Wikipedia talk:Sound/Archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

After a lot of discussion and a period on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment without any dissent, this page has been created to relax the previous Wikipedia '.ogg' only sound file policy.

It replaces the previous pages:

--Zarni02 08:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I object agaisnt the use of .WAV:

-Like AVI WAV isn't a standard : you can use different codecs and some aren't free.

-Most WAV codecs aren't bandwith efficient.

Ericd 12:09, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation guides

I haven't yet digested these new recommendations in general, but one exception I have to the sound link placement is that it would be useful to provide a pronunciation link next to the first use of a phrase that might cause readers some pronunciation difficulty (e.g., Abu Ghraib). As far as I know, my concern is only theoretical at this point, since I've neither contributed nor even seen any such pronunciation samples yet. -- Jeff Q 23:17, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MP3 on Wikipedia

I removed the "agreed upon" guidelines in question and reverted back to Ogg Vorbis and WAV, the user claimed to have consensus for this while he did not get sufficient votes in my opinion for it on here, there are very strong leagal issues to think about which by far outweight comfort-issues, as very few knew of this we should advertise this very well if this discussion it to take place again, including the mailing lists, pump, RFC, Goings-on et cetera. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:18, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

I applaud Zarni02's efforts to broaden the use of sound formats on Wikipedia, but I do agree that there should be more debate about MP3 use. The poll that User:Zarni02 created didn't get any response. I, for one, never even heard about it until after it was "over", despite my own strong interest in the subject. (I knew nothing about Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment until today.) I don't think this was Zarni02's fault, as he/she did post a notice on Wikipedia talk:Sound and Wikipedia, and it is far from obvious where such a poll should be posted. (Should it be on the appropriate Talk page? On Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment? On Wikipedia:Current surveys? Or somewhere else? I've been using Wikipedia for a year now, and this question gets less clear the more I use it. And what the hell is "Goings-on"?) Since Zarni02 has now redirected several of the revelant but widely-scattered articles and talk pages to this new one, I think this page is currently the best place to discuss the issue. -- Jeff Q 00:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would suggest we attempt to build a consensus decision, but I'm afraid that we are currently missing some vital ingredients, like a complete list of the real-world uses and expectations of sound on Wikipedia, and general Wikipedian participation (rather than the existing OGG users and a handful of dissenters). Any suggestions on how to raise the profile on this topic and formulate such a list? -- Jeff Q 00:11, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thing is that this is not about whats comfortable, MP3 is a proprietery patent encumbered format that we just get away with currently using, if we would encaurage it's use then people would begin uploading mp3 files to the 'pedia. This would probably be okey for the moment but lets say that we would one day want to publish this and sell it. Then the licenceors of mp3 would demant that they be paid a precentage of that. This is far from useless paranoia because thats what they do today, if you sell an mp3 application then you have to pay for a per-seat licence. Proprietery formats have no place on a free encyclopedia, it is simply wastly counter-productive and harmful for the whole project, any small uncomforts you go through today far underweigh the large comforts we would go through later when we'd have to pay licence costs for the mp3 files or let alone if the patent holders would sue wikimedia. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 00:24, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Ævar, I think your actions here have been a little rude and would have thought it polite to make changes after discussion and request for comment as was done for these changes. These changes were posted on the request for comment page for weeks. They were not put to a vote since there was no dissent at all.

There are no current legal impediments to storing or serving MP3 files on web sites - there is if you make software to produce or manipulate MP3 files.

Wikipedia does not make browsers, sound players, editors or other multimedia tools and hence has no liability to any licence holders. Certainly there is potential liability, as there is with everything. But if you start worrying about that you will need to ban just about everything. I personally intend to claim patent rights over the 'bit' and demand $1 for every use therof!

The changes I implemented were to relax the previous .ogg only policy, and were a compromise that I actually think a little silly, but were designed to placate the .ogg promoters.

Like it or not, MP3 remains the most commonly accepted sound format. The common browsers (IE & Mozilla) provide out of the box support for MP3.

--Zarni02 02:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My actions were not rude because you made a policy change more people would like to comment on, both on the pump and here people were not aware of this. There is nothing wrong with changing it back and await more input.

My point was not about websites, Wikipedia is not just a website, wikipedia could be published on CD's in books and on various other mediums, and for that people would perhaps need to ship decoders for the for the media presented in it with that publication, as that happens, and especially when the foundation starts to make some money from that it becomes a bigger target for a patent lawsuit. There is a danm good reason why RedHat for example just doesnt ship a mp3 decoder with it's distribution, people who do that are at the mercy of Fraunhoffer.

I frankly do not care if MP3 is the most popular format, i refuse to condone that a free encyclopedia i work on will start to promote none-free formats, it's not much good being free is it if you need none-free tools to read the material now is it? I frankly think it's much less effort for people to just get a Ogg Vorbis decoder, which takes 2-5 minuites than us bending over and accepting proprietery formats, mp3 is possibly the most open proprietery format however, but once the example has been set people might start to promote things like Windows Media, Real Media and others, it's just a very bad example to set IMO.

And just as a note IE and Mozilla have no out of the box support for mp3, they forward the file to the application registered for the MIME type in question, you just think they do because your system supports mp3 files and not Ogg files, install an Ogg decoder, register it for the Ogg MIME type, and then you'll be able to play Ogg's seamlessly, just like you play MP3's now -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:42, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

What's this absurd talk about "publishing" and "selling" Wikipedia content? I don't recall any talk or suggestion that this was a potential future for Wikipedia. (I'm contributing to a free encyclopedia, not one that someone expects to make money from.) It sounds like a silly straw-man argument by someone desperate to disguise the real issue — avoiding the overzealous litigation by content licensors (not licenceors) anxious to protect their legitimate rights by preventing illegal copying and distribution of music files. Wikipedia must guard against the improper uploading of such materials just as it fights illegal copyright violations of textual material. I will say (as I've said many times before, elsewhere) that these arguments seem to suggest that the existing sound use in Wikipedia is mainly to provide yet another repository for music which may or may not include copyright violations, and that the OGG effort merely aims to eliminate imagined exposure to patent violations of proprietary (not proprietery) technology without addressing real problems. Once again, I call for a thorough, rational debate of all options and issues, rather than this silly knee-jerk argument cycle. -- Jeff Q 03:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Then you've misunderstood what free means, it being a free encyclopedia does not mean nobody can sell it, in fact people are already selling it in germany now as a matter of fact, the word free in the english language has two meanings, Free as in Freedom and Free as in no price, wikipedia is the former. There are already plans to sell it, publish it and people are in fact already doing that on a small scale, why? because the GFDL grants them the freedom to do that. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:10, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

By the way, IE, Mozilla, and pretty much every browser in existence have out-of-the-box support for WAV, yet it is also a target for these knee-jerk attacks. MP3 may not have OOTB support from browsers, but neither does OGG. OGG can't claim any significant fraction of MP3's support in the real world, and MP3 tools that provide automatic installation and configuration of browser support for non-technical users make OGG's few, pathetic versions look like Stone Age tools. -- Jeff Q 03:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

People disagree with WAV for different reasons, it is an open, lossless format, and furthermore it has no metadata like Ogg Vorbis or Ogg FLAC, hence files in WAV are huge for their content and have no data associated with them save for their name, which is often uninformetive. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:12, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

As for Zarni02's change, it was advertised ahead of time in the very forum that was dicussing this ongoing issue. The most he/she can be blamed for is not waiting long enough for a response before such a bold action. I also think Zarni02 was the victim of a Wikipedia glitch (of which there are many currently), since I had Wikipedia:Sound and Wikipedia on my watchlist, yet never noticed his/her postings during the solicitation period. -- Jeff Q 03:02, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yet it was not on the pump and not on the mailings lists ( i've put it on both now ), what exactly are you objecting to? That i reverted him because many people could not due to it being in some absurd place comment on it? I simply want a public discussion on the issue and while that has not taken place i reverted this so called consensus. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 03:10, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

Given our established commitment to providing content that is as open as possible, I don't see how we can use MP3 files on Wikipedia while the technology is covered by patents. Compare this with the image file formats we allow. --Michael Snow 03:49, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We should definitely stick to OGG. There is no good reason to go with MP3. It takes minimal effort to get an OGG player, and Wikipedia should promote open standards. Jimbo has always said that he envisions Wikipedia to be distributed to poor nations on CD and DVD. We're not going to be at the mercy of the decoder providing companies. We should just bundle an Ogg player. Using MP3 is akin to using fair use when public domain is available. So what if it's a bit more inconvenient for users. It's a much more important issue to provide free (as in open) content. And this most definitely needed to have been advertised on the pump and mailing lists. It's not a small issue, and no one has every single policy/guideline out there on their watchlist. Dori | Talk 04:20, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just seen this page - winamp does ogg out of the box. Ogg is hardly unsupported. Secretlondon 07:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There was no dissent because nobody knew it was happening. I know I personally can't monitor all pages that potentially have policy discussions. At any rate, patent-encumbered formats are unacceptable unless no other option exists. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:30, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that would be pretty obvious seeing as he didnt recive any comments on RFC. This is a huge issue, and it's not just about some MP3 files, this is much bigger, it's discussing whether we should allow proprietery formats on Wikipedia. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 05:02, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

It's even more important than that. We would be forcing some people to have to pay in order to get to the content and be able to modify it, or they might not be able to get to it at all legally. Sure there are plenty of free (as in open) programs that encode and decode mp3, but how many of them are legal and available in all platforms? Dori | Talk 05:09, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my voice against MP3 or any proprietary format in Wikipedia. OGG may not be the most popular format, but then neither is PNG (I'm aware that the GIF patents have expired). To remain free (as in freedom) Wikipedia cannot accept proprietary formats. I would suggest reading [1] for an explanation of freedom in the context of software. Most of the ideas of free software can be extended to free content (like Wikipedia) by analogy. Dan Gardner 05:16, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, when this is all over i suggest we hold a vote on making Ogg Vorbis, Ogg Speex and Ogg FLAC our suggested audio formats and Ogg Theora our media format, that way we'll have a complete,free solution for media. w00t;) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 06:10, 2004 Jul 17 (UTC)

To me, this is a very simple question. If a file format can't be read with free software, then we must not use it. If a file format can be read with free software, but can't be created with free software, then we should strongly discourage the use. Notice that the GIF patent threat was to creators of software like The Gimp (to make the files) rather than to creators of software like Mozilla (to read the files). The situation with MP3 is, as I understand it, much worse. Here the threat is to both encoders and decoders. Therefore we must not use MP3 files.

It is important to undertsand that the issue of convenience is at the heart of our fight for freedom. People continue to use proprietary formats and proprietary software because they perceive it as being more convenient. One of the most important things that we can do is to illustrate that proprietary formats are actually inconvenient, so long as some people choose to use formats that are free. And if we at Wikipedia do our small part to get people to download and install a proper free decoder (this will generally just be a codec in a player) so that we make the free Ogg Vorbis format as convenient as the proprietary format, we will have achieved something important. Jimbo Wales 06:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia open and free! — Chameleon My page/My talk 07:21, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A free enciclopedia isn't free anymore if it's stored in propietary formats, so say NO to patent-royalty-encumbered mp3. About WAV, it's a complete waste of space. If lossless audio is needed, there's FLAC, a free lossless format. I'd replace WAV with that in the guidelines.Rvalles 13:07, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I've been working in secondary schools for four years, now. At each of them, the computers available for research in the libraries were either Apple OS X (wealthy prep school) or Win95/98. In the last year, I've been a librarian. While I migrated my machines to Debian, the public libraries in the area were Win 98 machines, with a few "special" XP machines. The licenses for .mp3 have been encumbered upon the OS in these cases, and the students, who were encouraged to use Wikipedia, had no ability to play .ogg files. Were Wikipedia to move to .ogg exclusively, its functionality would be limited severely for a good portion of the public. This is not to say that .ogg isn't superior, only that 90% of market share in PC's is still Microsoft, and public research facilities are normally behind others. Geogre 01:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Sound "MP3 is a ubiquitous technology whch some dislike because of licensing issues, though everone has a player for it and free of charge players and recorders are included in all popular operating systems." It's wrong there's no MP3 player in recent releases of Redhat Linux. Ericd 10:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ericd. Besides the egregious spelling errors, the quoted passage above is absurdly absolute and needlessly denigrates legitimate licensing concerns. (For the record, not everyone has an MP3 player, even though it is currently the most popular compressed music format, and there are no legal free players. Any OS bundling players must pay a licensing fee, and any legal use of separate player applications and devices must include a payment to the equipment or software vendor, from which they may pay license fees. This, of course, does not prevent significant illegal use of MP3.) I have replaced the MP3 issue paragraph with yet another attempt at an accurate and NPOV statement. I've also added an HTML comment suggesting that people read this page before attempting further edits on the passage. The text I added is:

MP3, though an extremely popular format, is burdened by some complex licensing issues, making Wikipedia use problematic at best. It should not be used at this time. (See Wikipedia talk:Sound for the ongoing debate.)

For those who simply must change this to reflect their strong convictions, please consider the following:

MP3 proponents should note that, regardless of MP3's popularity, the MP3 distribution license raises legitimate legal concerns, however unreasonably, even for organizations who merely host MP3 files. (It's an unfortunate reality, in the U.S. at least, that legal arguments are frequently won by the party with more money, not necessarily with the better case.) Also, current policy, per Wikipedia founder User:Jimbo Wales, is not to allow MP3.
MP3 opponents should note that simply stating "MP3 is not compatible with a free encyclopedia" invites honest attempts to revise the text to something more explanatory, as well as outraged supportive statements that don't belong in the article.

-- Jeff Q 13:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

MP3s are protected with patents. So, just because _today_ you are charged only for encoding MP3s that does not mean that _tomorrow_ you will not be charged for playing or distributing MP3s. Patent encumbered encodings have no place on a free Wikipedia.--kop 03:10, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Playing in browser

To play the sound file you should only need to click on the sound file for your browser to play the file.

This line forms the heart of what I believe sound support in Wikipedia should provide, but doesn't seem to be reflected by many existing Wikipedia sound users (primarily the crowd that vehemently argues for OGG as the exclusive sound format for Wikipedia). Except for the WAV format, users are likely to run into problems following this advice. It would be a good idea to create a section (or perhaps even an article) that addresses how to test and configure one's browser to make this possible. Existing links and documents are sparse and too terse in their "explanations", useful only to a highly-technical user population. I'm well aware of just how challenging a topic this is. I'm only pointing out that the currently reality is quite a distance from the desired goal in this statement. -- Jeff Q 23:25, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please do add instruction on how to play Ogg files in the most common browsers and on the most common platforms. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:30, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

I would like to, but I tend to spend most of my Wiki time on things I know well. I have no significant experience with OGG yet, and it will take me some time to become knowledgeable enough to do the topic justice. What I would like to see is likely well beyond the interests of those who are already comfortable with OGG, as documenting installation processes (never mind improving and generalizing them!) is much more tedious and time-consuming than just sitting down to the computer and doing it free-style whenever it's needed. (Making complex technical processes easy and comprehensible has been a significant part of my professional career, so I know of what I speak.) I fear that nothing will be done on this subject until someone like me can take the time to do this significant task. Given the condescension shown to myself and others looking for snidely-labelled "comfortable" sound use by certain members of the OGG crowd, I don't expect any help from that quarter. -- Jeff Q 23:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know exactly the current state of MP3 support out-of-the-box for Microsoft Windows, but I recall distinctly that you not so long ago had to install a separate, third-party program (generally [Winamp http://www.winamp.com]) to play MP3's. Well, Winamp (at least the full version) plays OGG's too. David.Monniaux 07:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a page with guidelines on what programs to use for Ogg (as I added to it myself), where did this end up in the shuffle? Dori | Talk 04:24, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

The page I think you mean was Wikipedia:Sound_help. I moved this to Wikipedia:Ogg Vorbis help --Zarni02 04:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am not sure that this should be in the main namespace (at least in the format that it is). Dori | Talk 05:01, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Moving it to Wikipedia:Ogg Vorbis help and adding a "help with" link to Ogg Vorbis. +sj + 04:31, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Based on the information in Jimbo's post above and some other sources, I can see the problems that people have about MP3 licensing. One can argue that the license can't be enforced against simple distribution of materials, but one would be foolish to bet one's financial security on such arguments in the current litigious climate. I was not aware that people were making money from the sale of Wikipedia content. I have some real problems with this, but that's obviously a completely separate topic and doesn't change the reality. In any case, there remains the rather significant problem that there is no widely-supported, efficient, GFDL-friendly sound format. OGG may be the closest thing we have, but its current state (as I've said elsewhere) makes it very difficult for a non-techie to properly install and integrate its support into their regular browser use. (I know many of you OGG folks out there are going to want to object to these claims, but I've worked as a programmer and technical consultant in the computer industry for over 20 years, and I can tell you that anyone comfortable with browser plugin installation [and the near-inevitable troubleshooting!] as it exists today already exhibits technical skills far beyond the average Web user.) It may be that the only near-term solution to the problem is creating better help and installation processes for OGG. I'll have to study this some more. On the other hand, none of this affects the utility of WAV files. The main objection there seems to be their massive size, but for my purposes — short sound clips illustrating encyclopedic topics (like pronunciation and sound effects) — this should not be an issue. -- Jeff Q 23:35, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We should not be using patented formats where open ones are available. ogg is getting more widely supported, and we should encourage this. NPOV does not apply in this area - we are no neutral on this issue - we favour freedom over closed software, and should promote it by using it. Mark Richards 01:14, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have had no problem making OGG play on my browser, it should not be that hard to show others how to do it. All I had to do was go to the Winamp site, download it, and tell it to becmome my standard audio player. After that, when I cliked on an OGG file, a screen popped up asking me what I wanted to use to open the file, the default was Winamp, there was a checkbox that said "always use this program to open this type of file" I checked that and now the OGG file plays right away whenever I click on it. I am using Firefox 0.9.2, maybe it is harder with IE, but it can't be that much harder.Jeff8765 02:46, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Jeff8765, the fact that you use Firefox already pegs you as a technical user. I should not need to point out to any experienced techie how ill-advised the expression "it can't be much harder" is. Have you ever worked in a Customer Service hotline for a software manufacturer? ☺ From what little I've seen of Firefox, it seems a surprisingly robust and stable browser for a "pre-release", and the one plugin I've separately installed so far (AlternaTIFF for robust TIFF support) for Firefox 0.8 worked quite well for it as well as my copies of Opera 7.23 (my preferred browser), Mozilla 1.5, Netscape 4.79, and Netscape 7.1 — all automatically within a single installation. This was the most remarkable plugin experience I've ever had, and is a tribute to AlternaTIFF, not Firefox or the other browsers. MSIE uses a very different and bug-ridden ActiveX-based plugin system, so assumptions based on Firefox use are unwise at best. Unfortunately, the vast majority of users access the Web through MSIE. In any case, I suggest that data-sparse theorizing about OGG installation and configuration for the majority of potential users is fairly pointless. I challenge the fans of OGG to produce an setup process for a specific OGG player for each likely browser/version that fits on a modest-sized page and is tested on at least vanilla installations of each of those browsers. The less one has to read and the more one can simply click on obvious links and buttons without triggering technophobia, the better. I hope to do this myself at some point in the future, but it will take me some time to get to it. -- Jeff Q 07:45, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reference document

http://www.mp3licensing.com/royalty/software.html

Try again, Ericd. This document explicitly states that it covers encoders and decoders and not distribution, commercial or otherwise, of MP3 files. I would have fixed it myself with the information contained on that page, but I'm just a little bit upset about your snotty and unjustified accusation on Wikipedia:Village pump. Fix it yourself. -- Jeff Q 23:20, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It covers decoders, that means you can't play MP3 with free software. Enough for me. Ericd 09:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ericd, Wikipedia does not play MP3, therefore it can't be affected by license issues regarding decoders. Only client-based application software plays MP3. (Even browsers don't actually do it themselves.) It neither furthers your argument nor your reputation for clear thinking to present irrelevant data. But I will help you out, since I'm feeling more charitable than I was yesterday, by posting the appropriate reference document link in proper Wiki-external-link form:

Thomson mp3licensing.com: Electronic Music Distribution / Broadcasting / Streaming

To save interested parties even the trouble of examining that document, I'll post the relevant text as well:

[D/B/S coverage includes] Commercial (i.e., revenue-generating) use of mp3/mp3PRO in broadcast systems (terrestrial, satellite, cable and/or other distribution channels), streaming applications (via Internet, intranets and/or other networks), other content distribution systems (pay-audio or audio-on-demand applications and the like) or use of mp3/mp3PRO on physical media (compact discs, digital versatile discs, semiconductor chips, hard drives, memory cards and the like).

Note: No license is needed for private, non-commercial activities (e.g., home-entertainment, receiving broadcasts and creating a personal music library), not generating revenue or other consideration of any kind or for entities with an annual gross revenue less than US$ 100 000.00.

Since I've got the same problem with MP3 that I do with OGG — complete lack of inline browser support (i.e., need for a complicated external application to play the files) — I'll leave further arguments about the implications of this text for others to debate. -- Jeff Q 01:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New Policy Proposal: Ogg + WAV

The previous .ogg only policy was not working. This is demonstrably correct since apart from the Ogg Vorbis demo files unrelated to any articles, hardly any articles have sound files attached. I could find only 5, of which I contributed the sounds to 2 of these. There are probably more - but I could not find them. The existing Wikipedia Sound page and the Music page have no sounds!

By a very strange twist of fate, one of the existing pages with sound attached is The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty_Python).

The intent of the change was to relax the previous '.ogg only policy'. No one was particularly keen on promoting MP3. (See previous discussions on Wikipedia_talk:Sound_and_Wikipedia).

I seem to have fermented some healthy discussion. As the above shows, there is some strong dissent against MP3.

If or when Microsoft/IE starts supporting Ogg Vorbis, then all these arguments are moot and Ogg Vorbis reigns supreme. Until this occurs, there is a need for Wikipedia to present its users with a workable solution.

The solutuion as suggested on Wikipedia_talk:Sound_and_Wikipedia was to provide multiple formats. The changes I implemented were the result of these discussions.

However, in the interest of a working compromise I would like to declare:

Okey dokey, I should also have posted to the Village Pump (I only posted to the various discussion pages). My mistake! Thanks to Ævar for posting there.
There are sound reasons to avoid MP3 (tehe!)
We should seek to promote Ogg Vorbis
Whatever the policy on sound is, it should be easily usable by the average user

And now I would like to propose a revised sound encoding policy that I am hoping most people can live with:

- Sound files should be encoded in Ogg Vorbis format
- Sound files can optionally be encoded in WAV format
- Sound files should not be encoded in MP3 format

Support for WAV files should be removed as soon as the latest version of IE (ok, Windows/Windows Media Player or whatever), provides support for Ogg Vorbis.

The only issue I see with the above is that WAV files are uncompressed. However, since this seems to be the only remotely acceptable format that Microsoft supports, I think it is the best of a bad bunch. If we adhere to a small sample file size, the uncompressed nature should not be an issue. Wikipedia should not be used to store full songs or 5 minute monologues.

EricD raised an issue with different Codecs used within WAV. I think most software uses the PCM format for WAV. I have never had an issue with WAV files from any source. Nevertheless it is an issue, but as I said, WAV is the best of a bad bunch. In any case, if someone has problem with the WAV file, there will be the OGG file available.

Please comment.

--Zarni02 04:35, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think your above proposal is well-stated, reasonable, and thankfully devoid of the vituperative commentary (to which I have admittedly contributed at times) that has colored this ongoing debate. I would add only that, by "IE support for Ogg Vorbis", we mean out-of-the-box support. In the meantime, hopefully, we can develop some easy-to-use procedures to make Ogg setup friendly for non-technical Wikipedians. -- Jeff Q 07:56, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

hardly any articles have sound files attached -- You haven't looked very well. I alone have uploaded over 60 Ogg files: User:Dori/Media#Sound files. The easiest way to find them is to go to Special:Imagelist and enter ".ogg" for the search string. Dori | Talk 13:08, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Dori, thank you very much for that pointer. My own search attempts had yielded poor results similar to Zarni02's. (It's another example of how unobvious some really useful page names are, exacerbated by the expedient practice of calling sound files "images". This is the kind of "secret handshake" stuff that technical folks like us take for granted, but cause massive confusion for ordinary mortals simply trying to use software.) I've downloaded and converted into an Excel spreadsheet a snapshot list of the 576 ".ogg" files I found, and will be studying them in an attempt to understand and extrapolate all the existing uses of Ogg-based sound on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for getting this information from the actual users, since many seem to be more interested in decrying other formats and insulting and dismissing non-techies than actually providing useful information. Thank you for being an exception to this trend. -- Jeff Q 00:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, seeing "image" when it should be "file" is confusing, and that cruft really should go. I went through and fixed some of this, but for some of them it's not easy to figure out if it's really meant to specify "image" or the generic "file." I hope I didn't make any mistakes, but I guess I'll deal with the criticism if it means a bit less confusion on the part of some users. You can see the interface messages at [2]. Dori | Talk 04:48, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Dori, I did not mean to criticize you or anyone else for taking that expedient course with the "image" namespace and nomenclature. I recognize that creating and maintaining Wikpedia infrastructure is a considerable effort, especially for unpaid volunteers. (And it's more than just messages; I imagine that the "Image:" prefix, apparently implemented before there were other kinds of binary files to upload, is not something updated as "easily" as the system messages. But this was just an example; there are far more pressing technical issues.) All I meant to say is that too many Wiki contributors with a significant technical background take for granted their own rapid climbing of the learning curve, and show little or no patience with anyone who lacks their background (or with anyone trying to help such people). I don't expect, say, code compilers or Linux to be comprehensible by non-techies — like my parents — but for something like Wikipedia, which is supposed to be accessible by anyone who can operate a browser, and whose audience is actively being grown (see Wikipedia:Building Wikipedia membership), I try to bring technical barriers to the attention of those who are in a position to do something about it. Thank you again for your efforts. -- Jeff Q 17:38, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ta. I found half a dozen or so more articles from that search.

By the by, if you do the same search for .mp3 or .wav you find lots more by lots of people (not just the same 2 or 3 .ogg contributors). It would seem that people have been ignoring the '.ogg only policy anyway' --Zarni02 00:21, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree totally with the WAV proposal. WAV is a container that can held non-compressed audio (it's better to use lossless compressed audio, like the free FLAC), and propietary audio, which can lead to legal problems. So I suggest replacing it with FLAC in the proposal, and limiting its use to the few times that lossless audio is needed.Rvalles 13:07, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

About the Windows/IE argument, my rebuttal is: who cares? really, there is only so far we can bend over backwards for a group of people — they can download a plugin, for FREE! — in three to five minuites!! really how hard could it be? Webdesigners put flash all over the web and that doesnt have support in IE. yet they get a plugin, if they want to listen to sound on wikipedia they can get a Vorbis plugin, it doesnt take long as detailed above and is really the best solution in my opinion.

Now, since we're on the issue, i suggest that we expand the formats to : Ogg Speex, Ogg Vorbis, Ogg FLAC, Ogg Theora and show people how to get plugins to play them. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:18, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Am not sure where the profusion of .ogg contained encodings will lead. The simplest working solution is usually the best, so if you heart is iset on .ogg why not stick to Ogg Vorbis? If it comes to the crunch I would much rather see Ogg Vorbis only than a bagfull of .ogg encodings that will just lead to confusion.

Thats not the point, the only practical reason why you would want WAV is because it is a lossless encoding — hence the policy should be expanded to include at least FLAC which would satisfy that audiance. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:19, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

Ævar, I congratulate you on your use of issue-avoidance debate techniques to obfuscate this dialog. First, despite my and others' repeated concerns that WAV should be supported specifically and primarily because of its universal support by Web browsers, you continue to propagate the straw man argument that losslessness is the reason its inclusion is being promoted. Second, you attempt to further complicate an already challenging technical environment for casual Web users (which probably make up the vast majority of Wikipedia readers) by arguing that a string of Ogg formats be recommended for use, in addition to FLAC (which I've never even heard of). This could have the effect of discouraging further debate (let alone actual use) of sound formats by the uninitiated. This tactic is much more effective than answering the valid argument that WAV inclusion would immediately provide sound support for all Wikipedia users. (There are certainly practical arguments against it, which I've already discussed, but you clearly understand the tactical disadvantage of taking on your opponent's strong points directly.) -- Jeff Q 17:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ævar, we have multiple objectives. First, we're an encyclopedia. Much though I want to promote formats which the silly US and Japanese laws haven't let be patented, I also know that it's not possible to download an OGG player for most embedded devices and that most of our audience doesn't yet have an OGG player and many of those will be prohibited from installing one if their school or library doesn't allow them to install new software. So, while OGG is good, we do need to recognise what our readers need from us and not only provide what we'd like people to use. We should certainly promote and encourage the provision of OGG (and FLAC and anything else of interest) but we shouldn't ban formats almost everyone uses. Once you've thought about audio, please consider which video formats you want to use. I'm not aware of any readily available and well supported video format which the US and Japanese laws haven't let be encumbered by patents and I'm not about to suggest banning video on Wikipedia. Jamesday 00:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me the issue comes down to this:

Open Source: a .ogg only policy that has the primary goal of promoting free and open source software
Ease of use: a relaxed .ogg policy that is a yucky compromise solution but provides greater ease of use for Wiki users

I suggest both of these have merit and are in line with 'Wiki' paradigms. The problem is we are now talking about decisions that are value based. If you value open source over ease of use, you will go with option 1 above. If you value ease of use over open source you will go the other way.

It is clear that Ævar and others are solidly in the 'Open Source' camp. I myself and others are in the 'Ease of Use' camp. As these are questions of values and near religious beliefs, I also suggest these two camps will never agree. We could spend the next hundred years arguing, but I am sure we will never agree.

So we have a dispute, and its pretty darn clear we will not reach consensus. There is a process for resolving such disputes outlined on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I suggest we are at the stage where we are at the 'Conduct a Survey' stage.

So Ævar, as we seem to be the main two protagonists here, my suggestion is that yourself and myself organise such a survey. On my part I will live by the results of the survey, but will not be upset if you still pursue afterwards as it is clear that you are quite passionate about the issues.

I hope other interested parties here agree that we are at that stage. Please comment. --Zarni02 02:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not about open source -there are open source MP3 tools available, like the excellent LAME libraries. It's about silly US and Japanese patent law which lets software be patented. Jamesday 00:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, there is no need in my opinion to hold a survey, it would just be a waste of time since the overwhelming consensus in the discussion above is to keep formats on Wikipedia free, a survey is only needed if alot of people lean both ways on a topic, currently people are dramatically leaning towards free codecs.

Furthermore there are some things which you just cant take a survey on, the whole project was started as a free encyclopedia, therefore to stay free we use free formats, even if the sympathisers were to favor your proposed Ease of use option it would not lead to wikipedia starting to use none-free formats, it would rather lead to that group having to fork off wikipedia and start another encyclopedia, because thats what you do when you disagree with very core philosophy or policies of a project, we're not just talking about some small issues like people disagreeing with english or british spellings.

You probably mean well, just like i do, i think however you just dont get how important this is, it would be very bad for the project to find itself in a situation where as someone mentioned above you could not read the free content unless you used none-free software, akin to what free java programs have to deal with. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 04:19, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

It's really easy to get agreement when only advocates of one viewpioint are around. Lets see what happens once there's been a bit more publicity about a proposal to ban the world's primary music format from the encyclopedia. Jamesday 00:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with WAV files, although if you're going to support lossless encoding you should also include the flac format. It is a good idea to support some sort of lossless encoding. --kop 03:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses for sound

I keep whining about how few people make explicit their desired uses for Wikipedia sound. Well, I'll shut up about it if people could just add to the list below whatever they currently use or expect to use sound for in Wikipedia pages. I think it will help us understand the scope of and potential users for sound, so we can better determine how to make it easier for all without introducing more problems (like legal liabilities and complex setups) than necessary. If you wish, you can add your user name (with the ~~~ markup) to allow others to ask for further details "offline", so we don't clutter this list. -- Jeff Q 08:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pronunciation for selected names and phrases. (Jeff Q)
Insect and animal sound samples. (Jeff Q)
Selected sound effects (for audio illustration, not as a page enhancer or a catalog of sound effects). (Jeff Q)
Basically the above, articles such as International phonetic alphabet would benefit alot from from pronunciation sounds, animal sounds would also go very well with the pages on various animals. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:07, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)
Music — excerpts from classical works, as well as examples on music theory such as harmonies, scales, and ornamentation. — Pladask 00:20, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think television articles could be useful with theme songs. Danny has told me this is a copyright risk, but I have just received a reply back from Mark Little, the webmaster from mythemes.tv, and he said that I am allowed to use any theme from his site in my endeavour. He even offered to convert some of them to .ogg. This could be debated, obviously, but email me and tell me what your thoughts are. Mike H 16:37, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)
Legal examples of cases involving sound, fair use and other issues, in the exact formats involved. These will include MP3 cases with MP3 examples. They also include MIDI, WAV and probably a dozen other formats. Jamesday 00:38, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Jamesday, I don't quite understand how sound samples will help illustrate articles on legal cases, even when they involve sound formats. Could you replace your entry here (and my comment) with a more specific example of how you would envision such a use? -- Jeff Q 13:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)