Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet IT

Wikipedia Gears Up For Explosion In Digital Media 141

Posted by timothy
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikipedia Gears Up For Explosion In Digital Media

Comments Filter:
  • by jollyreaper (513215) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:30PM (#26455807)

    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. :)

    • by truthsearch (249536) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:50PM (#26456171) Homepage Journal

      I doubt it, due to copyrights. The expiration on copyright is so long that they'd have little to legally archive.

      • 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.

        • "Think of a shark in its natural environment, a tour of a famous building, or even a re-enactment of a historical battle."

          You just described "Sharks with lasers" ... I think

        • 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.

          And possibly run afoul of DC Comics' trademark on SUPERMAN. Copyrights survive patents, and trademarks survive copyrights. The Dastar v. Fox precedent (one cannot use a trademark as an ersatz copyright) has been rejected in other countries, such as Canada which recognizes a trademark on ANNE OF GREEN GABLES jointly owned by Prince Edward Island and the author's estate.

          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.

          But which studio big enough to produce notable works releases them under a free license?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dedazo (737510)

      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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta (162192)

      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.

      • A 2 hour movie would probably not be used in Wikipedia itself but some other Wikimedia foundation project.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by legirons (809082)

        We already have archive.org for anything out of copyright, or freely redistributable.

        Not for long - The Internet Watch Foundation [wikimedia.org] have just blocked archive.org [theregister.co.uk] to all UK population.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Hogwash McFly (678207)

        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

      • by severoon (536737)
        I don't understand how it makes sense to arbitrarily place limits on the form of wikipedia content. Maybe I don't understand how a particular type of content could be used, but that's my problem. I wouldn't want to deprive the entire world of potentially valuable information because I'm ignorant about something. (And who knows, maybe I can remedy that ignorance by checking out the relevant wikipedia movie on it.)
    • The Wiki project represents the best and worst that's in us.

      I agree. Websites that publish content submitted and moderated by users really suck.

  • Youtube? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anthony_Cargile (1336739) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:30PM (#26455819) Homepage
    Why don't they instead just allow linking to youtube videos without the WP nazis removing them? Sure they can upgrade storage size, but if they start storing videos everyone wants to see, then you're looking at youtube-sized bandwidth bills (or lack thereof) ensuing. It makes more sense to me, at least. [citation needed]
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Because:

      • youtube videos tend to look like ass
      • youtube videos aren't downloadable
      • youtube is inherently tied to flash (not an open technology)
      • Re:Youtube? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by A nonymous Coward (7548) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:49PM (#26456145)

        And youtube may withdraw them or restrict their audience at any time.

      • by Necroman (61604)
        • Youtube can stream videos as "High Quality", which look a lot better than the default. More on High-Quality Youtube videos [jimmyr.com].
        • There are many ways to download Youtube videos. Standalone programs, Greasemonkey scripts, Firefox addons. Though, I wish they would add a "download" button. But I doubt they will do that so they can keep attracting people back to their site.
        • The codec that flash uses to play is playable outside of flash. The VLC player has the ability to play .flv files. But you are correct that
      • youtube videos aren't downloadable

        Huh? They were all downloadable last time I checked (a few months ago, I guess). Got a link to a not-downloadable one?

        • Obviously what people are referring to when they say YouTube videos aren't "downloadable" is that YouTube offers no user interface for easily downloading the video. I'm sure plenty of /. readers know of programs that will ferret out and then download an FLV file given a YouTube URL. Most users don't use those programs. They use only the features the site offers to them (even down to using the site's ability to recommend some video to a friend instead of copying and pasting the URL into a new email messag

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by CarpetShark (865376)

      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)

      by Eil (82413) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @07:23PM (#26458625) Homepage Journal

      Why don't they instead just allow linking to youtube videos without the WP nazis removing them?

      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.

      • Actually, youtube content is reasonably accessible with freedomware.

        For those who will run non-freedomware, I read that some of the "downloaders" actually simply grab it from cache, where it was placed by the (servant-ware) flash.

        For iceweasel/firefox, for those that won't like myself, I know for a fact that swfdec with the swfdec-mozilla plugin play it in-place in the web page reasonably well (altho last time I used it the "extra" functionality like replay, etc, didn't work), and there's various extensions

      • by akadruid (606405)

        there is no open source software that can easily view YouTube content

        http://www.getmiro.com/ [getmiro.com]

        works like a dream, on any platform

        (You are right on all the other points)

  • by prgrmr (568806) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:32PM (#26455867) Journal
    Do you have a large video but don't want to consume your desktop hard drive with it? Just write an article about it and post it all to Wikipedia.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And it'll get speedy-deleted on grounds of notability, original research, etc - and you won't have a video anymore.

      • by prgrmr (568806)
        Very most likely, but that's not going to stop people from attempting it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by TubeSteak (669689)

        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:1, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Does anything on Wikipedia ever really get deleted?

          Perhaps not. [dbatley.com]

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Simetrical (1047518)

          Does anything on Wikipedia ever really get deleted? I thought the Mods and Admins had full access to deleted pages.

          Yep, that's generally true. Anyone who can delete things can also undelete things, and there are lots of people who can do both: over 1600 [wikipedia.org] on the English Wikipedia, 250 [wikimedia.org] on the Wikimedia Commons -- any administrator. Hypothetically a sysop would be able to use Wikipedia as a private file store this way, since views of deleted content aren't logged, but that's probably not worth it. :)

          If you upload something that even the admins shouldn't see, generally an "OMG lawsuit" kind of thing like personal informati

      • by hobbit (5915)

        Wiki entries are not deleted -- they're still there in the history.

      • by mgblst (80109)

        This could be the best option, because you can still access the article, it is just not on the main wikepedia index.

      • You are referring to articles on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia.

        This story is about media on Wikimedia Commons, the free database of media. They have a very different set of rules. The concepts of "notability" and "original research" are irrelevant there. Copyright ownership and freedom, however, is very important.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Abstrackt (609015)
      [citation needed]
    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Mex (191941)

      Good luck getting it to stay for long, the Wikipedia Nazis will happily erase it in a second.

      • by log1385 (1199377)
        That may very well be, but I could still see people using this just like yousendit. If you want your to send your friend an 80MB video, post it and let him download it before it gets deleted.
  • Hahaha. Typical. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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!"

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hey, if I had 6 million million dollars, I wouldn't hesitate to blow a few thousand on hard drives either.

      But, seriously: if you become irrelevant, it doesn't matter how financially smart you are, you can say bye-bye.

  • 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)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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. :-)

  • by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:52PM (#26456195) Homepage

    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)

      by owlnation (858981)

      Any time I want to learn about something, it's the first place I go.

      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

      • by geobeck (924637) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:26PM (#26456743) Homepage

        Any time I want to learn about something, it's the first place I go.

        I sincerely hope it's not the last place you go.

        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.

      • by corsec67 (627446)

        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.

      • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Wikipedia is a fantastic resource when used correctly. When looking for information go to the Wikipedia article and read it for a cursory introduction to get your brain around the concept, then scroll down to the sources and read them for the facts.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Here's a test. Pick a subject that you are expert in, or even have a good passing knowledge of -- any subject, pick a few even. Go to the wikipedia page on that topic, and you will find inconsistencies, inaccuracies, conjecture, missing information and sometimes downright lies.

        I've found Wikipedia to be very accurate on topics in mathematics, physics, basic chemisry, and other 'nerdy but not controversial' topics (especially as a general reference for formulas, constants, and methods). When I've examined

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:45PM (#26457077)

      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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Cowmonaut (989226)
        How about you just google it in the first place? Chances are the wiki entry is the top search result ANYWAYS. And really, their search isn't bad. You just have to know what the subject is called and be willing to scroll down to see the "possible matches". The article your looking for is probably in the top 5....
      • I go to google, and the first place it sends me is Wikipedia

        I agree Wikipedia's search is horrible.
      • because the Wikipedia Search "feature" sucks unless you know exactly what you're looking for

        I feel strongly enough to throw in a 'me too.'

        The wikipedia search feature is dreadful, but as others have pointed out, Google's is pretty good. I'll usually append or prepend the phrase 'wiki'. E.g.: 'wiki paw-paw' or 'wiki radiant intensity'.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Simetrical (1047518)

        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").

      • by Taxman415a (863020) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @08:04PM (#26459185) Homepage Journal
        It used to be really bad I agree, and so would everyone else. But it has recently gotten much better. It was just never seen as a high enough priority given the shoestring budgets and other fires that needed to be put out.

        Now however it gives reasonable suggestions for misspellings and has better accuracy.
    • Its a shame that its a mere fraction of what it could have been. Back when it was young, I felt that it would eventually encompass almost anything useful and leverage the fact they were web based to their advantage (spoiler tags were genius), but now when i look something up i prey that it hasn't been deleted already :(

  • legitimate need? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:53PM (#26456211) Homepage Journal

    "legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality"

    Who gets to define legitimate?

    • by JustinOpinion (1246824) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:07PM (#26456433)

      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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Simetrical (1047518)

        Actually, most of these uploads should go to the Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org], not Wikipedia proper. Files uploaded to Commons can be used on any Wikimedia site, including any language of Wikipedia, Wiktionary, etc. Files uploaded to the English Wikipedia can only be used on the English Wikipedia. The Commons admins [wikimedia.org] are largely a different group of people from the English Wikipedia admins [wikipedia.org], although there's some overlap. Adminship is given out on a per-project basis; only a few dozen stewards [wikimedia.org] have any privileges ac

    • by Mishotaki (957104)
      what i'm wondering is the crappy quality that a 100mb, 2hour long video file will be...
    • by SeePage87 (923251)

      "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.

    • "legitimate need to upload a two-hour video of good quality" Who gets to define legitimate?

      As others have pointed out, 'The Community.' But I have a hard time believing something of that length could possibly be appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Then again, that applies to be existing wikipedia articles....

    • Commons:Project scope [wikimedia.org]

  • Typo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918 AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:55PM (#26456243)
    Unlike my name, Vibber's is spelled BriOn.
  • IMHO, what they really need is a good P2P protocol to handle streaming media. Storage is not nearly as much of a problem as the bandwidth required. A 1 TB hdd can be had for 100$. 5-way replication - 500$. Still peanuts compared to the cost of actually serving it.
  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:03PM (#26456349)
    ...video editor

    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)

    by JeffSh (71237) <<gro.0m0m> <ta> <todhsalsffej>> on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:03PM (#26456353)

    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.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:09PM (#26456457)

    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.

  • by MobyDisk (75490) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:10PM (#26456469) Homepage

    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.

    • by JPortal (857107) <joshua...gross@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:18PM (#26456603) Homepage

      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.

    • by vlm (69642)

      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.

    • by geniice (1336589)
      Articles with videos in have been on wikipedia for some time for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#History [wikipedia.org] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_diver#Experiment_description [wikipedia.org] when encyclopedias moved from books to CDs back in the 90s they did have videos (not many but I doubt there is a past encyclopedia with anything close to the number of pictures wikipedia has). While encyclopedic videos are not easy they are certianly posible.
    • by AndyCh (1153959)
      Yeah! And when they put pictures in newspapers as well that just got in the way of the text. And this kind of thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec [youtube.com] (YouTube.com) is a pointless waste of resources. I'd rather read 250 words on the nature of light.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jubei (89485)

      Videos can be especially helpful when used to describe motions and processes. Things like engine cycles, swarming behavior, and traffic patterns would be good subjects for videos.

    • I suspect the article is misleading in saying 'Wikipedia'. It should probably say 'WikiMedia' (Wikipedia + Wiktionary + WikiBooks + WikiSources + WikiQuote + WikiMedia Commons (and this one is particularly relevant) + probably more).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Thaelon (250687)

      An entry on the Hindenburg does not need a video of the Hindenburg disaster.

      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

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Simetrical (1047518)

      Wikipedia is not the only Wikimedia Foundation project [wikimedia.org]. In particular, the scope of the Wikimedia Commons [wikimedia.org] is "to provide a media file repository . . . that makes available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all . . .". All the projects are run from the same servers, and share the same upload servers in particular -- notice how all uploaded images are at upload.wikimedia.org, no matter what the project is. The technical upgrades are of most value to Commons, which has long had

    • This story is really about Wikimedia Commons, the free database of media. Wikimedia Foundation also runs for example Wikinews [wikinews.org] and Wikiversity [wikiversity.org], where videos might fit in perfectly.
  • Finally (Score:1, Interesting)

    The children of Africa will be able to appreciate such artistically rich works as Andres Serrano's [wikipedia.org] photograph of a crucifix submerged in urine, Barbara Kruger [wikipedia.org]'s accusatory slogans (useful in politics class across Zimbabwe?) and Robert Mapplethorpe [wikipedia.org]'s self-portrait featuring a whip protruding from his anus.
  • Wikipedia is only 2TB total??? I mean I could run a mirror from my home server. After I delete my TiVoed stuff that is. I am amazed how much information 2TB actually is then. Wikipedia is an endless supply of (hersay) information.
  • Instead of just wading through a billion "OMG Kid FAILS at Suzuki ghost-ride in front of hott!!!" videos mismarked as news, people can actually get to the most representative and informative feeds on emerging issues. Like a public newsroom.
  • The self-appointed content fascists on Wikipedia should result in a great reduction in the amount of storage needed. I like Wikipedia, find it to be extremely useful, and use it a lot -- but I have nearly given up on adding images to it, as there are too many idiots who delete legitimate images, citing an interpretation of some regulation or other, but being completely wrong about it. It takes too much effort to argue back and forth with them. I imagine that it will be even worse for video. You'll need
    • by vlm (69642)

      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.

  • by eulernet (1132389) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:33PM (#26456867)

    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 ?

  • by harmonica (29841) on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @06:15PM (#26457615)

    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.

  • Awesome, now they'll have more content than ever to mark as "not notable" and delete!
  • Flickr burns up to 10TB [flickr.com] in uploads in a single *day*...

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday January 15, 2009 @02:27AM (#26462633) Homepage

    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?

If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. -- Isaac Newton

Working...