Wikitude and Cyclopedia are the names of the apps and both require the new iPhone 3GS. That's because the 3GS is the first iPhone with an internal compass - Augmented Reality (AR) apps use your phone's GPS to know where you are and the compass to know which direction you're looking at. Then these two apps can tell you what you're looking at that's written up in Wikipedia. Here's how the two different apps compare.

Cyclopedia (iTunes link) is the newest app from a dev shop called Chemical Wedding. It scores high on visual interface but is relatively simple, displaying only Wikipedia content. It got a write-up on Gizmodo yesterday, was read about by more than 10,000 people, but saw very little discussion. There is no Android version of this app and we haven't been able to test it yet, but it costs $2 in the iPhone app store.

The app has been out since July but the company hasn't been on the radar of any of the AR-watchers we know. GamesAlfresco, the leading AR news blog we've found, has never mentioned this app once. Presumably the company would have sold a lot more software if it had bothered to tell people it existed. When tens of thousands of people went crazy in August checking out the Yelp iPhone app, believing it was the first AR implementation live in the iTunes store, no one from Chemical Wedding bothered to speak up about having an iPhone AR app for sale. There's not even a link to the app in iTunes on the company's own website. Update: Chemical Wedding contacted us and said that the app really only went live a few days go after all and that the lack of a link was an oversight. We apologize if we were rude in pointing it out. :)

Wikitude

Wikitude is a well-developed AR app already available on Android phones for months. It just launched on the iPhone today. The company launched the app without telling anyone, but word got passed around this afternoon on Twitter.

Wikitude has a less shiny interface than Cyclopedia but has a lot more data and is more accessible for users to add data to. I really like Wikitude. It displays Wikipedia data, but also data from international local review site Qype. Most importantly, Wikitude lets anyone add Points of Interest to the Augmented Reality app through a dead-simple interface at Wikitude.me. I spent an hour last month marking up Portland, Oregon and now anyone in town can see my notes on locations through their phone and the Wikitude app.

It's because Wikitude is so open to user generated content that I find it the most exciting of all the Augmented Reality apps. Unfortunately, none of these apps that I've tested on Android are performing fabulously yet - the GPS is just too imprecise and the data too sparse. These are early days though, and even today it's a lot of fun to look at the world around you through Wiki articles.

Collaborative annotation of the physical world? It just doesn't get much cooler than that. Hopefully the technology will continue to improve and more people will learn about what these companies are doing.

StatusNet is the open-source microblogging platform that powers sites such as identi.ca, which impressed us from its inception as a "framework for a distributed network of federated microblogging services." Read on for more details on what Vibber will be doing there.

Vibber hard at work at the Wikimedia Foundation office.

And according to this StatusNet announcement, Vibber's job description will revolve around "architecture and development of the core StatusNet microblogging software, as well as ancillary services to support the status.net platform." And in addition to launching a first release and public signup over the next few months, it is hoped by StatusNet leadership that Vibber's "natural skills as a mentor and leader will help build our Open Source developer and user community."

Although Vibber's new duties will commence on October 12, he will continue to be involved in Wikimedia development and will remain in the Wikimedia office until the end of 2009 "to make sure all our tech staff has a chance to pick my brain as we smooth out the code review processes and make sure things are as well documented as I like to think they are," he wrote.

In an interesting study in open-source, free-as-in-freedom/free-as-in-beer cross-pollination, StatusNet founder Evan Prodromou is also known for his work in the wiki community, launching Wikitravel and helping with MediaWiki development.

Best known for its "enthusiast" wikis, Wikia hosts more than 50,000 fan sites including the Star Wars Wookieepedia, Harry Potter Wiki, Twilight Saga Wiki and World of Warcraft WoWWiki. In addition to some of the larger fan sites, Penchina also points to the Cannon Hacker Development Wiki, Recipes Wiki and Pet Diabetes Wiki as great examples of Wikia contributors.

While Wikia hosts nearly 3 million pages of content with a number of niche community sites, it's the fan pages that drive the majority of advertising and marketing revenue. Wikia's small team of less than 10 sales staff create packages that consist of everything from branded banner ads to embedded shows and contests. In addition to sponsors like World of Warcraft, a number of television studios are also in partnership talks.

Says Penchina, "In many cases, these sites are like small franchises and the editors are really dedicated. The input we've had from editors regarding advertising are suggestions I generally agree with." In the World of Warcraft Wiki the community has asked that no advertisements be permitted that might negatively affect game play. For this reason, Penchina's team does not allow advertisements for WoW gold.

By providing an environment where die hard fans and premium brands can coexist, Wikia is doing a great job maintaining its authenticity while also turning a profit. While the service has struggled to establish itself as a separate brand from its Wikipedia origins, it appears that the fan communities have done everything they can to make it a success from the ground up.

In order to compute an author's standing within the Wikipedia community, WikiTrust analyzes how long an author's contributions stayed live on the site before they were changed or reverted. The longer an editor's contributions last on the site, the higher that editor's reputation will be. In addition, WikiTrust also looks at the text itself and examines the reputation of all the author's who edited this portion of the text.

The basic assumption here is that the more people look at an article and decide that it doesn't need editing, the more trustworthy the text must be. For a more detailed look at how exactly WikiTrust computes an author's and text's reputation, have a look at this presentation (PDF) the WikiTrust team gave at the recent Wikimania 2009 conference.

As Wikipedia doesn't want to deter new editors, the implementation of WikiTrust on the English Wikipedia will not display a user's reputation but focus on the trustworthiness of the text instead. By default, WikiTrust will also be turned off and users will have to turn it on themselves if they want to see the color-coded version of an article.

If you want to try out WikiTrust today, before the system goes live on the English Wikipedia, you can try out this Firefox add-on. For a slightly different view of who edited an article and how often it was edited, also have a look at the WikiDashboard GreaseMonkey script.

2. The Beatles (111,896): In the Telegraph's list for 2008, two different Beatles pages are listed as numbers 14 and 18 for 2008; however, according to the original Wikistics source statistics the "Beatles" page is ranked at number 20. In 2009, the page became the second most visited page on Wikipedia due to automated requests. The fact that the Fab Four's catalogue is due to be re-released in digitally remastered format within the year also can't hurt page traffic.

3. Michael Jackson (79,734): Not surprisingly, Michael Jackson's page is among the most viewed pages on Wikipedia. The day after Jackson's death the page received 5.9 million views. Of the top 10 most-viewed Wikipedia pages of 2009, Jackson's name is also mentioned on the Deaths in 2009 page and briefly in the Beatles page due to his controversial purchase of most of the Lennon-McCartney Beatles catalog in 1985.

*Favicon.ico (78,077): While the Telegraph articles lists this as number 4, it's irrelevant as the Wikistics stat source cites that the Favicon.ico ranking includes browser-based requests for the Wikipedia icon.

4. YouTube (72,318): Whether looking to cite corporate info or simply interested in finding out what the fuss is all about, Wikipedians have flocked to both YouTube and Facebook pages for the last two years.

5. Wikipedia (52,542)

6. Barack Obama (49,401): In 2008 the Barack Obama page was the 3rd most visited page on Wikipedia and not surprisingly, interest has dwindled post-election. Sarah Palin's page (64,465) was the 4th most visited page in 2008 and John McCain's page (34,486) was the 13th most visited page.

7. Deaths in 2009 (48,758): Apparently the public is clamoring to remember those they've lost in 2009. Both the Deaths in 2008 page and the 2009 page have made the top 10 list of most visited Wikipedia pages. It looks like memorial sites like My Death Space and Respectance aren't such a strange idea after all.

8. United States (46,545): This page offers basic information on politics, economics, demographics and customs of the United States. With a large population and a large number of Wikipedians hailing from the US, the page is a popular one. Surprisingly it is not listed on the community's most vandalized pages. Meanwhile both the US Democratic Party and Republican Party pages are listed.

9. Facebook (42,679)

10. Wikipedia Current Events Portal (40,962): This page lists daily news topics and the latest Wikinews articles. It is a great source for breaking news stories. The page also links to recent deaths and ongoing events such as the automotive industry crisis.

For the Telegraph's entire list visit the article. You can also check them against Wikistics list of yearly page hits for 2008 and 2009.

Another interesting resource is Wikipedia's most popular articles within the last hour. While recently deceased celebrities appeared on this list at the time this article was written, there were definitely some interesting anomalies. For instance, the Ernie Davis Wikipedia page saw a dramatic increase in hits. When cross-referenced against real time search engine Collecta it appears HBO was airing the Ernie Davis biography "The Express". Audience members were simultaneously watching television while searching for Davis' biography.

Now you can annotate images from Wikimedia Commons in a fashion very similar to Flickr. The big difference with the new feature is that annotations can be added by anyone, and no account is necessary. While they don't show up directly in Wikipedia yet, a new version of the system that will appear in the free encyclopedia is under development.

Once you find the image you want, either by clicking through from Wikipedia or searching Wikimedia Commons directly, just click the "add note" button underneath any image on its own page. Then type in your text and either preview or save it. In addition to simple text notes, you can include wiki markup to add links or for styling, and if your annotation fails then you can add it manually through editing the page's code.

The image annotation gadget is basically just some JavaScript written by a Wikimedia volunteer and made standard on the site. If you're a regular user and you don't like the boxes showing up on your images, then you can turn it off via your user preferences. The advantage to logging in to add notes is that a history of all your annotations will show up in your user contributions history. According to the project's FAQ, a version will soon be available for use directly within Wikipedia.

Update: according to a clarification on the Wikimedia blog, the latest proposal would not just protect articles about living persons. Instead, Wikipedia would flag all articles "that are currently under normal mechanisms of protection (where new and unregistered users cannot edit) to be eligible for the new protection model, which allows for more open editing."

Flagged Protections and Patrolled Revisions

The current plan is to use this extension to institute a system Wikipedia calls 'flagged protections.' Posts that are flagged as 'protected' can still be edited by any user, but only certain users will actually be able to mark a certain revision as acceptable and allow it to appear on the main version of the entry.

In addition, Wikipedia will institute something called 'patrolled revisions.' While this sounds dramatic, all this feature would do is simply mark a certain version of a Wikipedia entry as reviewed. Thanks to this, it would become easier to compare a reviewed version against later edits, which should help Wikipedia editors to detect and weed out vandalism. These patrolled revisions have no influence over what regular users will see on the site.

As is typical for large changes to Wikipedia, administrators, editors, and users have been discussing the specifics of these changes for the last couple of months, and it is still not clear what the final result will look like. A test version of Wikipedia that uses the Flagged Revision extension is already live, though it's not clear when and if these changes will go live on the main site.

Pros and Cons

There are a number of pros and cons to implementing the proposed changes. On the one hand, this will most likely make vandalism less of a problem on the site. On the other hand, however, as Nihiltres also notes, the result of using Flagged Revisions could be a large backlog of edits.

Some have argued, however, that thanks to this new feature, Wikipedia's editors wouldn't have to completely lock down edits on some controversial articles anymore. Instead, users could still make edits to these articles and those edits would just have to be reviewed before they go live on the site.

Overall, this doesn't sound like a bad proposal. It doesn't really change the nature of Wikipedia, but it does acknowledge some of the issues that an open site of this size inevitably faces and proposes a reasonable solution.

At current spending levels, Omidyar will be contributing just over 10% of WIkipedia's full expenses. The Foundation has been concerned about the global economic climate's impact on donations and is about to enter into a major new period of its history in which the free-form editing of Wikipedia will be slowed by a new approval process that has long been expected.

Wikimedia said in its annual report that it plans to spend a total of $9.4 million over the 2009-2010 year. Just three years ago, in '06-'07, the organization spent only $3 million. Back in the old days of '04-'05, it cost just $100,000 to run everything.

Wikimedia joins a long list of organizations in the Omidyar portfolio, including well-known Web 2.0 names like Digg, Seesmic and the Sunlight Foundation.

Of course, this is only a first attempt and we laud the Wikipedia Mobile team for releasing this app as an open-source application. However, the fact that the search field is populated with "::Home" when you first open up the app shows that the app still needs a lot of polish before it can compete with the 'unofficial' apps. For now, if you just want a lightweight way of accessing Wikipedia articles from your phone and you don't want to install an app, just use the official mobile site.

The addition of Google Books as a partner is a significant one as the search giant's involvement promises to increase the public's ability to find works to share and remix. For now, CC licensed books are distinguishable by a Creative Commons logo to the left of the preview pane. In the future, licensing is likely to become an advanced search feature within the site. When that happens, remixing material will be so much easier to find.

For example, Google already prints full versions of out-of-copyright books for its Library Project. Once these books are tagged with the public domain license, thousands of out-of-copyright and sometimes out-of-print books will become easily searchable. We may see a renewed interest in our favorite classics, or see them altered in new and unusual ways. By showcasing CC licensed material, Google Books may prompt other companies like Flickr to further prioritize commons-friendly search.

If you'd like to place your Google Book under a CC license, you can do so in your account settings. To sign up to add a CC licensed work, visit the Google Books partner page

For now, the Wikipedia discussion page states,"Prior discussion has determined that Rorschach inkblots images shall be displayed in this article, and removal of pictures without consensus at Talk:Rorschach test/images [the discussion page] will be reverted."

Times reporter Noam Cohen writes about those against the posted images saying, "For them [the psychologists], the Wikipedia page is the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year's SAT."

The fact that both of these tests are based on normative results adds another dimension to the Wikipedia debate - whether or not the inkblot test is a valid metric in the first place. In the late nineties, based on reviewing the demographics of students with the lowest averages in the country, critics called the SAT racist, urban-centric and classist. With the test determining college placement, scholarship eligibility and in some cases, job placement, it remains an important one. For this reason, it was redrafted in 2005 to be more tolerant of diversity and more reflective of classroom curriculum.

With the Rorschach inkblots having been established since the 1920's, what are the chances that each of us aren't already showing signs of major psychosis? If there's a doctor in the house, by all means, let us know if and how the psychological indicators of the test have changed over time.

There's no doubt that a number of those awaiting SATs and psychometric testing might choose to game the system. While higher SAT scores improve college eligibility, average Rorschach inkblot results might alleviate the fear of being estranged from friends and family. Unless the person being psychologically profiled wants to shirk criminal responsibility or can see themselves as a danger to themselves or others, it makes sense to want to establish "normality".

But why is Wikipedia more responsible to protect Rorschach testing than scientific journals or medical websites? Admittedly, I am not an expert in medicine, psychology or the forensic sciences and I have no idea how these Wikipedia images will affect the patient community. However, as a tech blogger, I understand this issue to be Wikipedia's dedication to free and educational content - even when that education is widely debated. It will be interesting to see if those against the inkblot posting will be able to determine a consensus to have them removed.

MIT's Technology Review compares PageHunt to Luis von Ahn's spam-fighting puzzles and image tagging games. Nevertheless, for initial volunteer buy-in, it may actually have closer ties to Wikipedia. While the projects seem very different, they actually share similar missions. Wikipedia is aimed at collecting and distributing educational content to global audiences. Meanwhile, Microsoft's Page Hunt aims to increase the relevancy and speed at which information can be found.

Very few projects offer the general public a chance to volunteer in improving the sum of human knowledge in such a significant way. Wikipedia volunteers are often fiercely devoted to curating their pages knowing that even the US Health Department is factoring the community into their outreach strategy. Page Hunt's search relevancy game players may adopt a similar mentality.

One key barrier to this sort of adoption is the fact that Page Hunt's info will not likely be shared with non-Microsoft search players. Meanwhile Wikipedia content is shared freely as public domain information. It will be interesting to see if the Page Hunt community fleshes out in the same manner or if a less-proprietary search game will spring up in its place.

In addition to Wales, other CK-12 advisory board members include CEO of Sun Microsystems Vinod Khosla, CTO of JotSpot Graham Spencer and founding principal of the High Tech High charter school program, Larry Rosenstock.

CK-12 intends to make use of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license. Meanwhile, Wales' other open textbook project, Wikibooks, is licensed as GNU Free Documentation. Both licenses ensure that the book content is free to be copied, redistributed and modified for either commercial or non-commercial use with the only major stipulation being that author's receive attribution. Wikibooks currently has over 38,602 volunteer edited pages with subject matter in natural sciences, computing, humanities and social sciences. The project already includes books from at least 15 different languages.

According to CK-12, the difference between Wikipedia and CK-12 is that the organization "specifically focuses on K-12 standards-based content centered around the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) subjects vs. serving as an encyclopedia of knowledge...CK-12 offers materials such as lesson objectives, vocabulary, and Q & A - similar to those found in textbooks." However, the group does not address comparisons with Wikibooks. At this early stage with CK-12, the key difference between Wikibooks and CK-12 appears to be that the latter organization envisions one day supplying printed textbooks via an on-demand press similar to Lulu or Blurb.

In reality, open-source software provides stable solutions, created by people and for people and used by companies of all sizes. Use Firefox? That's open-source software. Google Chrome? It too is based on an open-source code. Ever look up a term on Wikipedia? The site is completely built on user-generated code and content. "In fact," says Allison Randal, Program Chair of OSCON, "chances are you're using a lot more open-source software than you know: on your computer or powering you favorite websites."

Author: Ravit Lichtenberg is the founder and chief strategist at Ustrategy.com -- a boutique consultancy focusing on helping companies succeed. Ravit works with CEOs, marketing groups, and social media managers to craft customer-centric engagement strategies that result in higher customer value, stronger customer community, improved monetization, and higher profitability. Ravit authors a blog at www.ravitlichtenberg.com.

What Is Open Source?

"The ideas behind open source are about freedom," continues Randal, "that people should have certain basic rights in the software that they use, the same as every other part of life. It's about people's rights to create things they're passionate about."

Mozilla's founders, who spawned Firefox, walked away from the ashes of Netscape with a desire to change the Web browsing experience. Drupal and Joomla are content management systems that enable unlimited options in website building and publishing. Remember how difficult it used to be to build your own website? Now building one is free, open to all, flexible, and extendable: anyone with a passion or idea can build for it, and numerous companies are taking Drupal and Joomla and building easy-to-use website templates that anyone can use, no programming needed. Don't want to pay for Microsoft Office? You can use OpenOffice for free -- it will serve most of your needs.

In essence, these projects, developers, and organizations address mature, business-critical issues in better, faster ways. This form of crowd-sourcing enables businesses to use solutions that would otherwise have required a lot more time and/or people to develop at a much higher total cost.

Open Source Is Evolving

You may have heard the phrase, "Open Source is free as in speech, not as in beer." This phrase refers to the notion that while everyone can freely start and contribute to any project, the actual use of open source solutions may still come with a price tag -- often for services and additional product layers that a company bundles with the open code. But for corporations that already spend millions of dollars just to keep the lights on, investing in open source increasingly makes better business sense. For the CIOs and CTOs of these companies, it's not about the price tag of each solution but rather about the total cost of ownership over time, especially in a downturn economy.

In a study conducted by Gartner and reported by Matt Asay at CNET, CIOs reported they have increased investment in open-source software and decreased investment in proprietary software. CIOs reported that by investing in open source they were able to do the following:

• Reduce costs by 87% (while meeting or exceeding expectations),
• Improve quality by 92%,
• Ease integration and customization by 86%,
• Quicken pace of innovation by 82%,
• Improve support by 84%,
• Increase standards compliance by 91%,
• Decrease time to market by 82%.

Michael Fauscette, Group Vice-President of Software Business Solutions at IDC, recently highlighted changes in the adoption of open source. IDC found that as recently as 2007, CIOs were reluctant to adopt social media software for fear of IP infringement and poor support: two mission-critical elements of any enterprise. By 2008, says Fauscette, CIOs reported that they preferred open-source software precisely because of the quality of support it comes with. And as for their fear of IP infringement, that was no longer at the top of the list because of standards and self-policing.

Open source doesn't only serve IT companies, though. It is now being explored for government and health care data management and access. Open-source software, in other words, has moved from the basements of Linkin Park fans to the desks of the largest corporations in the US.

Sound familiar? The evolution of open source may sound a bit like the evolution of another web-related phenomenon, what has become known as Web 2.0 social media and social networking. Like open-source software, social media is about the basic human right to communicate, organize, and maintain control of one's own experiences. And both address the needs of companies to do more at higher quality with less money. Both social media and open-source software involve communities and are fed by content: code in the case of open source, and media content in the case of social media.

But unlike open source, social media has thus far primarily been a consumer play and is only now being explored by enterprises. Living on the Web, social media is also hardware and distribution-channel agnostic: it does not require pre-installation and does not compete with pre-bundled proprietary products. Historically, open source, being hardware dependent, has had greater distribution challenges: unless the software came pre-loaded on your hardware, notes Fauscette, you would rarely seek out alternatives to replace what you already have. Without a channel for hardware, distribution was driven primarily by hard-core tech enthusiasts.

Seeds of Change

Companies that erected insurmountable barriers to protect their source code now realize that the cost of innovation and competition may be just too much compared to that of their competitors that use open-source software. Take Google's Android, an iPhone competitor built on the open-source platform Linux. Android started off as closed-source software but very quickly became an open-source project. Developers can now build applications on top of Android's platform and then use the code for their own Android-like products, just as developers use Firefox code to build their own browsers.

2008 saw another significant milestone: the establishment of the Symbian Foundation to oversee the development of the Symbian operating system as an open-source platform, licensed under the Eclipse Public License (EPL). The Foundation's members include Nokia, Motorola, Sony Ericsson, NTT DoCoMo, Texas Instruments, Vodafone, Samsung, LG, and AT&T. With this development, a once highly protected closed-source cell-phone operating system has opened up.

Caleb Sima, Chief Technologist at Hewlett-Packard, calls this "a clear move on Nokia's part to try to catch up to the competition by using open source and the community to help evolve its features to those of smartphones." Companies are now realizing that open-source software is a competitive advantage.

What Open Source Means to Social Media

Open source is the natural platform for fast-evolving social media and social networking. Forget about having to scale the walled gardens of social networks or having to upload, download, and link together multiple applications. With open source, everything is seamless and transparent. Picture a huge festive dinner table, set with dozens of mouth-watering dishes for you and your guests to pick from. You can heap whatever you like on your plate or, better yet, just dab your bread into whatever dish your please, all while seeing what others are putting on their plate and seeing whether they're using a fork or a spoon and hearing the conversation around the table.

But with all of these capabilities and openness, people will face new challenges on the Web. One big challenge will be to make the Web more personal and make it possible to simulate live interaction. One of the most promising companies to address this is Kaltura, maker of the only open-source online video management platform, with a free community platform, now used on over 35,000 websites and soon to be integrated into Wikipedia for user co-creation of rich media content. (Disclaimer: Kaltura is one of my client companies.)

"Extensions like Kaltura make the Web real," says Fauscette. "Video is in fact one of the big things we'll see. This is an opportunity space, and first-mover advantage will be big." For Fauscette, trust is a major sticking point: with the proliferation of networks, friends, followers, and brands online, helping people figure out who and what to trust will be key to making the Web personal.

Whoever tries to control people's relationships will lose. Whoever enables people to create and share experiences that are relevant to them across any website, with anyone, the way they want will win. And open source will create many more winners than losers.

More About Open Source

OSCON is celebrating its 10th year anniversary this coming week in a four-day conference in San Jose, California. In addition to the usual technical tracks, OSCON has added people and business tracks and many free events. You can register for a free pass to the expo hall (yes, free as in beer) and attend the "Birds of a Feather" un-conference, Ignite party, Hackathon, and much more (all free). Check out the list of events.

Great resources online include Open Source Initiative Open Government, Open Data Initiatives, SourceForge (where you can find a list of ongoing projects and downloads), Open Video Alliance, and the excellent short and sweet write-ups by open-source experts such as CNET's Matt Asay.

Oh, and there's always Wikipedia (where smiles are always open).

In the interview clips, included below, Moller hints at the site's upcoming suite of editing tools and sharing options. He compares video to text and image content, subtextually posing the question: If other kinds of non-video content are so easy to grab, remix, and reuse, why not video, too?

Although videos have been part of the Wikimedia stable for a couple years through the open-source Ogg Theora format, the offering has been limited. Now, however, a Firefox 3.5 plugin called Firefogg will allow for server-side transcoding to the Ogg format. In addition to allowing for downloading and editing, the Ogg format also consumes significantly fewer resources during video playback.

Of course, any open-source technology that makes information free (both free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-free-to-move-about-the-Internet) is not without controversy. The Ogg codec's role in HTML 5 is of particular interest to those concerned with the evolution of web-based video.

Of particular interest to those concerned with the evolution of content ownership, however, is the Foundation's proposal, as stated by Moller, to allow users to "take a video, to crop it, to edit it, to take different assets and mix them into a single video - not just video... a text slide or... a slide show. You can mix videos, tag them with audio, obviously. So we want to build a completely open standards-based environment that people can use to remix video."

As we reported last month, when news of the new player was breaking, hundreds of thousands of public domain videos from sources such as the Internet Archive and Metavid will be available in the new format.

The editing tools to be made available later this year are led and funded by open source video company Kaltura. Moller also revealed to Beet.tv that Wikimedia is looking for a CDN partner to ensure streaming video performance.