On 26 Jun 2009, at 02:08, Samuel Klein wrote: > Wikimedia currently doesn't like files as large as a feature film, or > even a high-def short. (how should we address this? Brion mentioned > something about making video easier to upload in November.)
As I understand it, there are three issues with having large video files on Wikimedia: 1. Server capacity: Disk space + server load + bandwidth 2. Interface: Ogg only, no ability to create clips, rescaling, etc. 3. Community will (1) I assume is fairly easy to solve (simply by throwing money at the problem) provided that there's sufficient demand and money available. (2) is at least partly on its way, I believe, as per recent news stories [1]. (3) I don't know whether there's the will in the community to have large video support, partly as it's already done to an extent by archive.org and partly due to bandwidth/resource concerns (both the uploader's and Wikimedias) Videos are resource-heavy, and community-light, unlike text content on Wikipedia, or even images on Commons. It will remain community- light unless we want to go the way of YouTube. It's still very difficult to create decent quality, useful video. Having said that, IMHO having a usable (high quality) copy of public domain videos, and educational videos (PD or user-created), on Wikimedia sites can only be good. > But is > there any reason not to include other bodies of published sources now > available under free license? Wikisource is currently the closest > thing available to a unified place to categorize, comment on, and > provide bidirectional links to source text and files of any sort. It > should in some ways be our largest project, and even our most widely > cited. Wikisource is for textual sources, not videos or files in general - that's Wikimedia Commons. Mike [1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10269308-17.html _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
