Jump to content

Talk:YouTube/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Question

Can someone please update the most watched videos section? I know some have changed dramatically... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lu-igi board (talk • contribs) 14:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it isn't going to be me, as I think that this section is misguided. Most of this information is best approached through the YouTube website itself, and the rest should be expressed in prose with reliable sources. Thoughts?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would do it but the page is locked. I think the most viewed video is "Evolution of dance". User:BennyK95 15:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the "YouTube charts" section really necessary?" WP:NOT#STATS says: "Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". The other obvious problem here is the need for rolling updates. Some users love to create lists and tables, but they can take up excessive article space without giving much useful information to the reader. See also WP:LISTCRUFT. I am sorely tempted to remove this section due to its ongoing Manual of Style issues.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Id support removing that section, it provides very little and is out of date as soon as its added as views will continue to go up and sometimes listings do change. Removing is easiest option and inline with WP policies as you mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ban in Turkey

"YouTube is currently blocked in Turkey after controversy over videos deemed insulting to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk.[47]"

This information is false. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan using Atatürk's name who is founder of Turkey, to hide oppositional ideas, speeches from Turkish citizens. Main problem is hard, true, oppositional ideas that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's doesn' t love to hear and see! They censor everything in internet by using some filters. Blogs, youtube, pornographic contents ... etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suavi (talk • contribs) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok doods I just accessed Utube without proxy. Im from Turkey i wanna know if its just me if its not so hell yeah its unblocked! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.206.9 (talk) 05:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I can't comment on this from personal experience, and mentioning a lift of the block would require a reliable source. As of July 2009, the block was still in place.[1]. Any change would have to be reported in the mainstream media to go in the article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Time limit myth that keeps getting perpetuated on here

For whatever reason the guy who appears to have appointed himself the gatekeeper of this article insists on perpetuating a couple of myths about Youtube. That the videos are limited to 10 minutes - normally it's 11 minutes, not ten and that no videos can be longer than this "no matter what kind of account you have".

Lo and behold - an Esmee Denters video in HD uploaded August 14th 2009 - over 16 minutes

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsqctM169Mc&feature=featured

Obama's inauguration over 21 minutes in HD uploaded January 20 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PuHGKnboNY

Obviously it is quite possible to upload longer videos and the article needs to reflect this to be accurate.

TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The article is broadly accurate, and this issue has been raised before in the talk page archive. The article says ten minutes for ordinary account videos because this is the official limit, although people have pointed out that videos in the range 10-11 minutes usually work OK. Older director account videos (rare) and partner videos (premium content) may be longer than ten minutes. The main point is that no ordinary account can upload long videos, in order to reduce copyright violation.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There's no "usually" to it, the standard time limit is 11 minutes, not 10. You, me, anyone can upload a video that when encoded (Youtube encoding can stretch the video by a few secs) is 10:59 secs. What does "broadly accurate" mean? Some accounts that are new can upload videos longer than 11 minutes. That's what needs to be reflected in the article, what's in there now is simply incorrect, broadly or otherwise.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 12:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The article does not say "there are no videos longer than ten minutes on YouTube", because this is wrong. The ten minute limit is used because it is reliably sourced from YouTube itself rather than based on observations that are a form of original research. All ordinary accounts are limited to ten minutes, and only trusted partner content is allowed to be longer than this. The article does say that some videos are longer than ten minutes, and stresses that the ten minute limit is designed to prevent television shows from being uploaded in one piece.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"The article does say that some videos are longer than ten minutes" - Nor is that what I said is in the article.

What it does say that's inaccurate is "You can no longer upload videos longer than ten minutes regardless of what type of account you have. Users who had previously been allowed to upload longer content still retain this ability, so you may occasionally see videos that are longer than ten minutes." - Utter nonsense. It is NOT limited to old director accounts etc.

The ten minute limit is used because it is reliably sourced - ah yes, the world of Wiki where words like "reliable" don't mean what they mean anywhere else, and people like you are content regardless of how misleading or ludicrously inaccurate the article is.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 03:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote above is the exact wording from the YouTube website. The 10 minute/ 2GB limit is what applies for all ordinary accounts. The main exception to this rule today is premium content, which is available only to partners. If the article said "You can actually upload eleven minute videos" it would need to be reliably sourced, and this might be difficult. It is better to stick to what the official guidelines say here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
"The main exception to this rule today is premium content, which is available only to partners." - it is nonetheless available, which contradicts the time limit "regardless of what type of account" statement.TheDarkOneLives (talk) 09:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The wording in the article tries not to be misleading, and gives exactly what the YouTube help section says on this issue. There is a distinction between ordinary members of the public signing up for an account (who are always subject to the 10 min/2GB limit) and partners who can post longer material. Perhaps the article should make this clearer, although the article does say that there are some videos longer than ten minutes on the site. This video is around 30 minutes long, but has been uploaded by a university rather than an individual. YouTube does not give figures, but there are probably not all that many long videos on the site in comparison to the standard ones. From personal experience, I rarely watch the long videos in full, and the YouTube model is based on short clips rather than entire shows like Hulu.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The wording has been tweaked and is hopefully now clearer. Although anyone can apply for a partner account, it is a rare privilege and is unlikely to be given to an average user. Another point to bear in mind is that some partner content is region specific (eg TV shows that cannot be watched outside North America). An exception is UCTV, which has many long videos, including this lecture which is an hour and a half long.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Origin Story

It would be good to add more color to the origin story. If one goes to archive.org and looks at the earliest release of the YouTube site it clearly shows that the intention was to create a video dating site. youtube Since Steve and Chad were in the circle of James Hong and his partner at HotorNot, its not difficult to see the inspiration. A month or two on the site became more general purpose for video sharing. Many articles have covered the fact that the dinner party origin story was a marketing fabrication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Powerpop (talk • contribs) 07:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea, as is the link from archive.org. To be used in the article it would need some text-based sourcing. The history of YouTube in 2005 is somewhat vague, because the site was developed over a period of months rather than launched on one particular date. The link at [2] seems to come from April 28 2005, which is the earliest appearance of YouTube on archive.org. YouTube was still at the experimental stage in Spring 2005, and by May 5 2005, the dating part seems to have been dropped.[3]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The suggestion is to merge YouTube with YouTube Live and YouTube Awards.

Comment: You have it the wrong way. It is to propose that YouTube Live and YouTube Awards be merged into YouTube. PopMusicBuff talk 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I added those merge proposals because those article on their own do not meet WP:N and should either be deleted or merged. If they are merged, then I am not suggesting that the entire thing be merged, but the important information from each of the pages that could fit into neat little paragraphs on YouTube. For example:
    • On YouTube Live, "Special guests and performers" could easily be deleted, and "Visionary Award" could be merged into the opening paragraph, which could then be added to YouTube.
    • On YouTube Awards, practically all the information should be deleted and just a few relevant sentences from each section could be mereged to YouTube.

PopMusicBuff talk 18:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment YouTube is unsuitable for this because both of the other articles have major WP:N issues. Adding the information from these articles would lead to a content fork and make the article too long with bloat of little interest to most readers. These articles should probably not have been created due to their non-encyclopedic content.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'll change them to prods. PopMusicBuff talk 19:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Charts

Hey please someone make a section for MOST VIEWED YOUTUBES, i think wiki is being used more and more by the WORLD for information on these things, and I think if someone can compile a top 10 list or whatever of most viewed youtubes, it would be sought after by many people, especially when google fails to fulfill its duty.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 04:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The charts are currently in Social impact of YouTube. However, the best place for looking at the charts is YouTube itself, because they will go out of date as soon as they are uploaded to Wikipedia. It seems that they have not been updated since July 2009 at Social impact of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Youtube#Content_accessibility

It is missing, that Youtube needs Adobe Flash Player to view videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.44.153.184 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The Video format section says:

YouTube's video playback technology for web users is based on the Adobe Flash Player. This allows the site to display videos with quality comparable to more established video playback technologies (such as Windows Media Player, QuickTime, and RealPlayer) that generally require the user to download and install a web browser plug-in to view video content.[1] Viewing Flash video also requires a plug-in, but market research from Adobe Systems has found that its Flash plug-in is installed on over 95% of personal computers.[2]

The "Content accessibility" section looks at other ways of viewing the videos.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 12:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Change Player Size" is 2:1 aspect ratio?

I haven't visited youtube in a while and I was surprised that when you click on the "Change Player Size" button it expands, but the aspect ratio becomes 2:1 (960x480) as you can see in this screenshot. Why is this? Is it because of Univisium or something else? I don't think a 2:1 aspect ratio is very common these days. Rolen47 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an example of why the format comparison table can run into original research issues. Ordinary users of YouTube have no way of knowing how the formats are decided upon, so it is not possible to comment here without reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think describing the size and aspect ratio are original research at all, it doesn't involve any analysis, portal of idea, argument, speculation. What Rolen47 saying is that if user press the "Change Player Size" button, the video screen will be change to 960x480. Any computer user could just count the pixel by themselves. Counting the number of objects inside a picture is hardly a form of research. We are not speculating "how the formats are decided upon" in youtube at all, they are decided by the youtube management, we here only simply describe the facts about video size, etc. Da Vynci (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, the 2:1 aspect ratio is just a coincidence. If you launch the player in a new window you're able to change the size of the player to anything you want. It seems that when you press the 'change player size' button it just fills the player out to the edges of boundaries of the comments and video summary. The size of the player is inconsequential because it doesn't affect the native resolution of the video being played. So I guess this topic can now be ignored. I made this topic prematurely before thinking. So nevermind, moving on... Rolen47 (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Social impact

The "social impact" section seems rather thin to me. I added some material that described YT's impact on media, but that was reversed. It seems to me that YT's impact is largely on how we get media objects, and how media objects are produced. But the section, as it currently stands, cites a couple videos that were popular. The bit about democratic aspects is closer, but altogether this section needs more. My edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=YouTube&oldid=317586897 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavabasso (talk • contribs) 18:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

YouTube has a number of feeder sections, and there is more discussion of this issue in Social impact of YouTube. The Bus Uncle video is quoted because it was the first YouTube video to pick up substantial media coverage, as the citation of this CNN article points out. Bus Uncle is a Featured Article, and it announced the arrival of YouTube on the world stage in 2006. There has been a good deal of talk about old media versus new media, but the article is a description of the YouTube website rather than a media studies essay about it. There is some scope for expanding this section as it is rather short, but the main goal has been to stay within the guidelines on sourcing and notability rather than than to introduce a commentary style of writing.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertisements

I think there should be mension on this page of the marketing aspect of Youtube. Like Google, Youtube has become a service, providing content to millions of users. The business model is crucial to that. Previously, Youtube began displaying textual and image advertisements at the bottome of videos. These displayed at the bottom of the screen. On 3 October 2009, about 19-20 GMT+1 (Czech Republic) Youtube went offline, displaying a "maintenance message". When the site went back up again, a new feature was added - video adverts on certain videos. That is, a video advert display (and message: Please wait loading your video). I think this advertising info (and more) should be added to the article. And also some information about the business model that has emerged on Youtube: channel providers creating their own content can opt to include adverts in their videos. Essentially they are providing content to Youtube, which actually pays the channel owners with large viewcounts and subscription rates.=8)-DX (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting, and would require some sourcing. YouTube introduced "in-video" adverts in May 2008 [4] but did not use "pre roll" adverts like the ones on the CNN website. I'm not sure if the description above is a pre roll advertisement, and to the best of my knowledge YouTube does not have these at the moment. See also [5]--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on Youtube

Is there a certain Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing information with YouTube links? I remember that most YouTube external links were banned (copyright reasons?). Where can I read more about this wikipedia policy? 94.65.212.7 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:YOUTUBE, which is part of WP:EL. There is no outright ban on links to YouTube videos in Wikipedia articles, but they must not be copyright violations, which is the most common reason why they are removed.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi 94.65.212.7, I belieave the videos you talked about are those uploaded without copyrighted owner's permission, but apart from those there are also a vast number of videos on Youtube are uploaded WITH copyright owner's permission, mass majority of them are uploaded by the copyright owners themselves, notably by officials Youtube Partners including large companies such as CBS, NationalGeographic etc .

Question

How can I add youtube video to any of wikipedia articles? There is a youtube video that is very relevant for one article and I wish to add it. Any help would be appreciated.--Gilisa (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is very similar to the question above and is based on WP:YOUTUBE. As long as the video does not violate copyright it should be OK, and it also needs to be from a reliable source if the material is likely to be challenged. YouTube videos can be added in the same way as other links, but they are watched closely and will be removed if they breach WP:EL.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, however my intend was to ask a more technical question: I want to add a youtube video to an article, so it would be embedded in it and readers could see the video within the article. How it could be done without downloading the video itself to wikipedia commons media?--Gilisa (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure that Wikipedia does not allow this and have never seen a YouTube video embedded in a Wikipedia article. Although the HTML embed codes for YouTube videos work on sites like MySpace, they do not work when added to the edit field of a Wikipedia article. Very few Wikipedia articles have videos in them, and the ones that do are based on the Ogg Theora format.[6] This is open source and free, unlike H.264 on YouTube which is not. Videos for Wikipedia articles need to be uploaded in the same way as other files, and given suitable tags. Two examples can be found in VTOL (requires Java to play). If a YouTube video is OK per WP:YOUTUBE, it can be used as a citation or external link in the same way as an ordinary web page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer!--Gilisa (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Referencing YouTube

I've seen youtube videos linked and I believe I have seen them refenced in cases where they were very pertinant such as number of views of the Evolution of Dance video. So, what is the scoop on referencing youtube, or perhaps, some other, more strict video hosting sites, such as how to sites with pro submitted material; what is hte name of that one...192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Oh yeah, eHow.com was the pro submitted one I was thinking of. 192.156.234.170 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that YouTube videos aren't counted as a reliable source because they can say anything. Don't know about videos such as EoD though. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Youtube videos can be used as reference if the channel owner is an official partner who is established as a reliable source, such as video uploaded by CBS, National Geographic or The UK Government to their respective official Youtube channels. Youtube is a platform, it is not the plaform that counts, it is the sources that counts.Da Vynci (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

New source

There are quite a few things in this news article that could be added to this article. Smartse (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this has been added as a citation because there is a lot that is worth reading about. Incidentally, the Content ID system is not infallible. A while back I received an e-mail from YouTube saying that one of my videos had been blocked worldwide because it infringed the copyright of Formula One. This was nonsense because it had nothing to do with Formula One. Fortunately, it is possible to issue a challenge when Content ID gets it wrong.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hacking accounts

Did you know that there is a cheating system in YouTube called hacking? It's where one user steals another user's account for himself or herself. It's called sneaking your way around the YouTube rules. Somebody's got to inform the YouTube staff about this so that hacking does not occur anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.83.35 (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hacking is a known problem with all accounts on the Internet. There are many ways of doing this, but it is beyond the scope of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello what does this have to do with wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.141.66 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

$♥

11/12/00

SUSIEmoreno danillle proda sanchez

  1. ^ Atwood, Jeff. "Did YouTube Cut the Gordian Knot of Video Codecs?". Coding Horror. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
  2. ^ "Adobe Flash Player Version Penetration". Adobe Systems. Retrieved 2008-12-04.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:YouTube/Archive_13&oldid=1247090834"