CategoryFree Culture

2 months in Blender

Blender is one of my not-so-secret obsessions among open source projects. Historically the result of a fundraising campaign to liberate an originally proprietary application, it’s got a successful non-profit organization behind it and has executed two amazing open movie projects, Elephants Dream and Big Buck Bunny. While these projects were funded through grants and donations, I find it heartwarming to see individuals create high quality projects using Blender in their own free time.

Freddy’s World by Fabien Weibel is an example of an animation created by a bright 19-year-old in just 2 months of elapsed time. Fabien has also documented his progress in a work log (recommended reading after watching the video). Fabien’s other projects are also worth a look.

Powerful authoring tools like Blender, Inkscape, and Krita are an incredibly important part of the free software ecosystem and will enrich our culture for years to come. Like Wikipedia, they have international communities behind them. Where possible, I encourage you to donate to such projects. For Blender, you can do so here.

The Power of Free Content

David Shankbone, who has contributed countless photos to Wikimedia Commons (including many very hard to obtain shots of celebrities), has written a very interesting blog post about how his photos get used throughout the universe of Wikimedia languages and projects: The global reach of just one photo. If you want to see where a photo you’ve uploaded is used, you can use the CheckUsage tool. This kind of global usage is a true testament to what’s possible when content is shared with few copyright restrictions.

Towards A True Wikimedia Commons

Wikimedia Foundation CTO Brion Vibber recently added a very neat feature to the development version of MediaWiki. In order to enable it, all you need is a snippet of code in your LocalSettings.php configuration file:

$wgForeignFileRepos[] = array(
   'class'            => 'ForeignAPIRepo',
   'name'             => 'shared',
   'apibase'          => '',
   'fetchDescription' => true, // Optional

Your wiki installation will now have full access to Wikimedia Commons in the same way any Wikimedia wiki does. You can embed image thumbnails of any size, and they will be automatically generated and loaded from Commons. You can click images and see the file description (including the wiki description page, file history and EXIF metadata) loaded from Commons. I haven’t tried to make the embeddable video/audio player work yet, but any file type will be accessible.

This is wonderful, because it makes the nearly 3 million freely licensed files in Commons easily accessible to potentially thousands of wiki users, while retaining the critical licensing information. This implementation does not cache the data in the local wiki, so is not yet suitable for large scale installations. Caching the data intelligently is a significant challenge, as it could be a vector for denial of service attacks and also raises the questions how/when cached files should expire, etc. I wrote a proposal called “InstantCommons” a couple of years ago which included some notes on the issue. After an incomplete first implementation of InstantCommons, I’m glad that we now have a working, simple mechanism for third party use of Commons media. Given that the foreign repository can be any MediaWiki installation, it will also be interesting to see what other wiki-to-wiki exchanges might result from it.

The Rise of the Trash Blogs

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is being dragged through the mud by a new type of trash blog. Tabloid journalism has always existed, but the new marketplace of ideas online allows for the rapid evolution of the most effective types of trashy pseudo-journalism: Those blogs that find the right tone — that combination of malicious insinuations, salaciousness, and half-truths — will develop a large audience; those that are just boring (like Kelly Martin rambling about Jimmy’s mortgage) will whither and die.

The recent attacks against Jimmy allege that he had some huge conflict of interest when it comes to editing the “Rachel Marsden” article. Jimmy routinely asks people on our ticket-system, OTRS, to look into articles that are one-sided when people ask him to. He had a conflict
of interest here, which, for obvious reasons, he didn’t want to disclose – so he suggested a smaller conflict of interest in his e-mail to OTRS as a reason for recusing himself from editing it. It would have been better to stay away from the matter entirely, obviously, but I don’t see it as a big deal. I’ m more worried that the community will now massively push it in the other direction as a reaction against perceived bias.

As for his personal life, it is just that: his personal life.

There are two real stories here, IMHO:

* a destructive, trashy kind of pseudo-journalism that invades people’s personal lives under the pretense of a real story;

* the destructiveness and maliciousness on the fringes of our own community.

Jimmy not only created an extraordinary project — he decided to base it on the principles of the open source / free software movement, and turned it over to a non-profit organization. This was, by no means, the obvious thing to do: Had events played out a little differently, Wikipedia would today be a dot-com with ads, probably a subsidiary of Google, Microsoft or Yahoo.

As community leader, Jimmy has developed and emphasized the values that we cherish: the assumption of good faith, the importance of neutrality in open collaboration, and the belief in a shared purpose. When he talks about bringing education to those who cannot afford it, he’s not just trying to impress. Anyone who spends 5 minutes with him will understand that this is his personal life goal.

Moreover, Jimmy stepped back graciously as Chair of the Foundation when he no longer could dedicate as much time as needed to the role. He’s helped us connect with philanthropists here in the Bay Area — donations like the recent 500,000 dollars from the last fundraiser were only possible because of his outreach efforts. His international network of contacts has helped us to build our Advisory Board, really smart people who have supported us on many occasions. In short, he’s been humble and helpful, and has always acted in the best interests of the organization.

When people try to create a malicious caricature of the man, then please remind yourself that actions speak louder than words. And also ask what the self-interest is of those who make the attacks. Whether it’s for personal reasons (15 minutes of fame, a vendetta, or simply an inherently destructive nature) or because of advertising revenue — spreading lies, insinuations and half-truths is in many people’s interest. The emergence of the new open media also means that we, as readers, have a greater responsibility to distinguish the bottom of the barrel crap — designed to stir up trouble — from honest inquiry.

Not too long ago, Jimmy and Tim O’Reilly proposed a Blogger’s Code of Conduct that we, bloggers, would voluntarily adopt. I am increasingly agreeing with him: If we want the emergence of an honest, responsible, but dynamic and healthy new media sphere, we will need a new code of ethics and a set of principles to subscribe to. We need to indicate that we are different from the trash blogs. As such, I am hereby adopting the following modules from the proposed Code of Conduct:

1. Responsibility for our own words

2. Nothing we wouldn’t say in person

3. Connect privately first

4. Take action against attacks

6. Ignore the trolls

8. Keep our sources private

9. Discretion to delete comments

10. Do no harm

I encourage you to do the same.

Of Gutsy Gibbons

The upgrade of my desktop from Ubuntu Linux “Feisty Fawn” to “Gutsy Gibbon” was moderately sucky. Aside from some odd package dependency issues that I had to resolve forcefully, the upgrade messed up my X server configuration, resulting in an unusable desktop. After some fiddling and some searching, the culprit turned out to be the xserver-xgl package, which doesn’t work with my ATI graphics chipset. ATI’s poor Linux support is hardly an excuse for leaving the user’s system in a worse state than it was before. As long as basic upgrade procedures can lead to such results, we can’t seriously hope to make inroads on the desktop.

The Value of Open Source Software in Wikimedia

Florence Devouard (Chair and the Wikimedia Foundation) and I disagree a bit about the value of open source software in the Wikimedia Foundation projects. Lately Florence has been taking a more “best tool for the job”, “don’t reinvent the wheel” approach, especially when it comes to tools we use internally, or as web services (a recent discussion was about survey tools). I don’t consider myself an ideological person — I discard beliefs as quickly as I adopt them if they aren’t useful. Maximizing open-source use internally and elsewhere simply strikes me as a best practice for a non-profit like the Wikimedia Foundation.

Let’s take the example of survey tools. For a user survey, you could use a number of web services, or you could build an open source extension to MediaWiki that is used for collecting information. If you use the former, you might get a deal with a company that lets you use their service for free, in return for the exposure that being “advertised” through its use on Wikipedia will give them. But consider that you might want to run a similar or different survey again the next year, to validate if certain trends (like gender participation) have been affected by your actions.

If you go with the proprietary software vendor, there’s a good chance that they will downgrade you to a regular customer status once they believe they’ve saturated the audience they can reach through you: no more free beer. If the company gets bought or goes bankrupt, you might not be able to work with them anymore at all. If you have specific usability complaints (say, because their survey uses JavaScript that only runs in Internet Explorer but not in Firefox), you’ll have to go through the usual support processes with third parties, and your request might not get processed at all. Depending on the nature of the deal, you also have to rely on their backup and privacy practices being sane.

As a vast online community dealing with all imaginable topics, Wikipedia has a huge number of detractors, including some deeply malicious or even mentally disturbed trolls. This means your software likely has to be more secure, because malicious hackers are more likely to try to pollute your survey with nonsense. With a proprietary survey vendor, there’s no way to let the community inspect the code for very common security vulnerabilities like SQL injection attacks. Given that they’d be running on an external server, it would also be harder to generate reliable (anonymized) user identifiers that can’t be easily hacked using a Perl script, to protect your survey against systematic data pollution. It’s not inconceivable that such an attack would even come from within the Wikipedia community itself, as a reaction to the use of proprietary software (believing in open source doesn’t mean that you’re not a dick).

Open source software is open for security auditing. Software which is committed to our own Subversion repository can also be fairly openly modified by a large number of committers, thanks to a liberal policy of granting access to the repository. In effect, the code is almost like its own little wiki world, with reverts and edit wars, but also a constant collaborative drive towards more quality. People from all parts of the MediaWiki ecosystem contribute to it (I’ve often said that MediaWiki is almost like a Linux kernel of the free culture movement), and are likely to share improvements if they need them, if only out of the self-interest to see them maintained in the official codebase.

If you need to retool your survey for, say, doing a usability inquiry into video use, an existing open source toolset makes it fairly easy to build upon what you have. And if you want to do a survey/poll that isn’t anonymized, hooking into MediaWiki will again make your life easier.

You might say: “Gee, Erik, you’re making this sound a lot more complicated than it is. A survey is just a bunch of questions and answers – what do you need complex software for? Can’t you just drop in a different piece of proprietary software whenever needed?” If you believe that, I recommend having a conversation with Erik Zachte, the creator of WikiStats. Erik knows a thing or two about analyzing data. He explained to me that one of the things you want to ensure is that the results you collect follow a standardized format. For example, if a user is asked to select a country they are from, you’ll want a list of countries to choose from, rather than asking them to type a string.

Moreover, you want this data to be translated into as many languages as possible. This is already being done in MediaWiki for the user interface, through the innovative “MediaWiki:” namespace, where users can edit user interface messages through the wiki itself. This is how we’ve managed to build a truly multilingual site even in minority languages: by making the users part of the translation process.

So, if you work with your proprietary survey vendor, you have to convince them to manage a truckload of translations for you, and you have to make damn sure that all the translated data is well-structured and re-usable should you ever decide to switch the survey tool. Otherwise you’ll be spending weeks just porting the data from one toolset to another. You can try to have them work on the data with you, but you’ll be spending a lot of your time trying to push your proprietary vendor to behave in a semi-open manner, when you could have simply decided to follow best practices to begin with. Companies that aren’t committed to open standards to begin with will always be driven towards a greater need to “control and protect our IP” from their internal forces: investors, boards, lawyers, managers.

Sure, you might have a higher upfront investment if there’s no existing toolset you can build on. But I find it quite funny that the same companies who go on and on about protecting their “intellectual property” are often so very quick to give up theirs: Open source software effectively belongs to you (and everyone else), with everything that entails. And it’s an ecosystem that gets richer every day. Instead of literally or metaphorically “buying into” someone else’s ideas, open source maximizes progress through cooperation. I cannot think of a better fit for our wiki world.

The reason to default to open source best practices is not ideological. It’s deeply pragmatic, but with a view on the long term perspectives of your organization. So while I agree with Florence that we should keep open (no pun intended) the option of using proprietary software in some areas of Wikimedia (particularly internal use), I would posit that any cost-benefit analysis has to take the very large number of long term benefits of the open source approach into account.

[UPDATE] LimeSurvey looks like a decent open source survey tool that we could use if we don’t care that much about deep integration.

Apple Officially Evil

Jon Johansen says it best.

It’s time to completely boycott Apple Computer products. Their consumer-hostile lock-in/lock-out tactics are despicable.

Project Peach Pre-Orders Approach 1000

Project Peach is the latest “open source movie” that will be made by the good folks behind Blender, an open source 3D content creation suite. Unlike the first movie, Elephants Dream (which was codenamed “Project Orange”), Project Peach will have a cute story with cute furry animals. Like Elephants Dream, Peach will be released under Creative Commons Attribution License, allowing anyone to use any part of the work for any purpose.

People who pre-order the Peach DVD before October 1 can have their name listed in the credits. They’ve already taken almost a thousand pre-orders. What this means, in simple terms, is that the Blender Institute now has enough reputation to fund free culture projects to the tune of EUR 30-50K through online donations. Not huge, but still pretty exciting.

Wikimania & Advisory Board thoughts

One of the greatest things about the Wikimedia community is its annual conference, Wikimania. With a new location chosen every year, it gives interested Wikimedians an opportunity to meet like-minded wiki nuts from all over the planet. I have attended all the conferences so far, including this year’s in Taipei (August 3-5).
The Foundation’s Board of Trustees used the opportunity of Wikimania 2007 for the first-ever meeting with many members of its Advisory Board. This is a belated summary of my impressions from both events.

Advisory Board meeting

Angela, who is the Chair of the Advisory Board, is still working on a detailed report, so I will keep this one short. The following Advisory Board members managed to attend: Ward Cunningham, Heather Ford, Melissa Hagemann, Teemu Leinonen, Rebecca MacKinnon, Wayne Mackintosh, Benjamin Mako Hill, Erin McKean, Achal Prabhala, and Raoul Weiler. We met in a small room at the Chien Tan Oversea Youth Activity Center, the main conference venue.

The two-day meeting was facilitated by Manon Ress; the Agenda is publicly available. I will say this much upfront: The single most important function of this meeting was for Board and Advisory Board members to get to know and trust each other, and to figure out how we can actively work together in the future. I believe the meeting reached this goal. For many Advisory Board members, visiting Taipei also must have been the equivalent of drinking from a firehose of knowledge about wikis. Of course there are exceptions. 😉

Naturally, there were also some very specific exercises which will hopefully have practical use. For instance, randomized groups tried to identify the key values of the Foundation. The group I was in started out by humorously defining all the things we don’t want to be — extremely hierarchical, exclusive, western-centric, etc. — and then compared those with positive value statements. (For some reason, “world domination” ended up in both lists.) I suggested the slogan “knowledge without borders” or “knowledge without boundaries” as a possible framework for many of the key values we found: access to knowledge (in a participatory sense) on a global scale, multilingual and multicultural diversity, content that can be freely shared and modified, etc.

I don’t know if this particular slogan will catch on, but I like the idea of trying to express key principles in a short catchphrase. The list of values itself could also be useful for messaging and policymaking. There wasn’t a lot of notetaking on the wiki, so I hope Angela has some notes from the different groups available to her. We also tried to identify some key goals, and the list my group worked on (with some predictable disagreements about the meaning of “goal” etc.) included primarily these items, read through my own personal bias:

  • Increasing quality of content in our projects, but also challenging and changing misperceptions.
  • Massively scaling volunteer participations in all areas of organizational and project-level work, to live up to our ambitious mission & vision.
  • Building greater awareness of Wikimedia’s mission & purpose. (Gregory Maxwell recently proposed adding an essay I started, 10 things you did not know about Wikipedia, to the notice displayed to unregistered users of Wikipedia. I think that’s an interesting experiment in changing people’s perceptions — we should use our own website properties more often to actually communicate with our readers.)
  • Build capacities among partners and users — the ability to participate, to create and deploy new tools, and so on.

I believe that there is a deep and complex challenge of what I call “meta-management” — the Foundation has such a diversity of projects (Wikibooks, Wikinews, Wikisource, etc.) and goals that any approach which does not scale massively will not serve our community well. So, yes, we should of course hire coordinators for grants and projects, and get better at business development, and improve our technical infrastructure, and so forth. But I think networking and empowering volunteers to do many of the things we hope to pay more people to do is a much more scalable approach.

This is a very difficult idea to promote in a group of highly intelligent people, as it’s much more exciting to focus on more specific problems, so I’m not sure if I got this particular point across well in our discussion.

Unsurprisingly, then, I also found the biggest practical value in an exercise where I moderated a group on the topic of Volunteerism (link goes to the notes), consisting of Angela, Mako, and Achal. I was especially intrigued to hear more about Ubuntu’s process for creating and coordinating volunteer teams. I am left with the conclusion that we need more semi-formal ways for Wikimedians to self-organize than the heavy process of starting a chapter. Check the notes for some other interesting ideas. We got some more suggestions later, such as an “Edit Wikipedia Day” and other online events that could be held every year to encourage different types of participation.

It’s a bunch of people in a room. It doesn’t get much more exciting than that.

Photo: halafish, CC-BY-SA.

I missed some of the more creative and physical elements that we used during the Frankfurt Board+Chapter Retreat which happened last year. For example, our facilitator there had an interesting exercise where she asked all participants to come up with a gesture to identify themselves (I used Columbo’s famous “Just one more thing”). While a bit repetitive in the end, I thought it was a fun bonding game that also helps very practically to remember people, faces and names. This makes me think that it would be good to have someone in-house for facilitation work, to build upon knowledge from previous events. Also, is there a wiki to document these kinds of processes? 😉

In practice, we will continue to use our Advisory Board mailing list to consult with A.B. members as a group — these are typically strategic questions, or “fishing” of the type “Does anyone know someone who ..”. But I believe the more frequent interactions will be with individuals, around issues in their domain. And while I initially viewed the A.B. as only being truly connected to the Board, I am increasingly coming to the opinion that we should encourage them to interact with staff and community members as well (and possibly sometimes chapters, though I hope these will also set up their own advisory bodies).

What is the ideal size for an Advisory Board? During the meeting I believe the consensus was against significant further expansion before we’re happy with the utilization of the current Advisory Board (this is not the case for the actual Board, where there is a consensus leaning towards another expansion). I suspect there’s another reason to keep it roughly at the present size: it allows us to get to know the members socially, to form a collegial trust relationship, which can lead to very different types of useful interaction than merely someone who you suspect to know something. It also keeps it manageable to prune members, to invite them into a single place, and so forth.

At the same time, if you think about expansion because “more is better”, then any size would be too small — you’ll want to manage knowledge and trust on a global scale. Wait a minute, knowledge and trust on a global scale? That sounds like a familiar problem! 😉 I suspect indeed that innovations of internal knowledge management will be driven by our project communities. And I don’t think that a massively decentralized approach of acquiring information from trustworthy sources and a fairly stable group of passionate advisors would be mutually exclusive. :-)

Wikimania itself

Wikimania visitors posing (being posed) for some group shots on the last day.

Photo: halafish, CC-BY-SA.

Most members of the fantastic team that made it all happen!

Photo: halafish, CC-BY-SA.

The main conference was absolutely wonderful. We cannot thank the organizers enough for putting together an event that, I think, nobody who was there will soon forget. I will have to resort to the maligned bullet point list to even begin to enumerate all the things that were done well:

  • a well-chosen venue (a youth hostel) with plenty of spaces to mingle
  • a large number of sponsorships that never appeared obtrusive in any way
  • a highly committed local team that went out of its way to assist with anything (starting with welcoming people at the airport)
  • a compelling program with talks that were truly interesting to any Wikimedian
  • many opportunities for ad hoc events (laptop content bundles, lightning talks, workshops, and so forth)
  • side events – citizen journalism, hacking days, party, etc.
  • excellent catering
  • Taipei itself
  • all of you who made it 😉
  • and a million other things.

You owe it to yourself to come to Wikimania 2008, which is currently accepting city bids. Swim if you have to. And block the first week of August in your calendar. :-)

I do think we should try to have more content that appeals to wiki newbies next time: editing workshops, project tours, exhibits, etc. Whether that’s the intent or not, many people who have barely seen an edit page will always be inclined to visit a conference like this — just because it’s about this crazy new wiki thing. That’s doubly true if the conference is in a location where the community isn’t yet as strong as in the U.S., parts of Asia, or Western Europe.

Some of the first users of the OLPC at Wikimania. The laptop had a very prominent place in the “free culture space” of the conference.

Photo: preetamrai, CC-BY-SA.

I did enjoy Taipei itself, especially a fun little tour with Shun-ling Chen, Mel from OLPC, and the Semantic MediaWiki developers. There is also some incriminating video evidence from another occasion that Kat will probably use against me sooner or later. I derived the greatest enjoyment from making new friends, having interesting conversations, and discovering new patterns (in reality in general and Wikipedia in particular). In that respect, I especially cherish the new things I learned from people like Luca de Alfaro (trust and reputation in Wikipedia), Michael Dale (Metavid), Shay David (Kaltura), and Brian Mingus (quality heuristics – let’s chat some more about this soon). I think all Board members had great conversations with Sue Gardner, our new “Special Advisor”, and Mike Godwin, our new Legal Counsel. And of course, it was great to connect again and catch up with many old friends in an unlikely location.

There was definitely a language barrier to connect more with the local folks. English isn’t that commonly spoken in Taiwan, and I found it difficult to converse much beyond smalltalk. Not much that can be done about that other than learning Chinese, which I’m afraid is unlikely to make my to-do list anytime soon. I tried to be accessible to anyone who did want to speak with me and gave an interview to a local magazine about OmegaWiki.

I will find it very interesting to look back on this Wikimania in context, and to hear more from others about it. I for one think it was a complete success. But I felt the same way about Boston and Frankfurt, so I hope there will also be some constructive criticism and maybe even some trolling. 😉 I’m also keen to see more wiki-events small and large. I won’t be able to make it to all or even most of them, but that’s OK. One way or another, it is wonderful to see the global community for free culture thrive. As a community, as friends; constructive in conflict, united in diversity.

Delphine and me are sharing a precious moment. “I ate what?!” I’m sure you can come up with a funnier caption for this one. I really have no memory of what actually happened. :-)

Photo: Kat Walsh, CC-BY-SA.

Piqs: CC-BY Photo Repository

Bryan Tong Minh points out that his cool Flickr/Wikimedia Commons Upload Tool now also supports Piqs , which is a database of CC-BY licensed photographs. It’s really good to see the proliferation of free content licenses as a default for user uploads.