Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Audio format standard

The Ogg audio format is currently established as the Wikipedia standard. However, a large number of users would prefer the MP3 format. A dual-audio standard and a Flash-based embedded Ogg player have been proposed as compromises.

Previous discussion of this subject can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia and Wikipedia talk:Media. A post by Jimmy Wales has been previously cited, stating that the relevant criterion is: "Can the format be used by legal free software?"

Since people feel strongly on all sides of this issue, I hope that we can reach a broader community consensus by discussing the matter here. --LostLeviathan 19:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the philosophical reasons for favoring Ogg, but the practicality leaves something to be desired; MP3 is playable in more "off-the-shelf" systems. Some, like Windows Media Player, are extensible with add-ons to support the format (though this can be intimidating to the less-geeky users), but some devices, such as iPods, can't be made to play Ogg files without completely replacing the operating system.  This is a major handicap.  As far as I know, Wikipedia has always allowed GIF graphics, despite the patent controversy (though that one is now expired), so it's somewhat inconsistent that they're taking a firm stand where audio files are concerned. *Dan T.* 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Three major differences between the GIF patent situation and the MP3 patent situation:
 * The GIF patent only covered creating GIF images. The MP3 patent covers both creating and playing.
 * The GIF patent expired in 2003, less than a year and a half after Wikipedia was founded. The MP3 patent doesn't expire until 2010.
 * It's possible to create a GIF image unencumbered by the patent. It is not possible to create an MP3 unencumbered by the patent.
 * --Carnildo 20:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments are well-taken, Carnildo. But I'd like to know, is there anyone out there who has access to free Ogg-playing software who does not have access to free MP3-playing software?  (Such software is available for Linux. )  Because the reverse is certainly true: Some people access Wikipedia using their cell phone or other portable device, which generally play MP3s but cannot play Ogg files.  There are also some who access it from libraries and other public computers, where MP3-playing software is standard but they are not allowed to install additional software.  Aren't these exactly the people we have in mind when we're talking about free and open access to information? --LostLeviathan 17:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been wondering about this myself. I agree that an MP3 standard would be way more useful to our readers. Most people you ask on the street won't even know what an ogg file is. (Nor would they care to know.) I imagine that the majority of people just wouldn't bother. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree with Leviathan, we should strive to make this site as inclusive and available as possible. If people are currently having difficulties accessing audio files because of the Ogg format, then it seems clear that other file types should be available. Have there been many complaints from people that are unable to access files? CharacterZero 18:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The case is Ipods and Windows Media Player do not support .ogg natively is because the corporations who sell them do not want to. Since these megacorporations could support .ogg natively anytime without cost to themselves with an update, we should not care, but be patient, that a market develops that demands .ogg-support. Wikipedia is a powerhouse, and it will be in short time that customers will demand .ogg-support, e.g. for ogg-podcasts. For example, Deutschlandfunk-Radio recently changed their audiostreams from realmedia-Audiostreams to .ogg. We should stay the course and favor the free ogg-format. Longbow4u 19:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The MP3 patent expires in 4 years. What you are describing sounds unlikely to occur before that time, if at all.  The most prominent leaders of the podcasting movement favor MP3 for the reason that it is the most universal free format, and will only become moreso as time passes.   --LostLeviathan 02:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we only have 4 years to wait until MP3s can be used on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, supporting only patent-free formats encourages the freedom and openness which are themselves important reasons Wikipedia thrives.  Allowing patented formats to be used on Wikipedia would make more of Wikipedia proprietary, and would make us more at the mercy of the patent holders.  I say we stick it out and stick to oggs and other patent-free formats.  -- noosphere 05:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

THere's no need to allow non-free formats; if people want mp3s, then they take our Free GFDL content and convert it from ogg to mp3, either for their own use or as a service to others. We don't agonize about making our pages viewable on iPods, because we allow other people to do it even if we ourselves decline to make it possible. --maru  (talk)  contribs 04:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)