From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

What is the technology here?[edit]

It seems like this proposal is centered on

  1. text to speech tools
  2. online video editors which use Wikimedia Commons files

Is that correct? Bluerasberry (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry Hi! Regarding (1), yes. Currently Google's text-to-speech service is used, but eventually other services (like Amazon Polly or Wikispeech) could be used. Regarding (2), yes, but it's not a regular visual video editor. It's just wikitext (see However, I think that eventually, a more regular visual video editor can be added to the visual editor, similar to how galleries have a visual editor. Makes sense? Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get it. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyright for text to speech output?[edit]

Current Google text to speech is used. What ownership do they claim over the output of this tool and how do we verify? Bluerasberry (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry I did a Google search and while I didn't find a specific statement by Google, I found this answer that suggests there's no copyright claim over the text-to-speech output. Somewhat related, the Amazon Polly text-to-speech service has this FAQ where it clearly states that we retain ownership of content processed and stored by them. Sophivorus (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YesY Yes, it seems that the output of the service can have whatever license the service user assigns to it. This makes sense. Everything seems cool to use this to make Wikimedia content. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related projects[edit]

I really like this collaborative video approach.

I'd just like to add that it reminded me a bit of Wikistories, which also combines media from Wikimedia Commons and text to create Instagram-like stories, although not read aloud. If you agree that they do have something in common, maybe the project could be added to the "Related projects" section. What do you think? Cheers! Diegodlh (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Diegodlh: I think it is similar and I added it. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a new project really needed?[edit]

Couldn't this just be collaborated on in a namespace on Wikimedia Commons? And from the examples, it's not really videos, so a possible name could be Slideshow. Ainali talkcontributions 14:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all!
  1. The current examples are not like slideshows because they incorporate audio, which slideshows don't. More importantly, future versions of the WikiVideos extension will support the use of other media, notably videos, so their similarity with slideshows will be even less. Therefore, I think Wikivideos is a more appropriate name.
  2. Regarding the possibility of doing this in Commons, I think it could be. A new project would definitely catch more interest than an obscure feature in Commons, but the question is how much prominence we want to give it. On the other hand, my previous experience trying to get a much simpler extension reviewed and enabled in a much smaller wiki (phab:T149424) will probably prevent me from ever attempting to enable WikiVideos in Commons, at least not without someone else supporting and encouraging me.
  3. As to the "procedural closing" of the project proposal by @Dronebogus, I think it was a bit soon, hardly a week went by. However I don't want to be the one to re-open. If no one else cares enough to do so, then perhaps the assessment of little enthusiasm and no niche was correct.
  4. Regarding the objection of the low quality of the example videos though, I think that's because I put much more time and effort into the software than the example videos. I didn't think the examples were that important, and eventually someone with more talent would create better videos. I don't think the software is inherently limited, it's just a matter of putting more time and love into the videos.
  5. Lastly, regarding the similarity to VideoWiki, I think the implementation is so radically different, that it's difficult to compare. I believe the WikiVideos extension is much better integrated to the MediaWiki software because it simply introduces a new parser tag, a completely standard feature.
However, as I said above, I won't reopen this project. If someone else considers it worthwhile and wants to reopen, then great, we'll continue pushing this idea together. Else there's probably no point to it. Cheers! Sophivorus (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]