Talk:YouTube/Archive 11

What about censorship?
Why there is no mention about censorship on youtube?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article has a look at some of the controversies, and Criticism of YouTube goes into more detail. Is there anything that you feel is missing from these articles?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the section about criticism should summarize the main article Criticism of YouTube citing all relevant points. Shouldn't it?--Pokipsy76 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "censorship" has some WP:NPOV issues, as videos on YouTube are governed by YouTube's Community Guidelines at . This is mentioned in the article, and some examples are given of videos that were considered to break them. A long list would be unencyclopedic, but there is a more detailed look at the issues raised by YouTube's Community Guidelines in Criticism of YouTube.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that what is said in Criticism of YouTube about alleged censorship should also be mentioned in this article. It is not true that if we summarize the detail of Criticism of YouTube we would make an "unenciclopedic" "long list", in fact the issues in that article are definitely not a large number.--Pokipsy76 (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Realtime
I think YouTube RealTime should be added to this Wikipedia section. YouTube realtime is a toolbar that allows you to interact with YouTube friends socially (kinda like MySpace). Some features are Online Status, who is watching a video, notifications, and much more. If you need YouTube RealTime to add to Wikipedia, if you are using a YouTube account and become my friend with XboxSpace, I will have the ability to add you to YouTube RealTime. At this time, it is Beta software like they did with Gmail (Googlemail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkquest21 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * YouTube RealTime was launched as a beta on 23 April. . At the moment, it has not attracted enough media attention to be notable enough for the article, but things may change.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Dance #1
Evolution of Dance is now the number 1 most viewed, somebody should update the article it wont let me do it.


 * Thanks for pointing this out, the article has been updated. Girlfriend has been slowing down in the past few months, and the ban on professional music videos in the UK and Germany cannot have helped. The gap is still narrow (119,093,505 views and 119,015,549 at the moment), so this situation will need watching.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

960*720 hd 4*3
ive seen this hd format in a couple of vids and it wasnt available a few months ago, it should be included in the formats list imo. 85.53.162.121 (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you give a link to a video that has this format? At the moment YouTube seems to be experimenting with new formats on a regular basis, so sourcing is still an issue here.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * sure, ive just uploaded this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDwDtUMVIik; as i said i tried it a few months ago but it got downsized to 480*360, but a few weeks ago i saw some hd clip with 4*3 ratio, i downloaded and checked that it was actually 960*720, and now it seems to work with any 960*720 video you upload. 85.53.162.121 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all of YouTube's formats take into account whether the uploaded video was 4:3 or 16:9. This means that the formats for HD are 960 and 1280 pixels. Most of the HD videos are widescreen, but some are not, like the one mentioned above.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is quite true. In terms of upload resolution requirement, 1280x720 is the minimum, no 4:3 or 16:9 ratio stuff needed.  But for video playback, 1280x720 is the MAXIMUM, so a 4:3 vid must be at least 1280x960 but gets reencoded @ 960x720.  See this originally 1280x1024 vid for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPx7dU8xM50 (HD is @ 900x720) Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for a while now I have not added anything to the Video Quality section because there are so many original research issues. What is clear is that all of the newly encoded videos are H.264/AAC/FLV, but the picture sizes and frame rates are harder to pin down. The values given in the table are broadly OK, but people may still find videos with different sizes.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe the label could say Max Video Resolution instead? That'd make things easier and cleaner. Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio disabled
This should be in the article in the copyright section:

98.194.130.215 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This has been added to Criticism of YouTube, where the acoustic fingerprint system and complaints against Warner Music Group are looked at in more detail.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Video quality section
This section has had original research issues for a while now. It is highly likely that YouTube has axed H.263 videos, since all the new ones appear to be H.264/AAC. The fmt34 and fmt35 videos started appearing in late 2008, and there are also signs that YouTube is converting the older videos to H.264/AAC. The problem with all of this is reliable sourcing. Since YouTube has not made any public announcements about the launch of fmt34 and fmt35 videos (at least none that I can find) it is difficult to source this for the article. The citation given at comes from a blog/tech forum which is not really a WP:RS. The problem here is not that the information about fmt34 and 35 videos is wrong (it seems to be OK) but how to source it within Wikipedia guidelines.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if the 854x480 claim for 16:9 fmt=35 video is right. From what I've seen YouTube's encoder can only do mod 8 or maybe even mod 16 widths - I don't think mod 2 widths are even possible with YV12 video (nothing seems to accept anything less than mod 4, which makes sense). 854x480 is the closest to 16:9 but I just don't think it's possible given the limitations here. --Zilog Jones (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody is arguing that all the new videos are H.264/AAC, but attributes like frame rate and size in pixels may vary depending on the original video upload. My belief is that the fmt35 videos are usually 640x360px widescreen, and the 854x480 claim looks a bit odd. An example posted here would be welcome.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Need an example? here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP42z0LiwqA  Also the container is FLV, not MP4... and the specific multiple resolutions thing is a bit off.  As far as I know, youtube only has a maximum resolution value, so you can still use a funky res like the 722x406 in this vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZtktNBvm4 Nintendo Maniac 64 (talk) 06:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems certain info in the "Video Quality" section is out of date. It refers to mono audio as being "default". I don't think that's correct any longer. Videos I upload in stereo play in stereo by default, though at a lower quality bitrate than by using &fmt=18 or selecting "HQ".Docsavage20 (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the newly uploaded videos (fmt 34, 35 and HD) have stereo audio if the source material did. There are still some mono videos from the H.263 era. The "Video quality" section and table could do with a rewrite, but there are still sourcing issues to be resolved.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 09:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The "YouTube" brand name
How was this name coined in the first place, actually? Well, there's nothing on the article which tells about the origin of the name. Every name has its story (I strongly presume, at least). -andy 92.230.21.42 (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The name "YouTube" is (I have always assumed, anyway) a combination of "You" and "Tube", which is based on cathode ray tube, American English informal language for describing a television. The slogan of the company "Broadcast Yourself" fits in with this description. After looking around, I was unable to find any anecdotes about how the name was chosen (although on a completely different note, here is how the transistor was named). Any suggestions on whether the article should say more about the name "YouTube" would be appreciated.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Other tubes
Shoulld weee include links to other tubes like teachertube?--70.253.178.106 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There are various other sites like TeacherTube that have Tube in the title, but they are not affiliated to YouTube.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 06:50, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Format table
Would it be controversial to suggest axing the format table? It has run into original research issues for some time now. It is also somewhat non-notable to list every YouTube format, past and present. The average reader is unlikely to be interested in this. Thoughts?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support removing this table. Aside from the fact it's not cited, most casual readers are probably uninterested in it as well. Honestly, I don't even know what's going in the table, so I'm sure a majority of the readers don't either. —  Σ xplicit  06:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The info in the table is reasonably accurate, but has some WP:NOTMANUAL issues. The table has become too large in my opinion, and is not really adding to the article given its size.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

*20* Hours of Video (not 15) Uploaded every Minute! & 3/4 from Outside U.S.
Posting on the YouTube blog on May 20, 2009. Someone who can correct the "15 hours" can now change it to 20. http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=on4EmafA5MA - "Zoinks! 20 Hours of Video Uploaded Every Minute!" - May 20, 2009 ALSO: Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently said at Princeton: "[The amount of video uploaded to YouTube] is "on the order of 3/4 international" - "Eric Schmidt, Princeton Colloquium on Public & Int'l Affairs" - May 11, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXmDxf7D_g Time-linked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXmDxf7D_g#t=14m52s

That is also a VERY interesting talk about the popularity (and censorship and challenges) of YouTube. -68.174.102.95 (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I saw the 20 hours figure in the YouTube blog a few days back, but had not seen the 3/4 international claim. This is an interesting figure which contains an element of conjecture by Eric Schmidt, since he would not have direct access to other sites' figures. What is clear is that YouTube is by far the largest video sharing website, and the others do not even come close.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding your response: "This is an interesting figure which contains an element of conjecture by Eric Schmidt, since he would not have direct access to other sites' figures."

By "other sites," do you mean local versions of YouTube that are (I suppose) not included in the U.S. YouTube.com? He clearly makes the point that The amount of video uploaded to YouTube is "on the order of 3/4 international." The uploading he refers to is for YouTube and YouTube alone. Where's the ambiguity in that? He's not referring to the total amount of video being uploaded to the Web as a whole. Also, I would think that he, as the CEO, definitely has access to the YouTube figures, and I know, from at least one interview and another talk, that on the day he was hired, the Googlers showed him just how obsessively data-driven Google is, down to the millisecond for both recorded stats and future projections.

68.174.102.95 (talk) 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eric Schmidt would be in a position to know exactly how much video is uploaded to YouTube. The point that I was trying to make is how large YouTube is in comparison to other similar sites such as Metacafe, Dailymotion and Vimeo. YouTube is the largest in terms of comScore and Alexa rankings by a long way, but the exact figures for content are harder to pin down. There was a time when a search in the YouTube interface said how many videos were on the site, but the feature was withdrawn in mid-2008 when it stood at around 85 million videos. There is little doubt that YouTube has the largest library of user generated videos on the Internet, but the current figure is now a conjecture.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 15:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * So, in plain terms, you refuse to include this fact--that 3/4 of YT's videos are uploaded from outside the US--because we don't have the analogous data from the other (as you noted, distantly trailing) UGC video sites? I can't understand why you feel this fact does not have encyclopedic relevance. YT is a US-based company subsidized by a US-based corporation, yet 3/4 of the content provided by this company is from outside the US. That doesn't speak, in quantifiable terms, to the impact that the site has around the world? Knowing the nation-percentages of UGC videos uploaded to MegaVideo and DailyMotion would not shed much further light on this statistic, despite what you seem to believe. There is much in the article about YT's notable cultural, social, and political impact in other countries; thus, I think this is a highly important fact, and here it is again:
 * "[The amount of video uploaded to YouTube] is "on the order of 3/4 international"
 * - "Eric Schmidt, Princeton Colloquium on Public & Int'l Affairs" - May 11, 2009
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXmDxf7D_g
 * Time-linked:
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nXmDxf7D_g#t=14m52s


 * Or is it because you don't know the total (necessarily approximate) number of videos on YouTube? Whether it's now around 200 million or even 400 million, I maintain that the sheer fact that 3/4 are from outside the US is very significant, and would perhaps be surprising to many.


 * -68.174.102.95 (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This has now been added.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

YouTube charts
The charts were removed since the vast majority of the information in them can be found on the YouTube website. Sections with a permanent "As of" tag are best avoided, since they are inherently non-encyclopedic (see WP:NOTNEWS). The article looks at why some videos ran into controversy over their YouTube chart rating, but avoids giving a long list.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, it's not a long list (only 15 videos), but it is highly detailed. Second, half of those videos are not even listed on Youtube, due to consumer complaints and various other policy reasons, yet they still are videos and are on Youtube. Third, there really is no other list like this anywhere on the web, and if you're worried about it being updated, user or people can come and do that anytime, just as long as the source of that infomation is there and the dates are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.81.79.141 (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a clear issue here with WP:NOT. People do this sort of thing on the blogs, forums and message boards, but it not what Wikipedia articles are for. It also raises original research issues. It is hard (if not impossible) to source all of the videos that YouTube has banned from the charts after accusations of spamming. One of the interesting things about the YouTube website interface in 2009 is how little prominence is given to the Most viewed charts. YouTube no longer believes that these accurately represent what is hot on the site, and wants to discourage the deliberate spamming that occurred in 2008. Instead, the YouTube main page has Videos Being Watched Now, Featured Videos and Most Popular. Videos like Panda Disculpa los Malos Pensamientos (Evangelion) are essentially gimmicks with little relevance to what people actually watch, which is why YouTube no longer gives the charts prominence. The controversies over "Music is My Hot, Hot Sex" and "Girlfriend" are mentioned because they picked up significant coverage in secondary sources.  The article does look at controversies over video rankings, but tries to avoid WP:LISTCRUFT on this issue.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 14:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the list hurting anything or anybody for being there, and how do you define a list as being trivial. It's not hard to source all of the videos that YouTube banned from the charts after accusations of spamming, they can still be found on the website and if someone want to add a missing video they just found they can do so, just remembering to source it, and if someone want to check if the views listed are accurate, just click the link and find out, and either change and/or update it. Look, I really don't want to start an edit war here, you must be afraid of a little change, to article that may need this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZenCopain (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * All that I have done here is to point out what Wikipedia guidelines say on these issues. Lists for their own sake lead to classic bloat, and this one is not hugely relevant for the average reader. The section is clearly based on personal original research, since not one source is given to back up the claim that these are the "true" charts. What matters here is not introducing original research and claiming that it is encyclopedic content. The list is fatally flawed in this area. Please think again.-- ♦Ian Ma c  M♦  (talk to me) 07:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They have the sources, you click on the name of the video(which is a link), and a link directly to the video with its up-to-date view counter at the below right side. And I think people are interested to see which movies are truly rank higher in views that the other. Type in 'what is the most viewed videos on youtube' on Google, you get over 75,900,000 results. Just keep the list there, or organize a petition of whether or not to have list that rank the most Youtube views banned from Wikipedia and this page, settling this dispute once and for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.33.156 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

YouTube Swamped By "Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus" and "Jonas Brothers" Porn
A group called "4chan" has made themselves notorious on the Internet by uploading many clips on to YouTube with kid-friendly tags such as HM/JB, and it was called "Porn Day" on YouTube. You can go on google and search for like a million results, but for instance, quoting (http://www.miley5.net/content/index.php?action=show&id=29) "Google has said that it is aware of the attacks, are is taking the appropriate action. Unfortunately, thumbnails may remain on the website for up to a week while Google removes the offending material.". If even Google has responded...this is notable?? YouTubeRockerr (talk) 06:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The article usually avoids news stories about YouTube unless they are essential for an understanding of the subject. The porn video attacks have received a fair amount of coverage, but are probably too WP:RECENT for the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

It's become known as 'Operation Youtube.', blame the anonymous hordes. 82.12.94.87 (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Embedding
I think that people should know that YouTube's no-embedding-by-request is bypasseable. The article is good enough, but it seems a little incomplete without keeping that on mind. Should we remove the "how-to" link to satisfy the criteria? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyniss (talk • contribs) 07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article tries to avoid reading like a list of how-to instructions for the site. When a video is marked as "embedding disabled by request", it may be possible to disable it with a hack. However, as this link points out, it is not respecting the wishes of the uploader to do this. On the whole, this is a tech forum issue and not really notable enough for the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 08:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Hulu" Tube
I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but there's this "HuluTube" which everybody thinks might put YouTube out of business. We do not know for sure about this. There was no official press release statement from the YouTube press reguarding this situation. If anybody knows more about this situation, and would like to cite a source (must be an official YouTube Press Release statement), please do so.--70.240.240.71 (talk) 21:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Chris
 * There is no HuluTube its just YouTube now has a page for TV shows and a page for movies. Here's some sources. Powergate92   Talk  21:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * YouTube has revamped its interface to offer some separate pages for premium content. Some people have been saying that this marks the beginning of the end for user generated videos on YouTube, but this is an overreaction for the time being.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. I have posted a video response to clarify that YouTube is NOT being merged into this "Hulu Tube."--70.240.181.236 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Chris

I think that this is worth mentioning the video campaign called "Hulu Tube the Phasing Out of Youtube" in which about a thousand videos of it got copied and mirrored and another thousand or so videos were posted as a response I think its notable enough for a small section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatorade379 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The video referred to here is Hulu Tube - Phasing you out of YouTube. Some people believe that YouTube is going down the Hulu road towards premium content only, but there is no evidence of this as yet. What is happening is that YouTube needs to generate more advertising revenue to compete with sites like Hulu. It should be pointed out that YouTube's premium content is currently available in North America only, and clicking on it outside this area will produce the message "This video is not available in your country". The claim that YouTube is being phased out to create a Hulu-style service lacks reliable sourcing at the moment, and is outside the scope of the article.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For everybody's info, I have made this video here, "Hulu Tube" clarification, to clarify that YouTube is NOT merging into this "Hulu Tube". Rest assured.--70.240.181.236 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Chris


 * Yes, but the video is a dead link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomballguy (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)