Wikipedia Gears Up For Explosion In Digital Media 141
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."
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. :)
Youtube? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Youtube? (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:Wikipedia=new on-line data repository (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.
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.
Finally (Score:1, Interesting)
This is going to be what YouTube was supposed tobe (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will b (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re:I can only imagine how bad the edit wars will b (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 worth a thousand words, then a moving picture must be worth millions.
Of course, you open up a whole can of worms in the editing battle side of things. Tug-of-wars over text has proved bad enough, let alone people arguing over weasel words and unsupported claims in a thirty minute documentary.
Re:Too much of a burden on Wikipedia (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 the like. There's like 3 minutes of worthy video padded with 3-10 repetitions and 21 minutes of inane blathering no one cares about. The kind of stuff that is invariably absent on youtube renditions - even those taken from the show.
I think there are exceptional cases where a video is warranted, but they should be extremely short. No commentary whatsoever. Text is a better format for it.
This turned out to be a kind of exploratory essay, and I apologize, but I guess the conclusion is: Yes wikipedia should have video, but only in exceptional cases, and keep it as short as possible, and no speaking.
Lastly, I expect Wikipedia's video posting rules to cite this post.*
*Warning: do not attempt to read this sentence without a sense of humor.
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?