Federico, thanks for the note and good idea on reaching out to the
Toolserver folks to help us track this.
As for the WebM and pros, from my understanding YouTube is transcoding all
videos that are uploaded into WebM format. However, I'd be very surprised
if even 2% of YouTube uploaders are using WebM as the format. Most likely
they are MP4, AVCHD, MOV, or even raw MTS files.
So perhaps it's more accurate to say WebM not used by video pros in their
workflow. I'll clarify in the document now.
In the meantime, check out some of the videos produced from our Feb/March
pilot with Alverno College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki_Makes_Video#Sample_…
-Andrew
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Andrew Lih, 22/01/2013 20:54:
Laura, thanks for your insight into this. I also worried about the
generic "ogg" container and not knowing
exactly whether it was audio or
video, without digging deeper into the metadata.
Now that we have WebM, how much do things change?
An interesting thing IMHO is that pages with videos are much more
prominent in Google results: it would be very nice if someone measured the
impact on pageviews of adding a video on Wikipedia articles.
As for measuring, the easiest way is probably to ask a list of user videos
at
https://jira.toolserver.org/**browse/DBQ<https://jira.toolserver.org/bro…
add them to a tracking category. GLAMourous etc. may then be used to
track stats.
Since there seems to be interest, here's a
pointer to the video project
planning page and please do feel to add/markup/edit. The plan is to
execute a video gathering/production project in March/April.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**User:Fuzheado/Video_project<http://en.wik…
Good, I see it's going on. "WebM not used by video pros/tools" really?
Does nobody upload to YouTube? Are they all on Vimeo or what?
Nemo