Slashdot Log In
Wikipedia Gears Up For Explosion In Digital Media
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jan 14, 2009 04:23 PM
from the until-there-is-only-one-site-on-the-internet dept.
from the until-there-is-only-one-site-on-the-internet dept.
jbrodkin writes "Wikipedia is gearing up for an explosion in digital content with new servers and storage designed to handle larger photo and video uploads.
Until early 2008, the user-generated encyclopedia's primary media file server had just 2TB of total space, which was not enough to hold growing amounts of video, audio and picture files, says CTO Brian Vibber.
'For a long time, we just did not have the capacity [to handle very large media files],' he says.
Wikipedia has raised media storage from 2TB to 48TB and the limit on file uploads from 20MB to 100MB. Ultimately, Wikipedia wants to eliminate any practical size limits on uploads, potentially allowing users to post feature length, high-quality videos.
'The limits will get bigger and bigger to where it will be relatively easy for someone who has a legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality,' Vibber says."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will be (Score:4, Interesting)
The Wiki project represents the best and worst that's in us. I wonder if people will start trying to archive classic shows on there like they do on youtube. :)
Re:I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will b (Score:4, Insightful)
I doubt it, due to copyrights. The expiration on copyright is so long that they'd have little to legally archive.
Parent
Re:I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will b (Score:5, Interesting)
That doesn't prevent there from being a rather significant pool [archive.org] of classic media. Take the old Superman cartoons as an example. They all fell into public domain long before they could be grandfathered back into existence. Thus just about anyone who wants to host them, edit them, use them in a new work, or otherwise make use of those old films is able to do so. Also, some of those films are likely to be new works that are gifted into the Creative Commons in the same way the Wikipedia article text is. Think of a shark in its natural environment, a tour of a famous building, or even a re-enactment of a historical battle.
There's even work that's been done to show how Wikipedia might use the HTML5 tag if and when it becomes widely deployed. (See this page [opera.com] for a dev version of Opera and 2 example Wikipedia pages that support & fallback content.) Despite the seeming incongruity of allowing videos inside Wikipedia pages, the demos shown is actually quite natural.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Long bought and paid for bribed long...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their main problem is going to be making sure that none of the stuff people upload violates any copyright and conforms to their free/non-free usage guidelines. There are only so many user-generated videos that could find a place in an encyclopedia, so I assume most of what they'll see will be ripped from other places.
They spend enormous amounts of time "patrolling" uploaded images, placing them on special categories for later review and so on. And the processes in place don't help, either. The last time I t
Re:I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will b (Score:5, Funny)
I eagerly await the update to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_positions [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We already have archive.org for anything out of copyright, or freely redistributable. There are even full length features available.
My question is how exactly is a 2 hour movie going to fit in with the mission of Wikipedia. They're intended to be an encyclopedia, not a movie download service. It would make sense to link to clips of films in the article on John Williams or Spike Lee or whoever, but all you need is a clip, not the whole film.
Re: (Score:2)
A 2 hour movie would probably not be used in Wikipedia itself but some other Wikimedia foundation project.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why the focus on 'movies'? There are many situations in which an article about a particular subject could be improved through the use of a high-quality, feature-length educational video. Wouldn't the article for the Amen Break [wikipedia.org] be more interesting if this video [garagespin.com] appeared on the page, right there in the sidebar? To borrow your example, you wouldn't have a Spike Lee film, but a documentary about him, fleshing out the details in the article and offering insight that text alone can't provide. If a picture is w
Youtube? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Because:
a) they probably want to ensure the content will be there in future, when they go to sell the Wikipedia 2009/10/so-on DVD Snapshots.
b) Their future split-your-video-into-one-thousand-segments and demand-more-formal-acting-and-citations-for-all-segments tools won't work with youtube.
p.s.: Mods: Yes, this is harsh. No, it's not serious. Yes, it's semi-serious.
Re:Youtube? (Score:5, Insightful)
First, presumably the article probably means Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org] rather than Wikipedia itself. That said, one of Wikipedia's biggest goals is to have all media content as open and accessible as possible. They accept only free, open, and unencumbered file formats [wikimedia.org].
YouTube is pretty much the exact opposite of Wikipedia. That is, you cannot download the content for your own use or to redistribute it, there is no open source software that can easily view YouTube content, there is no intelligent discussion of said content (only "omfg americas r soooo dumb"), and nobody except YouTube employees are allowed to express an opinion on whether or not the content is suitable for deletion. And finally, there is no certification that the content being viewed is in the public domain or is being used within the bounds of fair use.
Parent
Re:Youtube? (Score:5, Insightful)
And youtube may withdraw them or restrict their audience at any time.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
BitTorrent doesn't work well with unpopular information.
Wikipedia=new on-line data repository (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And it'll get speedy-deleted on grounds of notability, original research, etc - and you won't have a video anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And it'll get speedy-deleted on grounds of notability, original research, etc - and you won't have a video anymore.
Does anything on Wikipedia ever really get deleted?
I thought the Mods and Admins had full access to deleted pages.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hahaha. Typical. (Score:2, Insightful)
Wikipedia, as a nonprofit, is no different from any other dumbass venture-backed company.
"Hey we just collected $6MM, and we're heading into Great Depression II. What should we do?"
"Why don't we spend all of it as quickly as we can, then beg for more in a few months?"
"Genius! Give that man a raise!"
Whatever happened with google sponsorship? (Score:2)
I thought there was a deal in the works for google to host wikipedia and solve the storage problem once and for all.
I know the wikinauts hate the idea of google text ads, control freak purists that they be. But wasn't the google offer independent of ads?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, just a rumour. Google never sponsored anything about Wikimedia other than the occasional party at the annual conference. Yahoo!, on the other hand, has been hosting a Wikipedia data room within their data centre in Seoul since 2004/5-ish. Just goes to show how inaccurate these Interweb thingies are. :-)
Wikipedia = The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, half the pages I view on a daily basis these days are wikipedia pages. Any time I want to learn about something, it's the first place I go.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I sincerely hope it's not the last place you go. The "facts" you get from wikipedia won't teach you much. (Unless you are a psycholgist studying how power can warp some people on the internet, or an accountant studying Jimbo Wales creative expense accounting. (I noticed after their last scrounge for cash, there was a big thank you from Jimmy Wales banner -- now, that was ironically funny)).
Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are ex
Re:Wikipedia = The Internet (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the key. I agree with the previous poster; Wikipedia is a great place to start your online research. But of course I never quote the Wikipedia article itself (except for minor things like atomic weights and other easily-verifiable data). A well-written Wikipedia article is a speedy link to a collection of journals, newspaper articles, and primary sources.
Conversely, of course, a poorly-written Wikipedia article is a speedy link to a collection of 'authoritative' blogs, home pages and fringe websites.
Wikipedia is a great research tool for anyone who knows how to perform research.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That is one reason that the only thing I do on Wikipedia is to add pictures.
Then you don't even have to read the articles, and there is less room for error in a picture.
Plus, I don't write very good English.
Wikipedia Search = Sucky (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time I want to learn about something, it's the first place I go.
It's the second place I go, because the Wikipedia Search "feature" sucks unless you know exactly what you're looking for. If only Wikipedia would either fix their broken "search" or simply integrate Google search into it?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There have been major improvements to search lately, thanks pretty much solely to the volunteer work of Robert Stojnic (rainman). You might want to try it out again. Still probably not quite up to Google levels in some ways, given the difference in budget of some billions of dollars versus ~$0, but it has better relevance than before and a lot more nice features now (e.g., "did you mean").
Re:Wikipedia Search = Much better (Score:4, Informative)
Now however it gives reasonable suggestions for misspellings and has better accuracy.
Parent
legitimate need? (Score:3, Insightful)
"legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality"
Who gets to define legitimate?
Re:legitimate need? (Score:4, Insightful)
The same people who determine whether a given paragraph legitimately deserves to remain in a Wikipedia article: the community of volunteer contributors.
For better or worse, the people deciding what videos should be kept and which should be deleted will be those who are involved and passionate about Wikipedia. If you think Wikipedia is doing overall a good job so far, then presumably you expect them to make good decisions about what videos are worthwhile. If you think Wikipedia is overall doing a poor job, then presumably you expect them to make poor and/or capricious choices with respect to video.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
"legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality"
Who gets to define legitimate?
I do. It amazes me how long it takes some people to catch on.
Typo (Score:3, Insightful)
P2P (Score:2)
I forsee a new job at Wikipedia... (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I going to the Wikipedia page on France, and watching a video, complete with caption in *My* language, of France - like a mini-documentary or travel brochure or promo? Who produces that? Who edits it? Is there a standard narrator? Can we get that guy with the cool voice that does Frontline to do them all? Will they have any standards in how they are produced? How they are credited?
There is a fundamental and critical difference between Youtube, which is a Bazaar, and Wikipedia, which is a Cathedral - to brazenly steal Eric Raymond's title.
A video on say France is the authoritative video on the subject. Unlike say a picture, which may be used or copied with permission that may show a city or a map, videos require much more work. Will Oliver Stone get to do the video for George W Bush? Will it be like the BMW series with Clive Owen, having a bunch of guest directors? Can we have Marty Scorsese do the video for New York City?
Multimedia is cool, but it opens up alot of problems.
Commons? (Score:3, Informative)
Sounds pretty dumb to me. Media should be at Wikimedia commons, not in Wikipedia proper.
Maybe that's what he means, but I didn't RTFA.
A chance for .ogg to shine (Score:4, Interesting)
These developments offer a chance for the open source .ogg/theora format to shine.
While folks at Illiminable [illiminable.com] have done a good job of providing a codec to play .ogg files within Windows Media Player, I hope this can be available by default.
That is, you attempt to play an .ogg/theora file and the system provides a opportunity to download and install/setup the plugin by default on systems without the ability to play .ogg/theora files.
Re:A chance for .ogg to shine (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that theora isn't all that good. Yes it is free but the quality isn't as good as many other codecs out there. I wish that Dirac would get more attention as a codec.
Parent
Too much of a burden on Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
This is out of scope for Wikipedia. It sounds like this should be an entirely separate project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should not have video:
I don't mean that because traditional encyclopedias did not have video, but because it doesn't fit with the type of content that an encyclopedia presents. It is similar to how newspapers should not have video. Wikipedia is not a teaching tool. It is not meant to provide functional examples. It is a starting point: a dictionary-style explanatory description.
An entry on the Hindenburg does not need a video of the Hindenburg disaster. It needs technical specifications, historically accurate statements of what happened, and a link to a museum who DOES house the video.
An entry on Calculus needs a historic description and a mathematical overview. Not a 2-hour lecture.
Now --- that doesn't mean that a video repository is not a good project. I think that would be awesome. Youtube kinda has that, but it has garbage thrown in. But maybe Wikipedia is not the place for it.
Re:Too much of a burden on Wikipedia (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see why that's outside the scope of Wikipedia. A video of the disaster could fall under "historically accurate [depiction] of what happened."
I agree that lectures would be a bad idea, but some full-length videos are very informative and useful for research purposes.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
This is out of scope for Wikipedia. It sounds like this should be an entirely separate project. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias should not have video:
Why? Just cause you say so? The wiki folks already enjoy deleting as many articles they can, so I'm sure you can work with them to delete as many videos as you can.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. I think that's a perfect example of an article that needs video. In my mind the video starts when something goes visibly wrong to the point that it's a pile of stationary, yet flaming wreckage on the ground and that's it.
Contrast this with typical American TV that is so fucking full of filler like commentary and "dramatic" camera movements that I can't watch it anymore. Like "World's Most Dangerous Police Chases" and
This is going to be what YouTube was supposed tobe (Score:2, Interesting)
Who will pay for this ? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they increase the storage, it means that the traffic will explode.
Who will pay for the bandwidth ?
This year, it was 6 millions of dollars, but with videos, at least 10 times this amount will be needed.
Does this mean that ads will appear ?
How about offering images for download again? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's been 18 months [wikipedia.org] since Wikipedia provided bulk downloads of image data. That may not be a priority for most people, but offering everything for download is essential for an open project in my opinion. Add all new images of a month to YYYYMM.tar and offer that as a torrent.
Wikipedia doesn't need this. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see a role for Wikipedia in this. Archive.org already accepts video uploads of useful archival material, so that's covered. Wikipedia has enough trouble finding redistributable still images for articles. Who's going to create useful video for Wikipedia that isn't original research or a copyright violation?
Re: (Score:2)
The self-appointed content fascists on Wikipedia should result in a great reduction in the amount of storage needed.
Agreed. Why does the wikipedia need more storage, when their main focus seems to be deleting other peoples articles?
You'd think they would "upgrade" to smaller disks not bigger disks. Move the whole think to a single small SD card or something.