[hashar]

Because despite Wikipedia and sister projects being one of the largest web property, it is running on a thin budget and has starved engineering resources. As far as I know, the transcode code is maintained by a single employee (possibly as a side gig / on top of everything else) and the assistance of a volunteer.

For Motion JPEG a recent config change ( https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config... ) indicates:

> Recent versions of iOS can play back suitably packaged VP9 video and Opus or MP3 audio, with a Motion-JPEG low-res fallback for older devices.

So I guess it is there for back compatibility :)

[mod50ack]

The problem is not resources. It is an ideological choice. Wikimedia Commons only supports non-proprietary file formats. That means either open formats or formats whose patents have expired. (MPEG-4 Part 2 patents only expired in the US a few weeks ago.)

[manquer]

Why though ? They spend $160M a year [1] and grew their cash reserves by 50% year on year in 2023, so not particularly running in an operating deficit environment.

Transcoding is expensive but not that much, if my company doesn’t make 1/20 of Wikipedia and we can afford to do 1000s of hours a day of transcoding surely they can too.

[1] https://wikimediafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/W...

[kemayo]

It's not about the cost of transcoding; it's an ideological stance about open / royalty-free formats.

e.g. there was a pretty strong consensus about not supporting MP4 back when the WMF asked whether it should be allowed, mostly on "it's not free" grounds: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Requests_for_comm...

[userbinator]

The decision to not supply H.264 is ideological for sure, and I can understand that from the patent perspective, but then they have MP3 (patent-expired in 2017) but not MPEG-2/H.262 (patent-expired in 2018).

Also note that VP8/VP9 is still patented, but just licensed freely. IMHO that's less free than patent-expired (public domain).

[manquer]

My understanding was H264 is kind is licensed freely too after Cisco made their agreement usable for everyone ?

Firefox can support mp4 over h264 despite their clear FOSS aligned goals , I am surprised that Wikipedia whose goals more align to open information rather than open source directly has challenges .

[laverya]

Because in the end every organization is vulnerable to being eaten from the inside and worn as a skinsuit by parasites. Especially charities.

Why would they spend money on improvements to the site when they could spend money on other things instead?

[manquer]

it is the easiest line item to spend on .

Wikipedia has one of the best SRE teams, they were pretty transparent too, a lot of the communication was on IRC channels you could see, at least that was the case few years back.

Running the top 5 website in the world is no joke especially as a non-profit and they do it well. They haven’t had any down time or major incident in the last decade which is pretty impressive.

I would think their SRE team is not just good but also very motivated in the mission otherwise they would leave for much higher paying jobs, infra jobs are very lucrative if you have prior experience at more scale not much more scale than Wikipedia .

[laverya]

I agree that their SRE team is good, well motivated, and transparent. That does not mean that they are the first priority for resources, or that it's the easiest line item to spend on.

[userbinator]

MPEG-2 or even MPEG-4 ASP seems like a better choice for back-compat.