Talk:YouTube

Bad math

"14 billion videos viewed in May 2010" "In May 2010, it was reported that YouTube was serving more than two billion videos a day", those statements contradict themselves, somebody divided instead of multiplying or vise-versa 216.144.124.59 (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The 14 billion figure comes from market research firm comScore and relates only to viewing figures in the United States.[1] The two billion a day (around 60 billion a month) figure comes from YouTube itself, and is a worldwide figure.[2] There is no contradiction between the two figures, although the YouTube figure may be more accurate as YouTube would have direct access to how many videos were watched.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Features of YouTube

A new article called Features of YouTube has been created, and replaced with a blank section linking to the article in YouTube. This is not good writing style, as "main article" sections should always have a brief summary of the material involved. There needs to be a look at how to summarize this material so that YouTube has some information on the features of the site.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Images of founders

There are images of Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim in their biographies, and it clogs up the text to have three images in this section, which is primarily about the company history. If there was an image of all three of them together, it would be better.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are images of the founders in their biographies is irrelevant. That by no means makes it less than appropriate to have their images in this article. Really -- are you just making this up as you go along? I would suggest that you spend more time working on other articles before making statements of this sort as though there is some element of truth about them. It's just your POV, and if you put in a few dozen thousand edits you will know that the statement is not borne out by the better articles -- from that of Facebook, to the Ford Motor Company, to Dell Computer. Seriously, don't just take it from me -- try deleting the founders' photos from those articles, and I expect a number of other seasoned editors will ask you where in the world you arrived at your view, and whether you express strong disagreement with it. The fact that there are three founders here does not change matters -- this article is light on photos, and the photos of the founders convey information that the text cannot by itself do as well. Plus -- your view of it being "crowded" is at odds with my experience with images on wikipedia. We view use as crowded if it is on either side of the text. Your personal view is frankly not in line with wikipedia usage. As to your final point -- yes, if there were a photo of all three of them together, that might well be of interest. But in lieu of that, we certainly have room for their photos, and this article needs more relevant photos not fewer IMHO to be better than it now is. Plus, your edits moved one photo -- which related to the text it was adjacent to -- away from the text it was related to, which is not in accord with MOS. Furthermore, for an unexplained reasons you de-linked a name in a photo caption -- as in iboxes, those are generally linked.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please assume some good faith here. This is not worth a major argument, so let's get this in perspective. We are both pushing our own POVs here, and in my view it would be best to avoid images of the founders unless they were together, as with the image of Eric E. Schmidt with Sergey Brin and Larry Page in Google. Apologies for delinking Chad Hurley's name, this was not intentional.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. Apologies for any curt tone. As to the substance, I've read over it and stand by it. We don't have three owners together in one photo, so that option at the moment does not present itself. As of now, the article appears light on photos to me (for our better articles, many of which I've worked on, and a number of which I've brought to FA or GA status). I think to improve the article we should be pulling for more, rather than fewer, images compared to what we have now. There are to my mind so far few prospects, however. Perhaps the Bus Uncle image can be used for YouTube as well -- but I have to explore that issue a bit more on the non-free-use side. Still, that leaves us with few. You will note btw that one of the founder photos serves double duty. It relates as well to the first YouTube video ever. And is next to the text discussing that. No worries as to the delinking of Chad's name -- I only said it was unexplained (which is consistent w/your mention that it was not intentional), not that it was bad faith. Would appreciate your thoughts as to what other image is any might augment the article. I don't think we can use any of the images from the Hillsborough disaster deaths of the 90 plus fans, as those are not free use.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no image of Hurley, Chen and Karim together on Commons, and this is the only good fair use one that I could find . At the moment, there is no photo of Steve Chen in the article, which is a bit unfair, as he was the key figure in developing the site's technology, which is often overlooked. There is a long standing problem that Commons cannot produce images of living persons to order, and getting YouTube to GA status meant avoiding non-free images as far as possible. The image of Jawed Karim at the zoo meets WP:NFCC#1, and I moved it to the Social impact section as it seemed to fit in there as well.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding an image of Chen. The zoo image relates to the text about the zoo quite specifically, so is best there per MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion

From left to right: Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim

YouTube was founded by three people. Just as there are four people in The Beatles, the article should show photos of all of them in order to avoid being lopsided. This is a composite image of Hurley, Chen and Karim from Commons, since it is unlikely that a free image can be found of them together.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether a composite is used or individual images, but would suggest that an image of the first video ever on YouTube be reflected, as we have that and it is notable and reflected in the article. As with the Beatles article, there is of course no rule that there need be only one photo of each Beatle (or any combination of them, for that matter). We are still low on images -- the only one we http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_Rock_(music)have other than founders is a building, which is rather bland as images go, so thoughts as to further images would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=charlie+bit+my+finger&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

OK, how about the composite image in the Company history section, and the zoo screenshot in the Social impact section? See also Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos from the New York Times in 2009.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Coolcaesar took the photo of the current YouTube headquarters in March 2009, which replaced his old image of 1000 Cherry Avenue, which was YouTube's first major base after the pizza restaurant days.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Some observations. 1) Great work on the composite photo. Enhances the article significantly from the one-photo-only appearance, IMHO. Great start. 2) Are you familiar with the MOS as to photos being placed next to the text that they relate to ("Images are typically interspersed individually throughout an article near the relevant text")? That's clearer to me w/the founder text and the zoo text, than it is in a section that mentions neither. Am not sure that this quite meets the letter or spirit of MOS. 3) Perhaps there is a work-around ... you might consider moving the zoo text to where you have the zoo picture. That would address the MOS issue. 4) Great NYT article. Thanks for sharing. Some good points (others less good). 5) There are a number of pictures of the building available; not that any of the others are necessarily more interesting. 6) Would be interested in your thoughts on additional images for the article, as discussed above -- they need not be drawn from a YouTube video, but should relate to something directly discussed in the article. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In the past, the Social impact section has used Canon Rock (music) and Charlie Bit My Finger as illustrations, both of which are non-free screenshots. Coolcaesar took the photo of 901 Cherry Avenue after it became clear that the photo of 1000 Cherry Avenue was out of date. The original 2005-6 headquarters of YouTube above a pizzeria and Japanese restaurant in San Mateo are here, maybe this could be used instead.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy for whatever improvements can be brought to bear (and recognize that there can be subjective differences). Especially for a subject that is largely (though not exclusively) a visual one (cf. The Beatles, which are primarily, though not exclusively, auditory), I think having some richness in images is especially salutory. Which of those images that you mention do you like most, for these purposes? There may well be room for two or three of them, but if you ask me "Charlie" seems both most interesting as an image, and is in fact one of my favorite YT videos. What do you (or others) think? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with screenshots of actual YouTube videos is other users removing them, saying that they fail WP:NFCC#1 or are promotional for a particular video, which has happened before. Bus Uncle, Charlie Bit My Finger and Canon Rock could all be used to illustrate the Social impact section. In order to use Charlie, it would have to be mentioned in the text of the article, or it would probably be removed again (Charlie got removed in this August 2010 edit).--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks. I've added Charlie, with text. I think the deletion, by a relatively new user with tepid rationale, was ill-conceived.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

iOS device content limitation

Just added comment about videos not being allowed to be viewed on certain iOS devices. Wasn't sure if this is just iPhone or extends to the other two iOS devices, as all I have is the iPhone 4 on 4.2.1. Can someone please supplement my comment with more accuracy if they know about the iPod Touch and iPad similarly displaying such notifications in the YouTube app.

Additionally, I thought this may have become apparent under the new 4.2 software update. Again though, as I couldn't be sure, please update if you have more info on this. Thanks in advance. Jimthing (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This was reverted because it has WP:OR and WP:NOTHOWTO issues. The article mentions that not all of the videos are available on the mobile platform, but without sourcing it is hard to go into details.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)