Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Massive support for video (or not)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Previous proposal Overview page Next proposal

Massive support for video (or not)[edit]

Description of the Problem[edit]

  • Problem description: I believe we (Commons) need directive from the WMF as to whether it is even practical to have support for a large quantity of large video files. This question becomes more pressing as we start to see more and more commercially-made films, many of which have been digitized, come into the public domain. I suspect that whether we can reasonably host (and stream on demand) any large number of such films is mainly a technical and budget consideration, and I'd like feedback from the WMF as to what is feasible, so that we don't either waste our time discussing proposals that would be impossible to implement, or (worse yet) go ahead with adding a lot of content that we cannot adequately support and frustrating users by a half-assed implementation. - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal type: process request
  • Proposed solution: clarity from WMF
  • Phabricator ticket:
  • Further remarks:

Discussion[edit]

In my opinion, historic movies (or other videos, such as documentaries or TV images) that enter public domain, provided that they have enough value, are part of the kind of content that Commons should store. Wikimedia Foundation had a revenue of $154.7 million in 2022, while Internet Archive, in 2019, had an budget of only $36 million. Archive tries to host as many content as possible (probably a mistake, and very possibly a big one). Commons, on the other hand, stores only content that is deemed educational (this includes any historic content, including movies). Commons is not an archive, strictly speaking, but as far as it stores historic material, it can, in fact, be considered an archive. And an archive that is part of something far greater, the sum of all human knowledge, that also has other archive-like components (such as Wikisource). I think that selected videos of high value, are to be stored in Commons, even if they take some space. Specially, if they are somewhat rare, and are likely to be lost. As I mentioned on another request in this same technical needs survey, Internet Archive, a really, really great idea, right now stores only 2 copies of each archived item, and both of them in San Francisco area, of high seismic risk (in my opinion, a really, really bad idea). I doubt it has enough money to make more backups, given its relatively low budget, and that it stored, as of 2021, 99 PetaBytes (1 PB = 1024 TB) of unique data. Commons currently stores "only" 471.86 TB (only 22.64 TB of videos), all of them replicated in 2 datacenters (both in USA: Virginia and Texas, in areas with no particular natural risks), plus a complete backup on each (and, probably, additional copies). It also uses RAID (multi-disk setup on each server), according to Wikitech. So, even if Commons doubles in size, it would be 1% of Internet Archive size, in an organization with a budget 5 times larger, and with much greater guarantees of preservation. Yes, Wikimedia must also store many other projects, but they are much smaller in disk space. And it must provide a connection speed, and handle a load of requests, far larger than Internet Archive. But I think it can can help preserve highly valuable content that might otherwise be lost. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 PB ≠ 1024 TB. 1 PiB = 1024 TiB. 1 PB = 1000 TB. SI and IEC prefixes are based on different bases (2 for IEC prefixes, 10 for SI prefixes; otherwise 1km would be 1000 meters, and 1 kB would be 1024 bytes, which is very confusing). Petabytes must never be confused with powers of 2. 99 petabytes are 99000 terabytes. Everything else is technically wrong. I want to pay attention here. The units are unambiguously defined --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks, I was aware of it, but, although technically wrong, the TB notation is usually much more used (and known) than the TiB one (that many people probably don't even understand: even here, TB is used as TiB). I just meant to say that 1 PiB is to 1 TiB, the same than 1 TiB is to 1 GiB. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it lets the videos upload successfully.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...and are likely to be lost". To play devil's advocate for a minute, I wonder how often this is actually the case. Once a public domain video has been digitized, it seems to typically proliferate (as a free source of monetization) rather than disappear. Are there any known examples of a video that has been digitized and subsequently lost? While I do think Commons should definitely host educational videos, I think more effort should be focused on getting modern videos freely licensed (through content partnerships and video creation projects), rather than on archiving all old films (which I think archive.org, YouTube, and other platforms can do better). Plus video streaming is extremely expensive. $154 million may seem like a lot, but if Commons actually became known as a video platform that money would evaporate very quickly. I don't remember where, but I remember seeing a breakdown created by TheDJ that was pretty informative. Regardless, I do think having more guidance from the WMF on this would be very helpful. Nosferattus (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus, my complete sentence was: "Specially, if they are somewhat rare, and are likely to be lost". Rare videos are more likely to be lost that other more widely known ones.
but if Commons actually became known as a video platform: that's why I said such things as "selected videos of high value", I know that Commons can't allow uploading any video that someone wants to (useless images take up much space, and with videos it's much, much worse).
I think more effort should be focused on getting modern videos freely licensed: again, with some strict criteria, I understand. Otherwise it could be the same problem you talked about, or even worse.
Once a public domain video has been digitized, it seems to typically proliferate (as a free source of monetization) rather than disappear: probably yes, but this doesn't eliminate the need to have a copy stored indefinitely somewhere, to ensure its preservation.
which I think archive.org, YouTube, and other platforms can do better: YouTube is a commercial platform, and archival or preservation are not part of its goals. Uploaders can delete the content they uploaded, and if their account gets closed, their videos can be deleted over time. Archive.org always seems to make the wrong decisions: as I said before, they store all than they can, so they can't have more than 2 copies (and they don't even use RAID disks: when a disk fails, there is only 1 copy for a time, while the disk is replaced; at least once, they lost content due to a defective disk; this doesn't seem like best practices for an archive). As if this was not enough, both copies are placed in San Francisco, where a strong earthquake can cause severe troubles at any moment. They also take legal risks that costs them money from their already small budget for what they are trying to do. Of course archive.org would be the right place for video archival, I hope in the future they get more money or make wiser decisions, but, for now, I think they won't really achieve their goals (archival and preservation of content for an indefinite period), despite their good intentions and the great idea that the project is.
Plus video streaming is extremely expensive: perhaps some big videos could be offered only for downloading and not streaming, for example. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which seems to support my statement that we need some guidance from WMF about the parameters within which we are to operate. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wasn't questioning it at all. I was only providing arguments in favor of supporting large video files in Commons (arguments that can be forwarded to WMF when asking for guidance). MGeog2022 (talk) 13:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me make a comparison. MGeog2022 said Commons is currently hosting 471.86 TB of data. Recently Apple introduced an option for up to 12 TB of iCloud storage for every single of their almost one billion iCloud users. 40 iCloud users only with 12 TB and you have more storage available than Commons is currently using. iCloud 12 TB comes with a lot of other services and only makes 60 Euro a month, so 40 users x 60 Euro = 2400 Euro a month (28.800 a year). Compared to 180 million dollar revenue Wikimedia has.

Digital storage is so cheap it almost never does matter in the balance sheet.

And by the way because of Internet Archive, deleting things is easy restoring lost things not. Killarnee (talk) 08:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Killarnee, Apple's budget is far bigger that that of Wikimedia Foundation. iCloud could be more expensive than the cost the users pay for it, by putting additional money into it. Also, I don't know how many copies they store, for example. But, yes, storage is relatively cheap, and probably will be much more cheaper in the future, so I reaffirm that free content of high value should always be accepted into Commons. There are new technologies currently in development, that will be of great help to Wikimedia Foundation, and perhaps in the near future even enable Internet Archive to have more copies of all its content in different locations. I hope it arrives sooner that an earthquake cutting off network connection in their San Francisco datacenters, with some disk damages, and failing old disks doing the rest in the next few days.... of course not all content would be lost, but there would be random losses by sure. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its important to note that storage price is usually not the dominating cost for this sort of thing. Buying hard disks is not where most of the money would be going, so how cheap they are isn't super relavent. Bawolff (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Left some comment on the talk page about this. The support for that is already there. Recently created Category:Videos of films by year. One thing that is missing is enabling multiple audio tracks (the sooner that is possible the better) and the ability to specify the thumbnail image. Agree with MGeog2022 regarding the costs. I think it would be a good idea that for large filesize films only a reasonable size is stored with the higher-res version linked as is done for the 2018 documentary I just uploaded. Another idea is to embed media hosted on Internet Archive or even using decentralized storage like IPFS but that probably isn't necessary. There aren't many films in the public domain and those that are aren't watched; that seems unlikely to change dramatically within the next decade. --Prototyperspective (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: I believe it is likely to change dramatically in the next decade. Right now, as far as commercial films, for the most part unless someone screwed up their copyright registration only silent films are PD in the U.S. By 2030, every pre-Code Hollywood film will be PD. Ten years after that, every Thirties musical, etc. I don't think we can just blithely assume that this (streaming especially, more than storage) won't become a technical issue. Are you saying we don't need to discuss this with the tech side of WMF? - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going to change dramatically at some point, but not this close albeit I haven't checked thoroughly exactly which files will be in the public domain by then. See MGeog2022 notes about how much the Internet Archive stores and those still aren't many (YouTube probably gets around that video duration/size per ~day) and those that could be here aren't watched by many. No, not saying that. Maybe there should be a request that the tech side notifies the community early enough once and if this is anticipated to become a problem within the next ~7 years with some info on open problems, possible solutions, and required deliberations. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Expenses:
Salaries and wages 67,857,676
Awards and grants 9,810,844
Internet hosting 2,384,439
In-kind service expenses 473,709
Donation processing expenses 6,386,483
Professional service expenses 12,084,019
Other operating expenses 10,383,125
Travel and conferences 29,214
Depreciation and amortization 2,430,310
Special event expense, net -
Total expenses 111,839,819
Increase in unrestricted net assets 51,046,867

https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/annualreport/2021-annual-report/financials/#section-1

Internet hosting is 2.4 million, thats even of Donation processing expenses only a third. I stay with the fact that if there really are money problems, then you have to start saving somewhere else.

People go to YouTube because it's a social network, there are algorithms that keep you engaged and you can like and write comments. None of this is possible here, which is why the „streamers“ are unlikely to be on Commons to a relevant extent. Anyone who claims otherwise should please provide evidence. For me the numbers are clear.

The real question is how to make commons more attractive. There is competition like YouTube or Pixabay etc. Right now Commons is a site with a bunch of files. This is too technical for most people who are just looking for pictures or videos. But instead of discussing how to make commons more marketable, we are of course only discussing what may not be here. Killarnee (talk) 05:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

100% agree. While this is about potential future problems, it's just speculation and MGeog2022 already made good points regarding how much the Internet Archive is able to host alongside potential ways these problems could be mitigated if they ever become a problem (IPFS/PeerTube to size-limited videos). question is how to make commons more attractive … now Commons is a site with a bunch of files that is basically what my proposal for a 'wall of images view for category pages' is about and once that's possible you could also switch the filter to "videos" to show the videos which could even have a standardized permalink like "…Category:Videos of documentaries from the 21st century?v=wv". Other than that I'm not sure what you mean with "more marketable"; do you have some idea and does it also refer to Web search engine indexing? Prototyperspective (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that I'm not suggesting for Commons/Wikimedia Foundation to store nearly as much content as Internet Archive does, because, despite WMF has a far bigger budget, Archive stores many content of little or questionable value, and stores only 2 copies of each file, while Wikimedia Foundation stores 8 copies (2 production copies and 2 backups, all of them in RAID disks with 2 copies each (source: Wikitech), while Archive stores only 2 copies in all; that is, 4 times more copies in WMF, although its budget is also more than 4 times larger). The strength of Commons is in part due to not having a policy of accepting everything in, as Archive has. So I think Commons should (precisely because of the limitations Archive has) host as much valuable content as it can, but without missing the point of being a manageable collection, with proper backups, etc. Of course, limits have to be placed to avoid converting Commons into an "Archive bis", suffering from the same kind of problems. Commons now is 0.5% of Archive. It could possibly be 1, 2 or 3% of it without much problems (and of course without reducing backups and copies, or making difficult to improve them from their current state), and this would allow to host many important videos (we are talking here about really many TB of storage), but (unless there is a revolutionary technological advance) it has to avoid becoming something resembling a 100 PetaByte mess. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wiktionary:marketability
A main page that is not created by hand every day, but shows unique suggestions generated for each user. Instead of MediaWiki markup, storing all values individually in the database. Mediawiki markup and alternatives such as Markdown are intended for software developers to write technical documentation, so you can see that there are a bunch of motivated people here, but there is no trace of an idea about what the end customer actually needs. They usually have no idea about technical documentation and Mediawiki markup and shouldn't have to learn it first.
It's astonishing, Wikimedia is the only major organization in the world without a marketing department.
But these are all changes that cannot be made so easily. Someone has to come here and, especially in the software department, say how it is done and then it is implemented. Completely new from scratch, not always this messing around with tools. At the moment, no one is really taking responsibility, especially because there is a lack of knowledge. I mean honestly, there's a discussion going on here like it happens every day in management and here I'm the first to come up with a data sheet. Killarnee (talk) 04:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikimedia is the only major organization in the world without a marketing department." Which is part of why I remain active in the site. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And which is the part why Wikimedia Commons is not popular except for its connection to Wikipedia. Killarnee (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need marketing but paying attention on and identifying what inhibits it from being more popular, such as user experience, modern UI, intuitiveness, Web search indexing and so on. I proposed the wall of images view to address this which hasn't been picked up yet. What would be the hypothetical way that "marketing" would make WMC more popular and more used rather than say category pages showing up at top of Web search results and being designed to be really useful? There are further things brought up elsewhere that may affect say search engine indexing. "Marketing" is a waste of money basically and very broad. There already are Twitter accounts for Wikimedia Commons and some campaigns like WikiLovesEarth; they didn't change much and anything similar to it but better won't either. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More than marketing, perhaps what is needed is awareness of the importance of free knowledge and freely licensed media. If we are talking about marketing, Commons probably doesn't need it now... is there any other well known repository of free knowledge media competing with Commons? If people don't use Commons enough, perhaps is because they are not aware of the license for the media they are reusing, or have not much interest in sharing or getting knowledge. The work should be on improving this (and I hope Wikimedia Foundation is doing it quite well), and not trying to get "last trending dance in front of a cute cat" videos into Commons, that's not the way. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the two things to mention are the Internet Archive and the Creative Commons search which also includes media on WMC. It's less awareness of importance than awareness of how it can be used, how it can be useful, and so on. For example, why are people worldwide basically recording the same documentaries 30 times each only for one specific language rather than making it available in the public domain so it can be translated and raise awareness on critical international issues such as deforestation? I mean wouldn't you want your labor to be efficient? And raise global education on major issues? In that case, it's not marketing but something comparable to policy activism or lobbying and so on. (The same thing would also be trying to get large media websites like artstation and reddit to make it possible for original uploaders to easily license their works under CCBY.) In addition: making the search engine more useful and making people aware WMC is there (for example via using the globally highly popular website Wikipedia) and in a way that people find useful / are interested in could be good. Lastly, it would be nice if they did something to get more illustrators onboard and enable connecting gaps (examples) (similar to requested images) to those who could close them. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective, yes, I totally agree, we need awareness of how much useful free content hosted in Commons can be, and how it can be used to easily create derived works with much less effort. It's about getting people to create or get as much useful free content as possible, and sharing (and preserving, so) it at Commons, but not marketing (true marketing would only make sense is if there was another succesful website doing exactly the same as Commons). These are things that concern WMF, and I hope they will go in this direction, if they aren't doing it enough. As for search engines, I've noticed that Google Images doesn't index many Commons unused images, I don't know if something can be done (sorry, we're getting a bit off-topic from Massive support for video (or not), since this "marketing" thing came up). MGeog2022 (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that can easily change.
i had an idea of creating a website like fmovies, but with all pd movies hosted on commons. then people will be streaming without even paying attention to the fact that they're streaming from commons. :) RZuo (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we shouldn't let other websites embed files from Commons. So easy. Killarnee (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Killarnee, please remember that Commons isn't a commercial product. It would be great if, for example, YouTube offered all Commons videos for streaming, so Google would donate lots of much needed money to Wikimedia Foundation, while, on the contrary, if it sees Commons as a competitor, it could cease to donate any money to Wikimedia. Commons must seek to meet its goals, not try to compete with commercial platforms. MGeog2022 (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, thanks for the WMF expenses table. It really strikes me that about 5% of expenses are "Donation processing expenses", but they are probably bank fees that are unavoidable. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See User:Spinster/WikiFlix. Yann (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we already have a good collection of old public domain feature films here. And, I'm no expert, but perhaps part of them (for example, some of the Soviet or Indian ones) could be rare movies that is specially important to preserve. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See [1] for an example of how to use Commons as a host for films. Yann (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i'm more sceptical of capability of this website after reading about https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T343131 . this website's maintenance by themselves cannot even cope with databases of links that are naturally produced by user actions, but has to ask users (volunteers!) to do certain things so that they can better manage the growth of the databases.
maybe in future they will start asking users not to stream or only stream 144p so that they can cope... who knows. RZuo (talk) 11:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that, it can seem really shocking. But it isn't about total media size in Commons, nor even about the total number of files... I think we shouldn't worry about this kind of internal technical issues, surely they also happen in big tech companies, but we don't know about it because they are nowhere near as transparent as WMF is. We should only be worried if the problem isn't addressed on the long term, and it directly impact user's everyday actions. MGeog2022 (talk) 20:28, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, media storage scaling is really different than scaling an unsharded database. Like anything, sometimes you need to change approaches after you cross a certain size threshold. That doesn't mean the change is impossible or that we can't scale past it, it just means that plans have to be made, changes have to be done, etc. All work, some of it hard, but by no means a fundamental limit. I don't think we are anywhere near the limits in terms of size for any of the stuff we do, except maybe wikidata query service. Occasionally we just need to optimize our approach and sometimes there can be a bump in the road while the new approach is being worked on. Bawolff (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kays, I answer you here so as not to mix votes and discussion. If we think very long term (100 years from now, as you said):

  • Advances in storage technologies will likely allow to store many PB in a USB flash drive or its future equivalent (think about storage improvements over the last decades). I think that storage capacity won't be a major problem then (if new available space isn't quickly wasted, as sadly sometimes happens).
  • Movies are entertainment, but they are also knowledge in some way. It's the same as with books: many old books were also entertainment, but they are in Wikisource (and images from them, in Commons). Any cultural product that is 100 or more years old, automatically becomes knowledge (it documents its age's culture). For example, all movies from Star Wars are obviously knowledge about the cinema of their age, and will be so even more by the time they enter public domain.
  • On the other hand, you claim the situation is not as dramatic as described. Of course many movies, specially if they are commercially succesful, have many, many copies, and will never be lost. But what I said here is to do what we can to contribute to cultural preservation. I acknowledge that Commons isn't Internet Archive, and can't do things outside of its scope. But Commons, as long as it does not exceed its goals, can contribute to real preservation, where we should have some doubts about Archive. I would love to be able to say that content in Archive will be likely preserved for future generations. But Archive, unlike Wikimedia Foundation, doesn't even follow the basic backup rules: to have at least 3 copies, and at least 1 of them in a geographically distant place from the others. They have only 2 copies, both in the same metropolitan area. This would be a terrible model for any company, but it's even worse: both copies are in a highly seismic zone. If Internet Archive could be trusted more, I wouldn't worry at all about having historic films in Commons. Whatever eventually happens with mass storage of video in Commons, I hope that, over the next few years, technological advances, donations or other factors allow Archive to be what it purports to be: a collection that prevents a new fire of Library of Alexandria from being possible to happen, not a new Library of Alexandria with the same destiny as the first, when the next big earthquake hits San Francisco. MGeog2022 (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • i feel this is a bit backwards in some ways - commons should be deciding what it wants to be, and then WMF should be making it happen, not the other way around. There are no binary answers here. Of course WMF could in principle support this. It costs resources that potentially could be going elsewhere though (how much is a complex question). So the question really is - is this project worth pulling support from other projects that might benefit wikidata or wikipedia? How much does commons want to be this, and is it worth the price, whatever that may be? Bawolff (talk) 20:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bawolff, answering to both your 2 comments: you say that disks (obviously I understand that you aren't talking only about physical disks, but also servers, infraestructure, etc.) isn't what spends money if you need more storage. I'm wondering where costs would skyrocket then. Workforce may need to increase, but by no means in direct relation to the total size stored.
    is this project worth pulling support from other projects that might benefit wikidata or wikipedia?: this is about cost-benefit. Commons is the project that obviously needs more infraestructure expending, due to its size. WMF has a very good budget if you compare it with, for example, Internet Archive. Of course money is also to be spent in awareness campaigns, etc, but this should not take the largest share of the budget (Wikipedia is by far the leader encyclopedia, Commons is by far the leader online repository of freely licensed media, etc; we don't need too much "marketing" for most projects). I think costs should be directed to make everything work as well as possible. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Servers can still be pretty expensive. All i'm trying to say, is calculating $/gb is probably misleading as the storage space itself is probably not the major expense. The rest of the server infrastructure is probably much more expensive than the storage, but even more important is staffing costs. Making sure all the servers work together efficiently and correctly is what is really expensive. That's not to say its impossibly expensive, just that raw cost of a gb of storage is a bad way of estimating this. As to your second point, i agree generally. I'd just prefer that commons decides what it wants to be first, than figure out how to make that happen. This feels like we are looking at current cinstraints and limiting ourselves to that, which will only ever uphold the status quo. Bawolff (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect the streaming will be more of an issue than the storage, especially if we find ourselves storing feature films that any significant number of people want to watch.
    Also, while it is almost two decades since I last worked seriously with storage technology, I suspect it that the chance of a file becoming corrupt remains directly proportional to the size of the file, so if we host a significant number of very large files that may require a higher level of redundancy (or a different, less monolithic, approach to storing each individual file). - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel, as I said before in this discussion, if necessary, streaming could even not be provided at all for larger files, and leave it up to the user to download the video, or to third-party tools provide the streaming component, in such cases (I think that in Wikimedia, having content available is even more important than user-friendliness, the last being important). Anyway, streaming is already working OK for quite long videos (see the videos here, for example), though if the number of concurrent users increases, existing computing resources probably wouldn't be enough.
    I suspect it that the chance of a file becoming corrupt remains directly proportional to the size of the file: I hope the RAID disks replicated in 2 datacenters, plus 2 backups (I believe that also stored in RAID disk), will help to quickly solve this when it happens. If full media dumps or additional backups are implemented, the risk will be even less. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votes[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Technical_needs_survey/Massive_support_for_video_(or_not)&oldid=850049584"