This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles
should indicate that MP4 is NOT an open format, or simply dont have the "open format" key included in the box. I have received private communication today from Library of Congress confirming their position that MP4 is NOT an open format. I am happy to publish that communication here or verify however needs to be done.
Svnpenn (
talk) 00:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Svnpenn The unpublished opinion of the Library of Congress is irrelevant. We need published answers in reliable sources.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
are you saying the Library of Congress is not a reliable source?
Svnpenn (
talk) 03:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Svnpenn If it isn't published...it isn't a source. Get them to publish something. Or find something published.
CaptainEekEdits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
[1] indicates it is an open standard, so our article should reflect that. Private communications are not relevant per
WP:V.
VQuakr (
talk) 00:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
as repeatedly mentioned, MP4 also fails the open format as defined by these sources as well:
also I am happy to verify the private communications by whatever means needed. the Library of Congress has privately refuted the only source in support of MP4 being an open format. if you want to ignore that information at this time, suit yourself.
Svnpenn (
talk) 01:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:SYNTH.
WP:V. None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision. Repeating yourself won't change that.
VQuakr (
talk) 01:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
here is another source as well:
> Since using a proprietary format would be a departure from our current practice of only using open formats on our sites, WMF has opened this Request for Comments to seek community guidance.
> None of those items have any bearing whatsoever on the decision
this comment of course is incorrect. MP4 fails the definition on the linked pages, hence it is not an open format.
Svnpenn (
talk) 03:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In addition to that, this 66.600 word long
forum discussion does not seem based on a common definition of "open format". Some comments there seem to work with somewhat different assumptions about the expression. It seems reasonable to assume that participants involved with a Wikimedia project would have largely adopted the terminology of
free and open-source software projects on which much of Wikimedia's tools and culture are based, which are closely aligned with
The Open Definition by the
Open Knowledge Foundation. While it is perfectly ok for any community to use their own definitions in their communications and documents, prioritizing this source over secondary sources on Wikipedia would be giving it
undue weight. --
Fernando Trebien (
talk) 03:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
there is a difference between giving something undue weight and no weight. the other two editors in this discussion seem to want to give no weight to any sources outside the LOC source, even though its already been revealed that the LOC themself disagree with the page in question.
Svnpenn (
talk) 03:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
this question doesn't make sense, because the person asking the question has already publicly given the opinion that they feel LOC is a notable source
Svnpenn (
talk) 04:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
WP:WEIGHT tells us to balance viewpoints based on the level of coverage in published reliable sources. No RS have been presented for the viewpoint you support, so no coverage can be given.
VQuakr (
talk) 06:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
sadly your comments consistently fail to reflect reality:
I was confused before by your level of confidence in your replies, but now I understand to look at the words themself rather than the tone.
Svnpenn (
talk) 06:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The first one is clearly not an RS. The second two probably aren't either, but in any case it's
WP:Syn to say MP4 is not an open format based on them since neither of them mention MP4. And just to re-iterate, private communications are not a reliable source.
Nil Einne (
talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)reply
In previous discussions, different arguments were raised for each of the three topics, so I started three independent RfCs, but I'm not opposed to merging them. I think the RfCs on MP4 and ISO BMFF are closely related, while the RfC on open file format has a broader scope. The only thing I think is worth discussing about ISO BMFF is that LOC describes it as "International standard, fully disclosed" while it describes MP4 as "Open standard." It seems that the two wouldn't be in the same situation, but ISO BMFF is also published by ISO, as is MP4, so I wonder if there's anything missing for the LOC to consider it an open standard like it considers MP4. --
Fernando Trebien (
talk) 00:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)reply