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_Videos

-Andrew

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> 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 and 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

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