Talk:YouTube

• An additional talk page archive is found here, for the former article, Criticism of YouTube.

Website

Please would someone create an Infobox website for this article please— Preceding unsigned comment added by Google9999 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 5 December 2012‎

The new comment system

Hi there,

It seems I'm not able to edit. Could someone else add that in the new comment system people actually ARE able to post URLs? (They're misusing it greatly too, but that's probably considered my own research and non-encyclopedic..). It says now something about Youtube not allowing URLS and then continues about the new system, it should at least be mentioned it's now possible, otherwise people are very likely to interpret this fact as a still operating spamreducingmethode.

Thanks!

83.83.88.133 (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, YouTube removed the ability to post URLs in comments circa 2007 due to problems with spam and abuse.[1] The new Google+ system does allow URLs [2] and it will be interesting to see if it is misused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: the article does not have to list everybody who disliked the new comment system, particularly if they are not well known names. Jawed Karim's post criticizing the new system received significant media coverage, the others did not.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:10, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

This merger is a hot controversial topic right now and needs to remain unbiased. Let us remember that You Tube has 1 Billion unique visitors every month http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html 100k of signatures is certainly not "most" or the "majority of users". Youtube co-founder has zero to do with Youtube anymore, as he sold the website over 7 years ago. Google manages Youtube. His opinion although noted should not be a major edit or section of this page and edits in this area are causing more vandalism than benefit to the article and a direct quote should not be required. the Previous edit of "YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim voiced his disapproval of the change in his first comment in eight years on the YouTube website" contains all the same information. WP:QUOTE... "Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." which is exactly what this current version is here.Geek4gurl (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Re this edit: The main criticism of the new comment system is that people are being forced to use a Google+ account whether they like it or not. There has been a lot of criticism of this decision, but to maintain NPOV the article should not introduce excessive criticism or non-neutral language.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Is a recent addition NPOV?

The following text was added in two edits by Batvette made at 21:20 and 21:26 on 22 November 2013:

Industry watchers have noted "Discussion forums across the Internet are already bursting with outcry against the new comment system. Google+ is nowhere near as popular a social media network as Facebook, but it’s essentially being forced upon millions of YouTube users who don’t want to lose their ability to comment on videos."

---

I'm left wondering how many and who the "Industry watchers" are. The article cited doesn't mention "Industry watchers". Is this just the Newsday article's author?

While the cited article contains the quote "Discussion forums across the Internet are already bursting with outcry against the new comment system. ...", the only discussion forum mentioned in the Newsday article is a Google Groups forum with the title "How can I stop being forced to join Google+". That seems more about Google+ than it is about YouTube comments. So I'm also left wondering how many "discussions forums across the Internet" are bursting with outcry and if the outcry is about YouTube comments, about Google+, or perhaps the larger issue of Google wanting as many people as possible to be logged in using Google accounts to make it easier to track individual interests and behavior so they can sell more targeted ads?

And the cited Newsday article goes on to state:

Perhaps user complaints are justified, but the idea of revamping the old system isn’t so bad.

Think of the crude, misogynistic and racially-charged mudslinging that has transpired over the last eight years on YouTube without any discernible moderation. Isn’t any attempt to curb unidentified libelers worth a shot? The system is far from perfect, but Google should be lauded for trying to alleviate some of the damage caused by irate YouTubers hiding behind animosity and anonymity.

Should this view be included in the Wikipedia article? Attributed to "industry watchers"?

The above is my long way of saying that I think this part of the article is getting off-track in terms of its NPOV. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I had doubts about this too. "Industry watchers" is WP:WEASEL, while there has been a similar debate at Talk:Google+#You_Tube_Comment_Merger about NPOV and overdoing the criticism angle. The new comments system has led to criticism, because some people (including Jawed Karim) believe that it is wrong to force the use of a Google+ account on YouTube. The recent edit, though, seems lacking in NPOV, and should be toned down.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The arguments seem specious at best. Newsday is a reliable source, if you'd like to quibble with the term "industry watchers" then finds a term you like better, I don't care. Secondly why would you say it's about Google+ and not Youtube when now you have to open a google+ account to comment on youtube? Seems to me like you're looking for some really silly reasons to keep this criticism off the pages of the relevent entities. If you don't believe the backlash is widespread simply google google+ youtube comments. Click on the news hits. No shortage of reliable sources here! In the end I've added a statement of criticsm. Removing it isn't NPOV, go ahead and add a countering statement from the droves of reliable sources that are gushing about forcing people to use a social network they didn't want anything to do with. As for that "larger issue" you speak about, please do speak about that, I'd love to see you expand upon that in the article. Batvette (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

My concerns about the neutral point of view of this part of the article weren't directed at just the most recent change to the article. It was the most recent change together with the previously existing content that was a concern. Sorry if my earlier comments didn't make this clear.

I'm not looking for reasons to keep this criticism off the pages of this or other articles. I just want us to choose our words carefully so they do not go beyond what is said in the referenced sources. And, when there are multiple points of view on a subject that are supported by reliable sources, I want us to include all of them.

I've made a change to the article that I hope improves it. At the very least it addresses my concerns. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the way you've presented that. I think the double sided story needed to be covered is well voiced here-

"while this is being presented like a goodhearted attempt by Google at cleaning up YouTube, it does come off as kind of a cheap way to get even more people to sign up for Google Plus when they wouldn't have voluntarily done so otherwise. I'm sure they'll go on to spout numbers about the dramatic growth of Google Plus over the last few years but there will be no mention of how many of those users signed up knowingly or willingly." http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/11/09/google-plus-creates-uproar-over-forced-youtube-integration/ I am all for removing that "forums are bursting" rhetoric and wouldn't mind seeing the forbes comment replace the newsday source. It gives equally approving reasons the comment system change is also positive. (which I am personally in agreement with, just not the campaign for google to boost its social network membership). If we can come to a consensus on how this should appear it could be applied to the relevent articles of google+, youtube, and criticism of google so we don't have this controversy in all three. Thanks for working with me.Batvette (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about a move from the Newsday article to the Forbes article as a source for quotes and a reference. On the one hand, I am uneasy about the "forums are bursting" rhetoric in the Newsday article. And to see the whole Newsday article you have to subscribe (there is an alternate site that shows the whole article without requiring a subscription, but I'm not too sure how legal it is or how long it will last). On the other hand there are things about the Forbes article that make me uneasy too. The Forbes quote you give above is longer and as a result, in my opinion, doesn't make its point as clearly or forcefully. The Forbes rhetoric of "cheap way" and "spout numbers" strikes me as not being particularly WP:NPOV. When the Forbes article says "YouTubers, both video creators and commenters, are upset about the new requirement of pretty much anyone [emphasis added] using the site to do so through their Google Plus account, ...", I wonder how accurate the article really is since as far as I know you don't need a Google+ account to view YouTube videos or comments and that surely makes up the majority of YouTube use. In general the Forbes article comes off as being more an editorial or opinion piece than a news article (but then as long as Forbes is considered a "reliable source", perhaps it isn't for me to judge what is or isn't a news article). I worry about statements on Google's motives for its actions, since they tend to be speculation or suspicions that are difficult to backup with hard facts. Sorry to be so wishywashy. I guess it really comes down to the actual wording and quotes used in the Wikipedia article. And that is hard to judge until you've seen the wording. Perhaps the thing to do is to enter a draft version here on the talk page. Or, since I'm reasonably comfortable with the article as it stands today, perhaps the lazy thing to do is to do nothing. Either approach is OK with me. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the NPOV issue is best determined to be the balanced view of what reliable sources are reporting about this, and there seems to be no shortage of reliable sources calling this a "fiasco" and questioning why google would go against the wave of protests with a system that has provided MORE abuse and trolling and spam than the old system ever had.[3] Seems to get right to the point with "After Larry Page retook the helm of Google as CEO, he instituted “a corporate mandate called Google+,” wrote Whittaker. “It was an ominous name invoking the feeling that Google alone wasn’t enough. Search had to be social. Android had to be social. YouTube, once joyous in their independence, had to be … well, you get the point. We certainly get it now: Google’s sole mission is to impose Google+ on everyone who uses any of its products – that we knew. As my friend and colleague Nick Mokey wrote recently, this obsession with Google+ appears to have sent Google off on a mad tangent, leading it to behave about as rationally as Toronto’s adorable crack-smoking mayor."

And [4] "the new system gave precedence to people who were able to provoke lots of replies with trollish and insulting behavior, crowding out good commenters.Now, Youtube has officially recognized that the new system has led to an increase in spam, flaming, and the posting of ASCII art pornography.It's part of a wider program through which Google is attempting to drive all its users into Google Plus (largely because advertisers are willing to pay higher rates for "social" ads, this being the latest industry mania)" So again keep in mind the balanced view of the issue should be a reflection of what we find reported by reliable sources. Batvette (talk) 12:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

We need to be careful when we pick our reliable sources. The first quote above comes from a path that has "Opinion" in it (Home > Opinion > YouTube’s commenter uproar proves Google’s…). So does its URL (http://www.digitaltrends.com/opinion/youtubes-commenter-uproar-proves-googles-crystal-ball-is-broken/). I view articles that include phrases with the words "fiasco", "ominous", or that make comparisons to "Toronto’s adorable crack-smoking mayor" skeptically. I certainly wouldn't want quotes with those phrases appearing in this or any other Wikipedia article, even if they come from "reliable" sources.

But perhaps more to the point, it has been less than a month since the YouTube comment changes were put into effect. To me at least, that is too short a time to come to any firm conclusions about how effective or not they are or how well YouTube users will or won't accept them. YouTube admits that there are problems and says it is working on improvements. It will take some time to know what those changes are and how well they do or don't work. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a newspaper. We don't or shouldn't have the pressure of deadlines or a need to be first to report a story. We can, and I think, should allow enough time for stories to mature before drawing conclusions or taking too seriously others who are rushing to judgement very quickly. In six months it will be clearer how big a deal all of this really is. Someone can update the article then. We don't want to make the controversy itself the story. We can and should report the facts: that there was a change as far as YouTube comments go, what the change was, that the change is controversial, and what the controversial issues are. I think the article does that now. We should stop short of giving too much weight to the controversy and criticisms by including too much repetitive information, overly long quotes, or quotes that use inflammatory language. We should avoid speculation, even speculation that appears in "reliable sources". Balancing the different sides of a controversy is one approach to maintaining a WP:NPOV. The article does that now. But that approach, like most others, needs to be used carefully to avoid having the presentation of different sides give more weight to the controversy than it deserves. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 16:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

NOTICE: Social impact of YouTube: separate article has been nominated for deletion)

Here there is a discussion as to whether the article Social impact of YouTube should be deleted and parts of its content incorporated into the "Social impact" section of this main YouTube article. RCraig09 (talk) 19:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

DIscussion has been closed. Result 2013-11-18: Keep for now. RCraig09 (talk) 02:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolution lowered statement

"However, it was lowered to 2048 x 1536 as of 2012."

This is not currently correct and has no citation. There are recent uploads that are 3840 x 2160.

PerfectComposition (talk) 15:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: "as of 2012" doesn't imply current. If you could provide up-to-date information and a citation, we can update it. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

YouTube age requirements

Re this edit: YouTube is no different from any other site in that children could lie in order to access videos with an 18+ affirmation requirement. However, this source is misleading by stating that a child could watch "highly pornographic, violent, or otherwise inappropriate videos", as it is unlikely that anyone would come across this type of material regularly on YouTube. This violates the TOS and is usually removed quickly (on the one occasion that I complained about the content of a video, it was removed within an hour). This needs more NPOV, and less "OMG, think of the children".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing 'OMG' about my edit. And as the current edit now stands, it does not reflect accurate facts: "Videos considered to contain potentially offensive content are available only to registered users affirming themselves to be at least 18 years old." This is a FALSE statement. An "age requirement" that is not enforced is not an age requirement at all. It is an "age assertion requirement". [(@21:23)Correction: The current edit now communicates an accurate fact!]

Even with my edit, I still see a problem remaining. This is the added fact that videos do not get screened prior to global publication. So anyone can add any video, and it doesn't get flagged until after a problem is detected. And this detection could happen by any user. This is explained further in that reference I had provided. My edit did not go far enough. The issue is not OMG. It is Oh My Facts. The site's TOS may want you to believe that they have an age requirement that does an adequate job of screening certain material, but for our article to parrot that without scrutiny of how the site actually operates is a failure of us as editors, and of Wikipedia as a quality vehicle for conveying accurate information.--Tdadamemd (talk) 21:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a problem for all sites with user generated content. It is impossible to give a 100% guarantee that nobody will upload TOS violations, but YouTube has a good track record in removing this type of material quickly, and secondary reliable sourcing does not suggest that this is a major problem for the site. As for the legal issues involved, in 2006 three Google executives were convicted in an Italian court for privacy violations over a controversial video, despite removing it within hours. The convictions were overturned on appeal in 2012. Google said "Google and many other Internet companies have consistently maintained that they cannot, and should not, be required to review the content of user-generated material before it is posted on their sites. Google insists that it acted swiftly to take down the video in question after being alerted to it, on grounds that the content violated its terms of service. Google said Friday that the successful appeal had vindicated its position."[5] As a general rule, children under 13 should not be using the Internet without adult supervision, and children in the 13-18 age group need close watching. Only responsible adults can do this, and a website cannot promise never to have "unsuitable for children" material. Wikipedia has a similar disclaimer. The source at [6] is not really a RS because it gives a misleading impression. There is little likelihood of coming across porn or gore regularly on YouTube, because the site is strict about removing it quickly. Some of this relates to the how the Internet works as a whole, rather than to YouTube in particular.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I generally support User:ianmacm's position here, but I want to make a couple of points of my own:

• I think that the sentence in the lead now is OK.
• This is all about something that appears in the lead to the article. While there is a "Controversial content" sub-section in the article, it doesn't cover the allowable viewing age issue. It should. This is particularly true for complicated controversial topics such as this one that require more space to cover than is available in the lead. And in the body of the article there should be references to reliable sources to support the positions taken.
• At various times there has or hasn't been a reference to the "Internet Safety Project" (there is no reference now). I don't think that the "Internet Safety Project" should be considered a reliable published third-party secondary source, but not for the reason stated by User:ianmacm above. My thinking is that we shouldn't judge a source's reliability based on if we agree or disagree with what the source says. In this case I would judge that the "Internet Safety Project" isn't a reliable source because it is an advocacy organization. It is unclear who, if anyone, exercises journalistic or editorial oversight over the content of its articles. While in some cases it may be possible to use such sources, they need to be balanced by other sources in order to ensure a neutral point of view (not sure that this last is entirely inline with Wikipedia policies, but I'm comfortable with it).

--Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit request in censorship section

site is available in turkey right now. for a long time actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.163.6.48 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source the says more about the unblocking? When was Youtube unblocked in Turkey? By whom? Why? --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I found sources at Censorship of YouTube#.C2.A0Turkey and made the requested edit. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This edit was reverted. The videos which led to the 2008 block on YouTube in Turkey were tiresome trolling saying that Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was gay.[7] Although one video was removed, many similar videos were uploaded, in the best traditions of the Streisand effect, causing the site the site to be blocked by the Turkish government. YouTube never removed all of the videos, and typing "ataturk gay" into the YouTube search box will still produce plenty of these videos (don't do this if easily offended). Google blocked the offending Atatürk videos only within Turkey,[8] a response similar to Innocence of Muslims. The source at [9] says that the video which caused the 2010 controversy was of Deniz Baykal, a living Turkish politician. It says "The court then referred the matter to the TIB, which ordered the website's administrators to remove the compromising videos under penalty of being blocked – a request with which YouTube complied". The source does not support the claim that the block on YouTube was "finally lifted" in March 2011, and it is unclear how long the blocking related to the Baykal incident lasted.[10]. It is also incorrect that the Baykal video was removed, because as the LA Times article points out, there is still part of it on YouTube here, which was uploaded on May 13, 2010.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the ins and outs of this one, but this is what the Censorship of YouTube#.C2.A0Turkey article said and still says at the end of a longer section:

Turkey lifted the ban on 30 October 2010, but the ban was reinstated on 3 November 2010. The ban was finally lifted in March 2011, after YouTube removed the videos that were the subject of legal complaints. During the two and a half year block of YouTube, the video-sharing website remained the eighth most-accessed site in Turkey.

---

So, perhaps the Turkey section of the Censorship of YouTube article needs to be updated as well. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there is some uncertainty about how long over the block over the Baykal video lasted, but the March 2011 date is not in the sourcing given. Censorship of YouTube#.C2.A0Turkey should also have clearer wording. The Atatürk and Baykal controversies are completely separate incidents and should not be portrayed as a single incident.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

WHY DID THEY CHANGE IT???? =(

WHY DID THEY CHANGE IT IT LOOKS HORRIBLE NOW HOW CAN WE GET BACK THE OLD ONE!!!!??????