Wikipedia talk:Simpleshow

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scope of this project page[edit]

Since simpleshow is an international, multilingual media organization, I think that it would be best to keep its project page on Wikimedia Commons at Commons:simpleshow as the primary place for documenting activities of this organization.

This project page, since it is on English Wikipedia, is the place for discussing the development of English Wikipedia with simpleshow content. While English Wikipedia is influential, other language Wikipedias may take a different view on including simpleshow content. For example, the English language Wikipedia article might not include a given simpleshow video, while the equivalent article in another language might.

I regret setting up two different discussion pages for simpleshow, but there is hardly any precedent in Wikimedia projects for managing these kinds of institutional partnerships. If anyone has ideas for a better way to set up the discussion, then please advise. Here are the options which I see -

  1. Discuss inclusion of videos in individual Wikipedias on any particular Wikipedia, but manage Commons files on Commons (the method which I set up here)
  2. Create a simpleshow project page at meta: on the rationale that simpleshow is in multiple Wikimedia projects, including various Wikipedia languages and Wikimedia Commons (meta is less active as a workspace and there is little precedent for setting up project discussion there)
  3. Use the Commons simpleshow page at Commons:simpleshow as the centralized discussion forum for the project. The advantage is that simpleshow does store files on Commons, but the disadvantage is most simpleshow discussion would be about the use of videos in Wikipedias. Wikipedia and Commons contributors both prefer to avoid discussing editorial policy of Wikipedias in Commons.

Please consider this project page subject to change. This page and the content in it might be merged into another project space somewhere else if discussion is too difficult to manage in multiple places. I think that for now, there should be a page on English Wikipedia, because it seems like there is significant interest in discussing simpleshow here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016 discussion at ANI[edit]

See the discussion as it was on 12 July 2016. On 5 July 2016 a discussion started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the inclusion of simpleshow videos in Wikipedia articles. Participants in the discussion to that point included

My own summary of the discussion is as follows:

  • Support
    • The videos are said to be well researched and aligned with Wikipedia policy
    • The videos are said to be high enough quality for consideration for inclusion into Wikipedia
    • Norma.jean seems to be complying with conflict of interest rules, and simpleshow seems willing to partner with Wikipedia in an acceptable and useful way
  • Proposed ways to develop conversation
    • Set up a project page to document the history of discussion
    • Get community consensus before including simpleshow content in articles
    • All simpleshow staff affiliates should be mindful of Wikipedia's strict conflict of interest policies

I would characterize the discussion as tense, with more users criticizing simpleshow than supporting them. In only making a summary I am editorializing the discussion. If anyone has a more objective way to summarize the text in that original discussion, then please add whatever is useful. Because of the length of the text and number of comments I wanted to summarize it somehow to make it more accessible. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we first settle one question: is there an actual Wikipedia partnership with this foundation? If not, then why do we even have this page and it in the category Category:Wikipedia partnerships in media? It's misleading and helps them more than it helps Wikipedia. From there, yeah, I support removing them. The editor can propose their inclusion on the talk page perhaps as an external link but that's doubtful. Frankly, if they made them more simple, non controversial and more akin to diagrams, I don't see why they wouldn't be taken to Commons and copied in a number of places. Diagrams like File:Animexample.gif can be useful, anything more is just not going to fly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ricky81682 An organization is a partner if anyone starts using their content. The process is not more formal than that. No one has drafted guidelines for partnerships.
You have a second comment about inclusion of videos - I will put that in a section below. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm glad you created this separate page. I was thinking about doing something similar if/when discussion tapered off there, but now's as good a time as any. The big concern I'd add to the list goes something like this: In developing a full overview of the subject of an article, the video serves as an alternative/substitute for the article rather than a supplement. It thus provides an alternative/simplified, visual article that does not follow our core content policies and which has been developed outside of the collaborative project (which is not to say it is not collaboratively produced, but that it's not something produced by the community in an "anyone can edit" fashion). This is a challenging area for policy because mostly what we have to go on is based on images or text. Text is obviously subject to our content policies, and images cannot, except perhaps in a strange exception, serve to similarly summarize the entire subject such that it could substitute for the article.
The main thing I'd want to reiterate for proposed ways forward is the idea of developing the videos using the lead of a Featured Article (or GA or lower if consensus finds the lead to be suitable) as a script. This would ensure the non-visual content of the video is the product of collaboration and subject to content policies. The visual components could then be treated in a similar way we do graphics/diagrams. We would need consensus at the article to include them, and they would ideally be collaboratively developed, but there's less of an issue for content policies.
I think the COI issue is resolved and can be left behind at ANI. Norma.jean hasn't added any additional videos to articles, and I think, based on the conversations so far that he/she would be amenable to a process through which the others in the community would be the ones to actually place them in the articles. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I suggest below, Wikipedia:Spoken articles could use videos to supplement either pages or sections. I wouldn't have any objection is say we took Welcome to the Jungle and expanded out the composition section using a fair-use audio clip (if they have an interest in that) with a video. I think the better proposal would be to work on creating smaller and less detailed videos. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to partner with SimpleShow Foundation when they produce health related videos so they have a partnership.
Our readers have requested we provide more rich content, specifically videos.
Videos can be collaboratively edited. They can also be referenced. We want to have subtitle files for translation and SimpleShow has agreed to put these texts up for review before the video production. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well a simple health one would be essentially a video diagram for a lot of the anatomy articles. I think the problem is we need a better example of the videos they think would fit here rather than what looks to be them trying to shoehorn "here's a video on a topic that's interesting" onto our articles. I think the main problem is the videos desired are likely to be multiple minute long extensive videos while in reality we want short snippets to make a very specific point. For that, the foundation can make a longer video that's externally linked from our page. It would solve both issues in my mind. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with two to ten minute general overview videos. The ones I have looked at fall into this range.
They are part of our community and thus it is us working together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that people review Category:Wikipedia requested images, and Category:Wikipedia requested audio in particular. See if there's topics that can lend themselves to videos. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Along with Category:Articles containing video clips. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Video policy on English Wikipedia[edit]

simpleshow provides educational videos. Lots of video makers create these sorts of videos. Under what circumstances might such videos be included in English Wikipedia articles? For example, might an introductory video on a medical condition be suitable for a Wikipedia article on that condition?

Here are some potential discussion points -

Pros of videos in Wikipedia -

  • There is a general demand in the Wikipedia community for more video
  • There is a general world trend for Internet users to watch more online video
  • Other major media outlets with expertise in communication are investing heavily in video production

Cons of videos in Wikipedia -

  • Videos cannot be edited in the wiki way
  • Videos carry editorial bias
  • Video production is high cost and few individuals are able to make them. Therefore, there is a bias in who can communicate with videos.

I am not sure what should happen on English Wikipedia but I think that simpleshow videos could be a test case for discussing the circumstances in which videos are useful for inclusion.

Unanswered questions -

  • What precedents exist?
  • What organizations have videos in Wikipedia?
  • What Wikipedia articles have video?

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I treat this as a normal content issue. There's no greater or worse policy reason for the videos (and note having closed this discussion, I've heard a lot of about policies). If they had more straightforward videos (say something like File:4StrokeEngine Ortho 3D Small.gif but maybe with an image of an actual car or something) then fine it's good content to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very, very few articles seem to have freely licensed videos. On a few articles I've written, I found a suitable video to use as an EL, but I've never come across a free video suitable for something I wrote. I think adding videos adds a lot to articles, and people who are used to other sites probably expect to see videos here as well. It's sort of like the Microsoft Encarta program I used to have; some of the articles had videos to explain complicated topics that were hard to get across in mere words.
    • In the horse-related articles I routinely edit, we don't have many videos at all and could use more. In fact, I asked if Simpleshow could make videos explaining saddling up a horse and Olympic dressage, which are very hard to explain. (Dressage is tough because it involves making the horse perform manuevers such as tightening or loosening of the trot, and since most of the proper terminology is French it's even harder for English speakers to understand...) White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One way to increase videos would be to allow the use of CC BY SA NC videos similar to how we allow fair use images. This would allow TED talks and Khan Academy videos to be used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Spoken articles[edit]

This may sound like a wild idea but has someone looked at this project as a way of making Wikipedia:Spoken articles really come alive? If the foundation made a video with graphics for a smaller start article at a certain time, it would really make the foundation and Wikipedia shine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 Not exactly but there is a relevant idea here.
The reason why simpleshow is unlikely to make videos for smaller start articles is because the point of the videos is to reach a large audience. That will mean making videos for concepts which are already popular on English Wikipedia. However, if you noticed, simpleshow videos are conscious to avoid using text and cultural cues. The reason for this is because although they are developed in English and a few other languages, they can be dubbed over in other languages, and there are already pilots to do this. Videos will be proportionally more important in less developed Wikipedias.
About Wikipedia:Spoken articles - the original concept there is having a human audio record Wikipedia articles. As it happens, it is very difficult to do this in any circumstances. However, at https://www.mysimpleshow.com/ there is a speech synthesis tool which is being tested for use for future simpleshow videos. If you have not checked out the technology recently, hear it. It is not perfect but quite usable and obviously getting good. This tool can be used to make videos for stub or start Wikipedia articles, and it is user controlled and easy to edit. I really like this tool and I think it could be used in exactly the way you describe, except by volunteer users instead of simpleshow foundation staff. Here is a video that I made in 5-7 minutes with that tool on my first time using it.
What you really want is mw:Wikispeech, which is a project of Wikimedia Sweden. They are promising viable text to speech for all English Wikipedia articles by September 2017. Beyond that, they have plans to develop this for every language. This would obsolete most or all of the spoken article project. Let's see what happens! Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

make your own simpleshow video[edit]

@Ricky81682: you said, "If the foundation made a video with graphics for a smaller start article at a certain time, it would really make the foundation and Wikipedia shine." @White Arabian Filly: you said, "I asked if Simpleshow could make videos explaining saddling up a horse and Olympic dressage, which are very hard to explain".

With the mysimpleshow.com tool you can make your own explainer videos (video means animation plus audio) in just a few minutes. As an example, here is a dressage video that I made for you, filly.

I am sure that you can describe dressage better than me, and if you like, make your own video with the tool.

Right now the tool is not producing videos with a Wikimedia compatible copyright license. However, simpleshow staff have said that they intend to negotiate a way for the videos to have Wikimedia compatible licensing, and definitely in the past, they have provided many videos with appropriate CC licensing. With this tool, anyone can make and edit explainer videos of any sort. I think that this model of video creation is fast and easy for anyone to use. Try it out if you like - I think that it meets the need you expressed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it would be a video created by an editor, not by the foundation itself? I don't think that makes it better but I understand the idea. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with editors making videos User:Ricky81682? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be any different than if I posted an image diagram and said this is what something looked like? The accuracy depends on whether you think the editors are reliable sources. That's just the way I interpret WP:RS policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We ask our editors to paraphrase a source in their own words all the time. They can also paraphrase a source into a video. I am not seeing a difference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that's very helpful. It's nice that there is at least a video-making website that doesn't immediately lock my phone down with an error message. (And thanks for making that, Bluerasberry!)
The fact that this tool lets you make your own freely licensed videos has the potential to do a lot of good here. Overall, I like the idea of Simpleshow and think the videos improve Wikipedia. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, should we start a template for Category:Wikipedia requested videos? It seems like we have two talk pages for inclusion at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky81682 People who are interested in trend setting and experimentation might care, but as of right now, there needs to be more discussion about if/when/how simpleshow videos can be included in Wikipedia articles either as embedded content, linked content in Commons, or external links. Video policy in general is uncertain. I would not want lots of people making videos with intent to put them in Wikipedia articles, and then have a bad experience because of community rejection. It would be nice to get comment, and for people to experiment, but it probably is premature to design templates to direct people to make simpleshow videos in response to requests. I do think that simpleshow is an excellent case for initial discussion about video illustrations in Wikipedias of all languages. It would be interesting to propose simpleshow model videos as a pilot case for answering requests. simpleshow would not be a good fit for illustrating dance moves, for example, but it might work if anyone wants to make a summary of a person's biography. It could also work in the case you originally proposed, which is explaining stub concepts. I am not sure what should happen or how anyone should respond. I just think the model is interesting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Simpleshow&oldid=1064401169"