>Images are dramatically larger, both in the raw size out of cameras and the resolutions people are willing to put on pages (including higher-DPI screens). Tha

>Images are dramatically larger, both in the raw size out of cameras and the resolutions people are willing to put on pages (including higher-DPI screens). That shouldn't be a big problem. Screen resolutions have not increased significantly in years (most desktops and laptops are still stuck with 1920x1080), so there's no reason for larger images at all. It should be trivial to write the software so that it auto-scales the image down to an appropriate size for web display on modern screens (which is small, since most Wikipedia images are pretty small within the text, just like any reference work), while also providing a clickable link to allow seeing the image at full resolution. Very few visitors are going to view any image in an article at full resolution, let alone all the images in the article, so the only thing growing should be the image sizes of those optional full-size images. Even there, the software can compress the raw images down to well-compressed JPEGs; it's not Wikipedia's job to store unedited, low or no-compression raw images; an 80% quality JPEG is sufficient. Same goes for videos; that stuff can be compressed, scaled, recoded to more efficient codecs, etc.