User:WAZAAAA/mp3vsogg

Recently, there has been some controversy over the "final decision" made by Jimbo Wales over the decision to have all spoken wikipedia and uploaded sound files to Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons to be in Ogg Vorbis format.

Various debates on the subject can be found at the discussion page for Media and places around Wikipedia.

Various arguments have been made pro-MP3 (OGG is inconvenient and scares and drives away users, nearly the entire population has MP3 support and portable MP3 players, limiting to OGG slows the growth of Spoken Wikipedia project, etc.), and pro-OGG (Wikipedia should support open-source projects and make everyone like it).

I am making this page to provide a side-by-side comparison of the arguments pro and con MP3 and OGG usage.

Arguments for MP3/against OGG-only

 * The MP3 format is in every Windows and Macintosh computer, by default, being used
 * MP3s can be used at libraries, schools, and other computers without privileges to install software—codec level or otherwise
 * Most mainstream portable music players are MP3 only (such as the undisputably most-popular iPod)
 * Blind and near-blind users of Spoken Wikipedia should be catered to—not made to install software
 * Users have choice as to what media players and portable MP3 music players to buy
 * Forcing users to use OGG is like putting a sign up on the front page for IE users, "GO GET FIREFOX, YOU LAZY BASTARD," instead of letting them just read articles

Arguments for OGG/against MP3

 * Jimbo Wales said so
 * OGG is "playable by all major players on all major operating systems" with "very little inconvenience" (according to Jimbo Wales)
 * OGG is open source, while MP3 technology is patented (Frauenhoffer Society)
 * It is not Wikipedia's responsibility to "be convenient" for the 98% of population with MP3 and not OGG
 * It is Wikipedia's responsibility to help out OGG (to the exclusion of all else), as it's open source

Proposed compromises

 * Allow support for MP3s alongside OGGs
 * Make the spoken articles and sound files useful with no hassle, while allowing the OGG supporters to show their support for the format
 * Let the WikiMedia software transcode audio files to ogg or mp3, in whichever format it was uploaded, so everyone (contributors and visitors) could use the format they want/can.


 * Create an embedded player for spoken articles and sound files
 * À la Google Video and MySpace Music—an embedded Flash player that users can turn on or off support for that will play the OGGs and MP3s streaming directly onto the page, with the downloadable files still available

Implications
The larger questions raised by this issue touch the core of Wikipedia.

Is Wikipedia more interested in serving the users or in murky attempts to force users to use open source software? Should those providing the content for a project decide what format it should be in, or should it be mandated from on high? Is Wikipedia run by "what-if's" and "wouldn't it be a magical place if's" rather than "the reality of it all is"'ss's'? What say do the users and Wikipedians have as to decisions like the "final" one made on OGG vs. MP3?