Entertainment can be informative, its what PBS, Discovery channel and others try to be.
Information in all fields abound on the Internet, but learning and turning it into knowledge is still up to readers. The novice has to sort out good and bad information, which is a paradox, how do they know what is bad if they don't know the good? The MIT intro course in electronics is an example, but how many are going to really know electronics after watching it, or reading Horowitz and Hill?
What the Internet can't provide is feedback from folks with experience, for describing what isn't yet described or can't be, and proxy for those who are in a situation and you are not. Also, knowledge is constantly on the move, while repositories are archived in books or Wikipedia for access to those who know how to use it, but what of the new and evolving not yet written?
The videos are very helpful when you dissect devices, rather than getting a static image of one photo, a clear video of you moving around the interiors is akin to getting multiple angle photos, and putting the viewer more closer to the actual experience than a static image. Likewise, a static image is more experiential that a prose description.
IMHO I think you know very well what you're doing, so you can zero into on key strengths and weakness during a presentation and get to key features quickly. Recently, your simplification of linear versus switching power supplies is exemplary; in some of the posts I read on this forum there are a number of folks who can't see the forest from the trees.