Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikipedia To Add Video

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the there-goes-another-five-percent-of-my-day dept.

Media 165

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."

cancel ×

165 comments

Will show admin porn (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397291)

Pmdrive1061, j.delanoy and nawlnwiki sucking the willy on wheels cock.

No Male (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397321)

"Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video"

So they only allow females to add videos!?!

Re:No Male (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397337)

Yeah. Too many dudes posting dick pics. You can imagine what they'll do with video.

Re:No Male (4, Interesting)

Xeth (614132) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397473)

It's far worse than images. At least with an image, you can tell immediately that something's wrong. One wonders how long a video modified in the style of Tyler Durden might persist.

Re:No Male (3, Interesting)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398149)

Note that this problem already exists with sound samples that are allowed on Wikipedia. And I'm not aware of it being a problem.

Re:No Male (5, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397567)

Re:No Male (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397745)

If only that was a joke... [wikimedia.org]

Why does the "No Penis" template page contain an image of a penis?

Re:No Male (2, Insightful)

BobisOnlyBob (1438553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398755)

Why do signs meaning "No parking" have an image of a parked car...?

Re:No Male (1)

FrostDust (1009075) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399141)

Where the hell do you live? Every "No Parking" sign I've seen features the standard crossed out letter "P" [google.com] .

Re:No Male (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397487)

It'll be females only, but at least there will be an option to search an uploader's herstory.

Re:No Male (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398113)

Gendered language sure is horrible, isn't it? I mean, when it's not gendered like you.

There's just one problem... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397323)

Clicking it will bring up an interface allowing her to search for video

...there are no girls on the internet.

Re:There's just one problem... (4, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398449)

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.

Re:There's just one problem... (2, Interesting)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398809)

Why not use "they" and "their" as a gender neutral pronoun? Isn't that the standard? It's the most fair, and the least noticeable.

Re:There's just one problem... (1)

gaderael (1081429) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398861)

They've been doing this for a while. In either AD&D or D&D 3rd Edition, if my memory serves me. They used her instead of him/his as a neutered (spayed) term referring to anyone.

Re:There's just one problem... (1)

spud603 (832173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398955)

Look closer. They use "his/him" about half the time and "her" about half the time. This makes complete sense to me, at least statistically -- with no prior information your best guess is 50/50.
Though now that i think of it from that perspective, D&D should probably use more of a 20/80 ratio given the demographic.

Re:There's just one problem... (1)

mattytee (1395955) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399363)

D&D should probably use more of a 1/99 ratio given the demographic.

Fixed that for you.

Rather not. (5, Insightful)

Nylathotep (72183) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397411)

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.

Re:Rather not. (5, Interesting)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397447)

Agreed. This will also make Wikipedia's bandwidth cost skyrocket, and if I remember correctly they're on a lean budget.

Re:Rather not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397481)

Agreed. This will also make Wikipedia's bandwidth cost skyrocket, and if I remember correctly they're on a lean budget.

from three repositories containing copyright-free material

I guess that depends on where the repositories are located at. I'm sure Google would be more than happy to provide some bandwidth.

Re:Rather not. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397575)

Google doesn't give a shit. It's just a corporation like oracle or microsoft. They're all inherently evil, except that google is smart enough to know that a good image counts. They are many ways to improve their image but donating bandwidth will raise costs tremendously (this is not your average javascript library included directly from google code) and bring little benefit in return, not to mention they have their own competing product [google.com] .

Re:Rather not. (3, Insightful)

Omestes (471991) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397799)

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.

Re:Rather not. (1)

AxelBoldt (1490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398925)

There is nothing in the idea or structure of a corporation that makes them innately evil.

Maybe not innately evil, but certainly innately amoral. By law, a corporation may only perform actions that directly or indirectly increase profits. It cannot do things just because they are "right" or "good", it must always maximize profits, using all legally available means. Otherwise the shareholders can sue.

Re:Rather not. (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399275)

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 obligated to generate as much money as possible.

If you knew a person who behaved that way, you'd probably call them evil. If you knew of a whole class of people who, to the man, acted that way, you'd DEFINITELY call them evil.

At best, corporations are endlessly greedy and amoral sociopaths.

Re:Rather not. (3, Interesting)

geniice (1336589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397597)

Google has never provided servers or bandwidth to wikipedia. Yahoo provided some servers at one point. Since wikipedia doesn't carry ads google has little incentive to suppot it

In practice bandwidth demands will likely be limited by how hard it is to produce encyclopedic videos and harder still to produce ones people want to watch.

Re:Rather not. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397623)

If you don't want to see that stuff, use greasemonkey or similar (heck, perhaps even just user CSS) to hide it. Heck, you could do it with adblock, perhaps with element hiding helper.

Re:Rather not. (1)

Sir_Lewk (967686) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398585)

Talk about a terribly complicated way to make something simpler.

Re:Rather not. (1)

Dustie (1253268) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398761)

Or, you could just not hit the Play button.

Re:Rather not. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399451)

I'd like to think that there would be no negative repercussions to the embedding of whatever plays the video; we'll see how it plays out.

Re:Rather not. (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397855)

Wiki is a type of thing, not a thing. You mean wikipedia.

Re:Rather not. (2, Funny)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397903)

Maybe the'll add a comment section [phdcomics.com] too.

Then people can express how they feel about your NPOV.

Re:Rather not. (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398003)

But it will still be clean, fast, and mainly text layout. No one is forcing you to play the images.

I don't see how this is that different to allowing sound files, which is already possible in articles.

Re:Rather not. (1)

Sir_Real (179104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398467)

Perhaps it will be optional.

Re:Rather not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398975)

well, I like wikipedia (calling it just "wiki" suggests to me you're PHB material and dont understand the difference) because it's all encompassing and has just about all the info you could ever want about a lot of topics in one place. all the info you could ever want, except videos. i dont see how adding MORE INFORMATION can ever be a bad thing, assuming the information is factual (but false information is a issue completely separate to adding video content).

I can see a problem (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397421)

The "Porn" entry bring down the whole Wikipedia site in the first hour.

Re:I can see a problem (4, Informative)

merreborn (853723) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397985)

The "Porn" entry bring down the whole Wikipedia site in the first hour.

It's already begun... [wikipedia.org] (sauce [nsfw] [encycloped...matica.com] )

Hipocrisy or something near that. (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397453)

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

Wikipedia will use "open-source formats" (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397527)

I don't know/care about kaltura, but from TFA:

Key to Wikipedia's video effort--[...]--is Wikipedia's insistence that any video passing into its pages be based on open-source formats.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397535)

I imagine the goal is to allow the broadest number of users to see it.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (3, Interesting)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397635)

Don't go FOSS because it's FOSS. Go FOSS because it's superior.

Not all FOSS is superior. I trust they'll use the best video streaming for the job, with priority placed on being open source.

Flash has the best video streaming available at the moment, and the best compatibility. Hard to beat that for a website trying to reel in customers.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (4, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397735)

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.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (2, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398061)

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

Flash uses H.264, which is said to use half the bandwidth of Theora. And a lot of people use a PC where they don't have administrative rights to install an HTML 5 viewer.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398247)

PLUS a lot of devices have hardware support for H.264... so it is more efficient (while theora cannot be played on some mobile devices due to speed problems)

Encarta is dead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397863)

Hard to beat that [flash] for a website trying to reel in customers.

Is Wikipedia trying to "reel in customers"? Since when?

Frankly, I *would* go FOSS in Wikipedia's case if it's sufficient, even if there were some proprietary format that was superior in some way. Good enough + free beats shiny but evil any day, and is more in line with Wikipedia's raison d'etre.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397869)

If Real Networks and Apple wasn't that stupid, Flash is in fact 7-8 years behind in terms of video streaming...

But, of course, both are stupid and I don't even mention Windows Media department of MS. While calling everyone stupid, in this context, Sun is the number 1 stupid for wasting the embedded browser Java market regarding the real potential of Java. It wasn't supposed to make dancing bears or flashing ads you know.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398097)

Having worked on a project quite similar to Kaltura for the last several months, I can tell you without a doubt that if Flash is the best video streaming tool, we are all in big trouble.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

tiananmen tank man (979067) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398457)

You are mixing two things up, the ideas of OSS which are superior and the quality of the software at its current state.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (3, Interesting)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397795)

I'm all for driving Flash out of existence, since Macromedia/Adobe should have never been allowed to acquire the near monopoly on web video they have. Adobe has also been a horrible steward of their responsibility especially when its come to Flash player support for devices like smart phones.

But the flip side is you might recall back to what video was like before Flash. Every freaking web site you went to had a different video standard, video player, and you were usually forced to launch a video player which either wasn't integrated in the browser or was integrated badly. Flash only succeeded because it fixed a completely broken thing on the web where Apple, Real and Microsoft in particular were trying to acquire their own monopolies on web video.

For this to succeed Wikipedia needs to compel a new video player standard other than Flash and proprietary codecs like H.264, and insure near universal availability of the solution they create as an integrated browser component, either built in to the browser or as a plugin.

I'm kind of curious if HTML/5 is going to be able to achieve that lofty goal across all the warring browser factions in the world, especially IE and Microsoft. Not sure JavaFX counts as open. What other standard is their other than HTML/5.

You also have the little problem that all existing video is going to have to be transcoded if you reject H.264, VP6, MPEG, WMV, AVI and Flash H.263 as acceptable formats. It sure isn't going to be easy to add video to Wikipedia if Joe and Jane user have to transcode the video to add it, or is Wikipedia going to automatically transcode video as they get it to their open standard.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (2, Interesting)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397927)

If someone at our TV had this genius idea of RE-encoding a maximum compressed format to another maximum compressed one, he would be fired in less than a commercial break time.

Of course, not accepting H264, MPEG, H263 is pure ideological and will satisfy number of elitists who can't even tell difference between SD and HD broadcasts and even brag about it.

The reality you mention was one of the main reasons why Nokia (and couple of sane companies) insisted on using h264 in video element. There is no way you won't lose quality between transcoding an already state-of-art compressed video to another one. It is the main reason why Youtube videos really sucks, people (who are ordinary) doesn't have the raw video at hand. I even encoded 3-4 videos from digital betacam masters for that exact reason and posted to Youtube. I asked the producer "would you prefer mpeg2-->DV-->VP7 chaos or this? There is no other option because guy/gal will post it.". So we posted our own copyrighted video which really interestingly automatically taken down since a "responsible citizen" reported it :)

I try 1 more time for open codec fanatic developers: Would you want your pure C code to be converted blindly to BASIC and converted again back to C? That is what you do to videos when you transcode. Oh also, if VP6 worked, they wouldn't donate it to you for Theora. ;)

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398245)

But the flip side is you might recall back to what video was like before Flash. Every freaking web site you went to had a different video standard, video player, and you were usually forced to launch a video player which either wasn't integrated in the browser or was integrated badly. Flash only succeeded because it fixed a completely broken thing on the web where Apple, Real and Microsoft in particular were trying to acquire their own monopolies on web video.

Actually, I remember most sites usually offering a choice between at least two of Windows Media Player, Real Player, and QuickTime (not sure why they did not just use HTML fallbacks), all of which had responsive, native controls and properly used hardware acceleration (which at the time was just hardware overlay [wikipedia.org] , not decoding help). Explain to me again how Flash was an improvement in usability?

What Flash did help with is that it had its own codecs which were more advanced than the ones that came with Windows or Mac OS at the time and, probably more importantly, Flash makes it significantly more difficult for users to download videos they are watching -- which is the real hurdle the <video> tag has to surpass to gain acceptance.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

demachina (71715) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399177)

"Explain to me again how Flash was an improvement in usability?"

How would you run Windows Media Player on ... Linux. Don't think Linux supported Quicktime for a long time and when it did it was a big download. Real went through an extended period where their software was totally hated by nearly every one for their sleezy business tactics.

If Flash did nothing else right they made it possible for just about everyone on Windows, Mac and Linux to have seamlessly integrated video in their browser without even having to think about it. My mom wanted to play some streaming audio the other day and was presented with a list of proprietary players similar to yours and she had no clue what to do. I think we opted for Windows Media Player since she is on XP and when it came up SHE STILL had no clue what to do with it. If it had been Flash she would have pressed a play button on the browser page and it would have just worked. Flash audio and video is a BIG win for the little old ladies in the world. Flash eliminated the NEED for anyone to even worry about what kind of video player it was, the video was just there, it played, it always worked. The technically literate here don't get it, but you have to make media players that the technically illiterate can use, Flash does, the others on your list mostly failed. With the help of YouTube it also became trivial to embed video in any web page. If you didn't have the plugin it was a tiny download, and just about everyone had Flash anyway.

I just wish Adobe didn't suck so much in providing Flash players for devices. Their complete failure to provide good players or a good SDK for cell phones, settop boxes, etc. is destroying everything they had in web video dominance.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

Ilgaz (86384) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397841)

Well, if you embed mp4 file, Windows people will be required to install "evil quicktime" and as we know, mp4 is also somehow evil because the organisation has patents on it.

So, by embedding Flash (which is totally documented I hear), they can play Theora thing and Ogg inside it. As it is GPL now, they could choose Sun Java technology and use Java player, trust me a huge amount of people from newbie to technical has Java installed. Of course, that time they would be blamed for using "bulky java" (as, there is no progress since 1997 you know).

What they don't know/figure/care is, there is no way to satisfy open source fanatics. Both Adobe and Sun have opened their billion dollar languages, product formats to community and they are still labelled as something else. Hell, Nokia even paid more than $500 Million to open Symbian source. The result? "Oh it is too big, complex, its C variant sux"... Oh really?

The result shows who is really being hypocretic. While on it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnash [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398789)

Well, if you embed mp4 file, Windows people will be required to install "evil quicktime" (....)

VLC works fine for me.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398311)

Well, maybe that will change as HTML5 browser support grows.

Re:Hipocrisy or something near that. (1)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398441)

i dont see it often but on rare occasions i find source code that is GNU/GPLed by some clueless hack that was written in a windows machine with the wrong text editor and i open it up and see a crapload of ^M on the end of every line so i rm the whole package and decide i dont want that package afterall

Big improvement (1, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397531)

At least it will make this Wiki page [wikipedia.org] a lot more interesting!

Less is more. (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397533)

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.

Re:Less is more. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398081)

Maybe it's a bit dodgy when it comes to the important stuff, but Wikipedia is an invaluable repository of pop-culture trivia. Simpsons, Star Trek, or Family Guy questions? I know where to look. And just the other day I needed to know the name of Dagwood Bumstead's daughter.

Re:Less is more. (3, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398095)

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?

Re:Less is more. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398753)

So add a note on Wikipedia saying why it may be misleading. That's just as relevant to the article as the purported astroturfing would be.

Title is misleading (4, Informative)

geniice (1336589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397543)

Title is somewhat misleading. Wikipedia has had video for years. For example scroll down at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morris_C8 [wikipedia.org] or for direct to video http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Morris_C8_towing.ogv [wikipedia.org]

Re:Title is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398525)

Yeah, I remember pointing people to the video with Richard Stallman more than once.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman#Activism [wikipedia.org]
That was uploaded on 17 September 2006 and is a 15m32s clip.

Another Tool (5, Funny)

travisb828 (1002754) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397547)

It's always nice to see new tools in the toolbox. I just wonder what kind of edit wars we can look forward to seeing. Could they be like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_anus [wikipedia.org]

Re:Another Tool (5, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397719)

I'm sorry, but not everybody is going to actually look at that link, and it is far too fucking priceless to be just referenced. So let's post the juicy parts:

WRT that female image - how would the contributors here feel if I was to crop it down to the anus alone and use it to replace the current pic? Porn-sourced or not, it is a good, clear picture of the human anus, moreso than the existing image IMO. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

                That would bring it around full circle to where it's been a couple of years. We had a cropped, shaved, bleached porn-anus in this article for a while, it was determined unsuitable (and a copyvio) and replaced with the current hairy man-hole. All we need is a neutral-looking and not-overly-hairy, suitable for an anatomy text. The Crow 22:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

                        I have actually considered taking a photo of my own anus for the article (as far as I am aware, mine is pretty typical) just to put an end to this. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to hold the camera at the right angle to get a decent shot. :( If you take a close look at the 'porn' anus in hi-res, it doesn't actually appear to have been shaved or bleached. --Kurt Shaped Box 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

                        I don't think the old female anus was unsuitable; it was removed because it was unsourced. I'm not a fan of females, but cropped, that anus looks more useful than the male one we have now. I'd support adding it if you're willing to crop it. The only real problem is that it looks like a copyright violation too. --Kinst 21:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

                                I'd certainly be willing to do it - but I'll leave it until the image's status is sorted out. As a matter of interest, why was it tagged as a copyvio (there doesn't appear to be any explanation)? --Kurt Shaped Box 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

                                        I don't think my anus is any less hairy than Ano.jpg and I wouldn't say that my anus is an atypical human anus. In any case, who would you be to state that my anus, or the anus on the picture is atypical. In fact most male anuses that I have come across have a similar amount of hair, although the color of the hair on the picture makes it quite prominent. If we were discussing the anus of any other species than human, hair would surely not be a concern. Furthermore if was the Italian gentleman, who was so generous and kind to contribute the picture, I would be downright offended, if the picture was replaced only because the amount of hair was considered, by other wikipedians, to be unnatural and/or objectionable. BrunOperator 13:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

                                                As for my part, I don't find the present anus photo objectional or abnormal. My issues are (1) it's so hairy that the actual anus isn't very visible, (2) It's a decidedly male-looking anus, so people are going to be tempted to put a shaved anus on there and call it "female" because this is what porn has conditioned them to think. The anus is neither male nor female... the anatomy is exactly the same, and some females have even hairier anuses than men. So I think if we had a slightly hairy anus, it would be both medically illustrative and gender-neutral. The Crow 14:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

                                                        While we're at it, why not put up an explicit picture of the anus expelling feces since this is its main function. That would surely be beyond valuable to the reader. And don't forget the "anal sex" page - there should be multiple pictures under anal sex: one of the anus before penetration, one with a penis penetrating the anus, and one of a gaping anus filled with semen. Of course, we should do this for both male and female anuses as to present a neutral POV. In all seriousness, get rid of this picture. No one is coming onto wikipedia to see a close-up picture of an anus. If they want to see what it looks like, they can bend over and look in a mirror. If you insist on associating that picture with this page then make it an external link with a warning. MC24

                                                                The article on anal sex contains images, yes. You may wish to see our article on hand, it contains images too. -- Ec5618 11:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S - You should get mod points for just putting tool, toolbox, and anus in the same post.

best slashdot post ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28399149)

thank you

Re:Another Tool (1)

Thermionix (1473355) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399465)

this is too good

Re:Another Tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398463)

Dang, those are some high-resolution images. Got me some new wallpaper!

Re:Another Tool (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398599)

That's no anus - THIS is an anus ....
I'll leave the link out shall I ?

Last I Heard WikiP Was Broke... (1)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397565)

now they're going to add video? Super swell idea there.

As a matter of fact, I was thinking just the other day The Internet Archive [archive.org] should add a peer-reviewed & maintained encyclopedia service...

Weird story gender... (2, Insightful)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397581)

...a person editing a Wikipedia .... allowing her to search for video...

Strange, apparently a "person" can only be female.

I know, I know, if it said "he" no one would notice, but obviously this person was going out of their way to say "her", so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.

Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral.
-Taylor

Re:Weird story gender... (3, Funny)

afabbro (33948) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397605)

...a person editing a Wikipedia .... allowing her to search for video...

Strange, apparently a "person" can only be female.

I know, I know, if it said "he" no one would notice, but obviously this person was going out of their way to say "her", so why not just go with "they"? I know it's not grammatically correct (according to an English teacher I had) but at least it works, and it should be correct.

Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral. -Taylor

Usually, they're college males hoping to get laid by progressive chicks.

It never works that way, btw.

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398071)

You would think that eventually they would figure out that the chicks that insist on referring to females as "womyn" also prefer dating... womyn. Being the only male in a crowd of thousands here [michfest.com] doesn't significantly increase your chances of getting laid either.

Re:Weird story gender... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397655)

Anyway, it just annoys me when someone goes out of their way to try to end the male gender bias only to throw in female gender bias instead of making it gender neutral.
-Taylor


Says "Taylor", which is a nice gender-neutral unisex name like Leslie. Oh the sweet irony!

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397875)

They is more correct than she, if you're referring to a group.

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397963)

They is more correct than she, if you're referring to a group.

Well, in the sense that "she" is completely incorrect when referring to a group, yes.
And "they" is technically completely incorrect when referring to one person, but people use it all the time, and I like it more than any other option (god forbid, in writing anyway, someone say "s/he"). I wish "they" was just correct.
-Taylor

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397983)

Yep. I don't really get why people avoid "one" anyway though. Here in the UK, it's usually avoided because people don't want to sound "posh", since only the aristocracy really use "one". However, when people are already showing off their brains by writing a thesis or some article on the virtues of video formats on a world-renowned encyclopedia site, it makes a lot of sense to simply use one then too.

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398105)

Yep. I don't really get why people avoid "one" anyway though. Here in the UK, it's usually avoided because people don't want to sound "posh", since only the aristocracy really use "one". However, when people are already showing off their brains by writing a thesis or some article on the virtues of video formats on a world-renowned encyclopedia site, it makes a lot of sense to simply use one then too.

"One" isn't always correct either though. Imagine a conversation between you and someone else:

You: Hey, my friend just called.

Someone else: What did *he/she/one/they* say?

Only "they" sounds reasonable!
-Taylor

Re:Weird story gender... (2, Informative)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398117)

I wish "they" was just correct.

"They" is hereby correct by declaration. If somebody doesn't like it they can bite my shiney metal... pen. If it ever comes up, you can site this post.

Re:Weird story gender... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398595)

Cite, not site. Ah, the ironing is delicious!

Re:Weird story gender... (2, Insightful)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397953)

I've noticed this 'politically correct' way of writing documents nowadays. I assumed it was deluded female tech authors trying to make some kind of point. Its not grammatically correct (according to my old English teacher - she said "In English, He embraces She") as the masculine form always includes the feminine. Like "mankind" means women too. "Womenkind" on the other hand is very exclusive.

Pity us poor men, we don't have a gender bias, we have to share it with women, while women get their own.

So, yeah, it annoys me too - authors should know better than to write in this way, of all the incorrect forms of grammer, this is the one that really stands out for some reason.

Re:Weird story gender... (0, Troll)

mqduck (232646) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398037)

Using "her" or "she" in this way is common and adds balance when mixed with "his" and "he". I don't care if English teachers and opponents of "political correctness" say than "his", "he", "man", etc. correctly cover both genders, because the rule itself is sexist, coming from a past when the principal actors in society were assumed to all be male.

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398167)

Wait - political correctness? But you're the one getting offended over the use of someone else's language!

It might be political correctness if someone whined about the use of the word "he". But if someone uses "she", that's his, her, their or its choice[*]. And in this case, you're the one criticising the use of the word "she".

I have no problem with the use of "he" as a generic singular pronoun. But suggesting that people shouldn't use "she" as a generic singular pronoun, out of fear of offending people? That's political correctness.

[*] - is that okay for you?

Re:Weird story gender... (5, Insightful)

mdwh2 (535323) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398131)

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.

Re:Weird story gender... (1)

smoker2 (750216) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398637)

them, "allowing them to search for video." If you permit a user to do something you allow them to do it. Nothing grammatically wrong with that at all. Unless you have already specified a particular person.
If a worker needed to leave early, I would allow them to go.
If Dave needed to leave early, I would allow him to go.
etc.

obligatory xkcd (1)

iris-n (1276146) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399077)

http://xkcd.com/145/ [xkcd.com]

It is not that incorrect. Anyway, it is the type of linguistical hacking that I appreciate.

Wikimedia Commons (2, Interesting)

Trebawa (1461025) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397693)

Isn't this exactly what Wikimedia Commons is for? Why would this go on Wikipedia?

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28397911)

Never gonna give you up, never gonna let you down
Never gonna turn around and...desert you.

I know what video I will be uploading.

Donations? (4, Interesting)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28397959)

I have donated to Wikipedia a few times over the years. But I think I will stop if this video 'enhancement' takes off. I can think of no article I have ever read that would have been served better by video on the same page. Just reference a video from a source site. I thought Wikipedia was a non-profit organization running an lean crew of committed semi-volunteers, not a business looking to 'drive traffic' to their site.

Re:Donations? (1)

geniice (1336589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398073)

check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#History [wikipedia.org] . The video is at least somewhat useful.

Re:Donations? (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399299)

It very well may be. But since most people don't have an OGG player installed, why bother? And what's more, what if someone ripped that video from the site and replaced it with almost exact the same - but with, say, some political rant at the end. Ever try doing a diff check on video content? Is someone going to have to watch every video, frame-by-frame, everyday, to see if something changed?

Re:Donations? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398425)

You know that videos don't have to load automatically don't you?

I guess your a Explorer user or a Firefox/etc user without the appropriate plugin.

PS: I imagine you can stop flash from loading automatically in Explorer too, don't know, don't use it.

Media is the missing element (2, Insightful)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398501)

Wikipedia is missing the media rich content found on every other software-based encyclopedia, like Encarta and Worldbook. Since such software is dying off because the things like Wikipedia are so packed full of free, up-to-date information, it seems like a natural extension for the free encyclopedia.

Sure, links to other websites are fine, but the archival of human knowledge found in Wikipedia is important too. Links get broken, external media disappears... I'm sure WP would much rather have their own content which they control, than rely on other sources that taint media with ads, that are inconsistent in formats etc...

When you see the kind of junk on YouTube, I know, its worrysome. I know there will be copyright issues, pornography etc... It will cost more money for sure... But it's time to make use of the rich feature set Internet brings to us and WP. It's an advantage WP has over printed textbooks and they should use such advantages IF they can handle it.

I guess that's the issue though: Even YouTube is having a hard time profiting from video hosting.

Speaking of YouTube -- and maybe this is a disastrous idea -- but what if Wikipedia relied on a service like YouTube? Obviously that's not going to work (advertising, comments, flash player etc...), but think about it: Hosting videos and filtering inappropriate stuff is what they are good at. Maybe with some negotiation and charitable good will on YouTube's part, there could be special provisions for Wikipedia. For example, YouTube could host user-uploaded video content for WP, but without all the commercial baggage (Read: charitable). However, if you followed the link, it would take you to YouTube to show the video in high-def or whatever... commercial free, no junk comments etc. It wouldn't be profitable for YouTube, but they'd have *more* useful content on their website thanks to WP, drawing more users and good will. Also, WP would benefit from the already established efficiency of YouTube.

Again though, that's kind of a crazy idea with a plethora of potential pit falls, but just brain storming. Yes, there would have to be many changes to accommodate these videos, WP would have to be pretty trusting of TY and finally YT would have to be in an awfully giving mood itself.

Personally, I'd much rather have WP host the material, but find a way to do so for far less than I'm imagining the real cost will be.

Re:Media is the missing element (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399319)

Wikipedia is missing the media rich content found on every other software-based encyclopedia, like Encarta and Worldbook. Since such software is dying off because the things like Wikipedia are so packed full of free, up-to-date information, it seems like a natural extension for the free encyclopedia.

Those are for-profit products that are anything but neutral on controversial topics. I think using You Tube would be fundamentally flawed. Every video would essentially be an advertisement for Google. How would WP defend against claims of Google influence if they depended on them for content. And hosting the videos themselves really would not be possible, unless WP has A LOT more money then they are letting on. Once can host 10,000 text pages for the same server/network resources a one popular 5-minute video.

Title is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398291)

They already have video [wikipedia.org] , they're just improving it.

Video edit wars (1)

OutputLogic (1566511) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398395)

Oftentimes Wikipedians engage in nasty edit wars [wikipedia.org]
I'm looking forward to seeing video edit wars.

OutputLogic [outputlogic.com]

Using a monopoly to destroy competing technology (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28398407)

Wikipedia practically has a monopoly on information content, even stronger than Microsoft has a monopoly on OS software.

What is called for here, by a large number of people, is for Wikipedia to use this monopoly for the benefit of a single video standard, with the aim of destroying opposing technologies because they are not open source.

Why should someone who does not see open-source as a natural ideological destination not see this as evil, abusive and hypocritical on a mass scale? Wasn't there a discussion here just days/weeks ago where it was demanded that YouTube also allow open-source formats? Why is it so important that YouTube allows open-source, yet another site should never use anything but open source, unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?

This is a great example of open source being an ideological battle setting out to destroy proporietary software. Although many often deny it (maybe they don't like awareness of the truth?), there's plenty of examples from the community.

Re:Using a monopoly to destroy competing technolog (1)

AxelBoldt (1490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28399009)

unless the consistent goal is "always maximise the use of open source and minimise the use of anything else"?

That's indeed one of the goals of the Wikimedia foundation, it's in their charter. They are a 100% open source shop. After all, it's a "free encyclopedia", and the word "free" has many senses, all of which apply here.

It's not. Wikipedia content is Creative Commons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28399053)

You could copy all the wikipedia articles right now and suddenly start your own version. It would be bit like a fork. This is not a high barrier to entry. I would be more inclined to agree with it being a monopoly if all the material was under a stricter license.

This is also precisely why the idea of open source monopolies are a red herring. If IE was open source software, when MS stopped developing it it would have been forked.

This is a great example of open source being an ideological battle setting out to destroy proporietary software. Although many often deny it (maybe they don't like awareness of the truth?), there's plenty of examples from the community.

Be wary of RMS. While interesting, his views do not necessarily reflect he views of all the community. Do not forget that there are the BSD and LGPL licenses as well.

wiki and youtube already (1)

doode (1315147) | more than 5 years ago | (#28398883)

This has already existed in a very unbiased way - http://www.wiki-surf.com/ [wiki-surf.com] links wiki articles to youtube videos.

I Thank y0u for your time (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28399519)

implemSEntation to
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...