Due to ongoing issues with ffmpeg2theora & upcoming server upgrades, I'm
planning to accelerate our migration from Ogg Theora video output to WebM
== When will it change? ==
Sometime in August 2017 as schedules permit, unless surprises pop up in
== What will change? ==
Folks using Chrome and Firefox may not notice any difference -- these
browsers have used native WebM playback by default for some time. "Ogg"
will disappear from the list of optionally-playable and downloadable
In Safari, IE, or Edge where the 'ogv.js' compatibility shim is used, you
will see videos automatically show up in WebM mode instead of Ogg mode.
There is a tradeoff: higher quality & lower bandwidth use, but higher CPU
usage. On very slow computers or at very high resolutions, you may hit CPU
limits at one resolution step lower than with Ogg.
== Why are we making this change? ==
* Eventually we need to go to WebM to support adaptive streaming, so this
was always planned for the long term...
* For best quality we use an unreleased version of libogg and
ffmpeg2theora, but there are still some bugs in there and we routinely get
reports of odd hangs or crashes.
* Ops is updating the servers, and continuing to maintain the custom
packages that are still crashy is getting to be problematic.
* Dropping the Ogg format for video will free up disk space and and CPU
time, and should result in faster turnaround for derived file generation.
== What about Ogg audio? ==
Ogg is still being used for audio, and will not be affected.
I started a conversation on the Commons Village Pump and totally forgot to
mention it here!
I've put together a proposal on how we might approach enabling MP3
uploads. I would greatly appreciate those who have not participated in the
conversation to join, and thank those who have! :)
Forwarding to the Commons mailing list.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nahid Sultan <nahid(a)wikimedia.org.bd>
Date: Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:19 AM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Winning photos of Wiki Loves Earth Bangladesh 2017
To: "wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org" <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
We are very happy to announce the top 10 winning photos of Wiki Loves
Earth Bangladesh 2017. These 10 photos will compete in the international
stage of the competition.
Bangladesh has taken part in the international Wiki Loves Earth competition
for the first time this year. During the competition, a total of 191
Bangladeshi participants uploaded more than 2000 freely licensed
photographs of 40 (of the 51 government listed protected sites of
Bangladesh) different protected sites in Wikimedia Commons. Thanks to the
volunteers and jurors who were involved in organizing the competition and
reviewing the entries.
User:NahidSultan<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:NahidSultan> on all
Secretary, Wikimedia Bangladesh<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
I light of discussion elsewhere I think we should revisit the
The policy states "where there is *significant* doubt about the freedom of
a particular file, it should be deleted" yet when it comes to nominating a
file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to
believe its not free because....." there should more onus on the nominator
at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt
We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "Files nominated
for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be
their copyright status under US and local laws. *A mere **allegation** that
the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion*. If the
end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about
the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in
line with the precautionary principle
I think a change from the current
- Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the
following, are against Commons' aims:
- A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is
insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with
it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims: