing in Ogg format plays back there. Stephen B Streater 08:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I were as familiar with the WP/ogg approach as I am with FORscene's then it is probably more realistic to multiply the additional effort required by a factor of ten rather than 100 :-)

I'm guessing it's not just techies but techies that may not have the luxury of devoting their working life to solving the problem. My home machine never had the ogg player before I decided to download and install it in order to test the FORscene conversion. My work PC will never be able to play ogg videos as the desktop will (a) not permit software to be installed by end users and (b) file download rights for the net are only granted when it is part of a person's job. Needless to say I can watch FORscene videos - that fact it is against company policy to watch video obviously prevents me from watching any such videos :-))

Going forward, it's unlikely I would ever download and play an ogg video anyway. The content would have to be pretty compelling for me to do that. Perhaps web video is only viable when it is liable to be watch in a casual fashion, just like pages are only viable if you can casually go to an address and expect to see something there and then. If you have to wait more than even 30 seconds to see a page most people will simply abandon and look elsewhere. As for downloading videos... So a Java player is pretty much mandatory - and I firmly believe it matters not a jot whether that player is proprietory or not - it is no cost to WP and if the video is also available in ogg the who exactly is worse off and which principles are being violated!!.

Using a 'free' FORscene player would be no more a violation of WP's principles than it would to use Sun's Java language for Wikipedia would it not? Which WP plans to utilise anyway I believe to implement their own applet player.

The way the argument is carried on you do wonder about the motiviation to oppose this sort of thing; is it the purest's point of view, is it just beaurocracy gone mad, or could it even border on issues connected with diversion of limelight / powerbase.

There is definitely the notion of a powerbase on this site IMO. It's not the power to delete accounts, it's the power to influence / shift / direct opinion - which certain users possess more than others IMO. It's fine to say nobody is in charge - but if some user opinions count for more than those of others then it is a form of executive in any other words. I asked the question who directs video on this site - the response back was that nobody does. I tend not to agree wholly with the response.

It is clear there are a few issues, there's the practical effort compared to easier methods like FORscene's approach, there's the issue of finding and perfecting the right procedural technique for all the differnt jobs to be done (tools / syntax / web pages etc.), but one which really niggles is the copyright issue which you highlighted. For starters, why have so many different copyright clauses to choose from? It is confusing and pretty much I had to guess which one was best for me. Should I have read and assimilated each option? Your average beurocrat would say yes I must read them all. But that's not fair as none of us actually choose to lead duller lives than we already do unless we really have to. I have only one life to live and it is not going to be one dominated by reading stuff like that. Besides, I would probably read it AND still get the wrong answer.

Since I've only used FORscene I've not dwelled too much on the issues of releasing discrete files. Naturally I am cautious about what sort of footage I publish and pay attention to the areas in which I'm filming. But you always have a safety net. I.e. if you wish to 'withdraw from service' a FORscene video then it is a very simply matter and there is peace of mind that it is gone. I.e. there are most definitely 'no leaks', appart from possibility of persons filming their computer screen or hacking the video stream. It is completely the opposite for my ogg file, which causes a problem if I or somebody else insists it be withdrawn. Perhaps most people or organisations don't mind - if the violations are trivial or low volume - but if it is perceived as a problem they will undoubtedly pursue a sacrificial lamb through the courts!

I wonder who would be liable to be hunted down. The person that published the video (assuming their identity can be verified)? One of the WP entities. Anybody that ever downloaded the file? Or perhaps even the poor soul that gave up their own time to write the video hosting software!!

I haven't read all your RfD yet, I started at the top and read the supports, then skipped to the summary at the bottom, and am just about to read the opposes. You have quite a lot of support given you only joined in February 06. I was surprised people complained your edit count was too low. Perhaps quality not quantity is an old fashioned concept these days!

mk 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One way traffic

I've been reading the discussions about liberating some of the FORscene system into the WP world and perhaps beyond. It seems these ideas have not yet succeeded in catching enough peoples imagination as of yet.

The question occured to me, whether there are commercial systems out there that had once started life as free pieces of software. I.e. it might be easier to go from free software to commercial software, but as the discussions here on WP have proved - it is a lot harder to go in the other direction. I.e. to start with a commercial piece of software and then try to give it away!

On another note, there was mention of the possibility of an automatic link between NASA and WP for videos. I.e. NASA videos would be automatically sent to WP when published. How ironic it would be if at some point in the future - after the link between NASA and WP was built - that NASA could select FORscene to manage all their video content over the internet and decide to distribute them as Java applets!

mk 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How ironic your second paragraph is. Free licences are designed to be one way: all developments from free code are released under the same free licence. The idea is that there is a one way street - but the other way to what you imagined from the evidence presented to you by the WIkipedians in this debate. Stephen B Streater 09:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cynicism for you. mk 18:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't accept an arrangement with anyone which resulted in encumbered content being inserted in Wikipedia. Full Stop. Furthermore, the free content licenses we use works hard to ensure your ability to commercially exploit or works, but they do not permit you to do so in a manner which removes the material from the world of free content. Claims that we are hostile towards commercial use can not be supported by fact.--Gmaxwell 19:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This works well for text, though even this can be encumbered (under non-copyright legal restrictions). But a photograph is not the same as it is a representation of an existing scene which may contain visual IPR not belonging to the photographer. Whether or not it is encumbered can depend on the context in which it is used. For example, a photo of a crowd may contain a man with a tee shirt with a logo on it. The logo is copyright, but the photo can still be used. I don't see anyone here rubbing out all the logos on all the photos here. Stephen B Streater 20:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually removing logos in such pictures has been done in the past... The Germans on commons have a thing about doing it, although not as much now as in the past. I find it amusing, in any case, that you seem to think that locking content inside a proprietary patented format is functionally or ethically equivalent to the legally protected and unavoidable incidental inclusion of protected third party works into a photograph of a public place. I think it would be helpful for you to clearly state your goals on this matter, because I'm having a hard time figuring out what exactly you are trying to accomplish. --Gmaxwell 21:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could start here. Also read the last page of my RfA. There'll be more in my RfA message when I get time to post it. Stephen B Streater 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't ask who 'we' are. People who are new to Wikipedia, like myself, are not so encumbered with the way things are done. This is frustrating for me because I make more mistakes, and perhaps also to others that have to point them out, but a good thing because fresh minds will bring ideas that seem so at odds with the established order. Nothing is set in stone, if it was done, it can be undone and redone differently (for the better one assumes), providing there is consensus.

Having read SBS's RfA which seems to be on two topics - the other being a discussion on video, it looked very much like a search for common ground. What I found surprising was the amount of ground up for being given away by SBS, and the speed with which the thought processes were being closed down.

I will continue to submit video footage to WP in ogg format but I expect it will be less compelling and less in volume as a result of concerns I now have about potential action being taken against me - which as I understand it might not be predictable at the time the footage is submitted. This is not the case with video I release via FORscene which limits the depth of the water I could find myself in.

There was a suggestion of an option of a holding area to try stave off this issue. I.e. a user like myself would be happier to have the option of releasing footage into a system from which it could be unpublished or repurposed - if there was a question of infringement arising some time down the line. Until the point it is unpublished, the video could be freely 'distributed' for viewing and repurposing. It just would not be 'downloadable' in the conventional sense, the video would be held 'in trust' until either the user chooses to go for gold and publish openly (thereby allowing it to be downloaded in the conventional sense), to retract their video, or to continue having the system hold it 'in trust'. mk 01:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for your tireless efforts to make your (video) photography available to all through Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 17:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! mk 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright link

That's a great link on photography copyright. I added it to the IPR discussion, but on reflection, I think a US link would be more appropriate. Anyway, I'm sorting out Beethoven and his string quartets. Stephen B Streater 22:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am trying to take more interest in the consequences, after having read some of your contributions and reflected on media reports such as the one involving the Greek plain spotters (which was even made into a TV drama). So getting some for Greece might be useful too as I also have some footage from there! I liked the article as it explained many of the issues in terms most people would understand, and it made the distinction between taking photos and publishing them. The article was found using this search. I plan to keep looking, and also widen my search to include examples of where and how people have fallen foul. mk 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further results found here using this search. mk 23:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the UK article page there is also a link to a 'sister' article for the US. It is equally good. It is interesting though, that the sense I get from the US article is more one protecting freedoms, and the UK article is more about how to avoid getting nicked! mk 21:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video

Since you're interested in video you may wish to see the comment I left for Stephen over here. --Gmaxwell 06:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news - I've had a go with the Java video player and it works very well for me (win xp home / Sun's JVM Version 1.5.0, build 1.5.0_11-b03). It's a superb delivery mechanism for video and it should be a great incentive to add more video content to WP with so many more people able to watch them within inconvenience. If I run into any issues I will feed them through to you. As I said it worked fine for my, albeit short, videos that I'd output in ogg from FORscene. I will have a go at playing it behind a corporate firewall that is 'anti' video - Stephen's videos manage to get through OK. mk 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

clesh sources

It would be better if you explained for each reference why it asserts notability. I think that some of the references you added don't assert notability at all. I'm afraid that just listing every link that makes a passing reference to Clesh is not going to save the article from deletion, since quality of sources is taken into account too. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Enric - but I didn't simply add everything with a reference to Clesh. People can make their own minds up wrt notability and vote accordingly. mk (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clesh main text

Hi Mark,

I see you edited a lot in the Clesh article. I have started the article but since I am not an English born person and not error free, feel free to improve its main (starting) paragraph too.

Cheers --Alcid (talk) 06:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upton House Photos

Upton House has no photos, but I see a Wikimedia Commons photo of the grounds that you provided. Could you provide photos of the building? They could be added to the article, or if you let me know, I will add them. --68.83.105.228 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop marking major edits as minor

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 19:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mark Kilby. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mark Kilby. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cloud-based Video (January 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Online video platform instead.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft is basically using the cloud for online video platforms. A section within that page is something I would suggest as this draft would be more of a WP:CFORK in my opinion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cloud-based Video and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Cloud-based Video, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mark Kilby! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll look at creating a section within that Online video platform. That article pretty much describes a hosting video service, like YouTube. The scope of applications being talked about in Draft:Cloud-based Video is far wider than this and notably includes post-production and broadcast systems. As a result Online video platform would need to be widened and an alias added to include the term 'cloud video' / 'cloud based video' since this is how it is commonly referred to.

I looked at Online video platform. It's not really a suitable place to talk about cloud-based video. That site is pretty much a descriptive of video hosting and streaming sites in the vein of YouTube. I've seen various other internet video articles however which I think are a better place destination for the topic of cloud-based video. Thanks.

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]