Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not YouTube

Sample
There's a good example if you want more. It illustrates something that cannot be illustrated in text. It was originally from the HBO documentary produced together with the Tourette Syndrome Association, and they worked with to cut it down. We did mention them at the end by name, because it was from an HBO production. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks SandyGeorgia. I've added it. -- Colin°Talk 20:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe File:Sleep-Related-Declarative-Memory-Consolidation-and-Verbal-Replay-during-Sleep-Talking-in-Patients-pone.0083352.s004.ogv ? Not sure. The sleep-talking is non-English, with sub-titles. Could be either an example, or an example of no verification of other language? I dunno. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  14:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Style
I really appreciate the examples given in the ==Style== section. I think that they are clean and pointful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Videos may have a style that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. » Almost all videos have different styles. The point is videos should not have things that are prohibited in Wikipedia.
 * For example, the narrator may introduce themselves or welcome the viewer or explain things about themselves that are not relevant to the educational purpose. » Kind words and introducing oneself may not be relevant but they are normal practices in the world.
 * The tone of the narration and graphics may be jovial and playful when the subject (such as a disease) is anything but that. This may be because the videos were created for a different intended audience than Wikipedia's readers. » This is clear. It's confusing when the text tells about cats and the video shows mainly dogs. Many readers watch also videos. If you don't like to watch a video then stop or don't click a video link. Then your thumb is down, but not everyone's.
 * Nutshell: Editors should be able to easily edit the article content and quickly change it; readers should be able to verify specific facts against specific reliable sources. This is not possible with lengthy article-videos. » But editors should not be able to edit the source. Quickly? Lengthy? In the book source, you can quickly mention the page. An interesting part in the video can also be referred (mm:ss). YouTube videos can be started anywhere very quickly. Videos lengthiness doesn't prove that it is bad. Don't add bad video links to Wiki.
 * My Nutshell: If the author of the style section is from the U.S., the country of the video, then maybe… But I don't say it, because opinions are not encyclopedia-style (though they are allowed in videos where are usually not required that everything is 100% correct and according to grammar). 2001:2003:F646:4A00:839:8D70:599A:68BF (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What to do?
Maybe we should consider some alternatives/coping mechanisms, such as snipping out the best bits from big videos, and using that smaller clip. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * (and anyone interested) The Blender Foundation has successfully made CC-BY videos that have been significantly altered by other people. One short CGI-heavy film of theirs has been entirely remade, with different actors. The foundation has done this by copylefting the source material for making the films, as well as the end films. Some of the Blender Foundation's end films are on Commons, but not the source material.


 * Commons currently won't take most 3D file formats (File types). There's STL (see illustration), but nothing else. There is currently discussion about 3D file formats on Commons. Do we have a use case? It would be nice to, say, have an animation of a beating heart that anyone could alter to illustrate a heart defect, or different types of fibrillation, or whatever. HLHJ (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit
User:WhatamIdoing, thanks for the copyedit. Wrt the change "Video that is merely the article topic read out loud" to "Video that is merely the article's contents read out loud". The reason I avoided "contents" is that pedants will easily argue these videos are not in fact the article text read out loud, but an entirely new script written for the video. What is common is the scope is the article topic (or a large part of it). Is there another wording that works here? -- Colin°Talk 07:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This line reads a little awkwardly, "Editors should not be forced to accept all-or-nothing regarding content or edits made to it.", but I can't immediately come up with an alternative. Graham Beards (talk) 08:51, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm trying to say that the added content (the video) or the edited content (a revised video perhaps with multiple changes) has to be accepted or rejected in its entirety. Whereas with the normal collaborative editing model, wholesale removing/reverting is only done by polite editors in the worse case, and the ideal solution is to make additional changes or to remove only part of the content or revision. -- Colin°Talk 09:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I understood the point. How about, " Wikipedia should not accept the addition of substantial content to articles that cannot be easily edited by its users." ? Graham Beards (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The inability to edit combined with the large scope of the material is what causes the all-or-nothing problem. I'd prefer "large scope" than "substantial" which is open to interpretation as "it is only one video, like one image". I still think "all or nothing" is a useful concept for somewhere in the essay -- I think it was WhatAmIDoing that first suggested that issue.
 * I'm sure the recommendations section could do with more thought. The "specific issues" is currently really just a brain dump of the various problems I can see. And I'd planned the recommendations would be the end consequence. Perhaps we need an "Advantages of short video" section, or something like that. Or a "Recommended features of video" section. Short gets to the point, doesn't require a long attention, can be easily substituted rather than edited. Also the explain advantage of video without words (text or spoken). -- Colin°Talk 10:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "The article topic" could be as short as the article's title. The "article topic" at Ketogenic diet is "the ketogenic diet", or, if you want to explain a little more, "a high-fat diet for refractory pediatric epilepsy".  I was trying to find words that indicated a lengthy thing.  It's possible that the wording at WP:EL could be adapted.
 * WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia would presumably disagree that merely reading an article out loud is an unworthy endeavor. (But why would you need video to do that?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Support for this initiative
It would be useful to see how much support there is for this: Perhaps we could add usernames here: Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Graham Beards
 * User:Colin, of course.
 * BethNaught (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SandyGeorgia (hey, Graham, good to "see" you again!) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Jbh Talk  14:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Eloquenlty expresses my views. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SarahSV (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Videos
I'm not clear why User:CFCF thinks Videos is an "alternate view" that challenges this essay (per this edit.

That information article says "When shooting please do not provide on-camera commentary or narration.", "Do not include narration, titles, transitions, special effects". The article only really gives advice to volunteers shooting their own video with a camera. It doesn't suggest "article as a video" at all, because, you know, that's not what Wikipedia is about. -- Colin°Talk 20:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While it does not directly challenge the content here it is still an alternate view that is not a policy or guideline. It is very likely that an opposing essay will be written challenging the argument of this essay. Carl Fredrik  talk 20:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't an "alternate view" at all. I think you don't really understand essays, and suggest you read a few. -- Colin°Talk 20:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my last edit summary, WP:VIDEO does not give an alternate view on the topic of this essay — which is about narrative videos which duplicate significant portions of an article. In fact VIDEO expressly says "do not include narration". The class of videos contemplated on that essay are illustrative in nature and serve to enhance the article in much the same way a picture would. The type of video being contemplated here is narrative in nature and can, an for a certain class of users will, replace the content of an article. While the two essays may address the same medium the use cases are vastly different and not comparable. Jbh  Talk  20:21, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * CFCF, this is a complex issue. Could you please work towards trying to understand issues better before editing?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I find the assertion that I do not understand the issues WP:UNCIVIL. Carl Fredrik  talk 15:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you please explain the issues here as you understand them? That would help us all make sure we are discussing things from the same baseline. It does no good if we are arguing past one another, each thinking the other is simply being obstructionist, when each side is really talking about something completely different or coming at the issue from such a different perspective that that may seem the case. Jbh  Talk  15:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Pillars

 * Five pillars should be worked in. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

My $0.02
As a former full-time video producer for the WMF and a regular contributor of self-shot video and migrated video to Wikimedia projects, I thought I'd share my thoughts on this essay, because I think they may add value to the discussion.

Generally I agree with the author of this essay. Wikipedia articles do not need 'video versions' of articles or article topics within articles themselves - although I can see the value in making links to a 'video version' of an article (much like audio versions have been made) for accessibility purposes. If people want to summarize articles in the form of a video or make freely-licensed videos about a topic, I think that's fine for Wikimedia Commons or other projects but Wikipedia articles have sections that sometimes can and should be augmented with illustrations of one kind or another (well-composed photograph, well-edited video, accurate maps, etc.) which help the reader/viewer better understand the topic.

My suggestions:


 * Develop a 'trim feature' for video and audio. A user can 1.) select a start and a stop time of a video that's already on Commons or Wikipedia (either by typing in timecode or scrubbing), and 2.) the feature would either generate a new derivative video (less preferable) or opt to only play that portion of video for the user who is viewing that particular Wikipedia article. This then allows for large unedited videos to be migrated to Commons generally and then Wikipedia editors can view a large video (or a short video for that matter) and 'mine' the portion they want without having to actually own any video editing software. I'm going to stress the importance of the last point, because video editing can be complicated and video derivatives that an inexperienced user makes can be very poor. I wrote a blog post about this topic, and I'll share an example from that:







Right now wiki markup allows for a thumbnail to be generated by using 'thumbtime = (fill in the timecode here)' for videos and I imagine that such code could be made the same way.


 * A full on video editing tool within a web browser using Commons as a clips pane would be ideal but is a difficult and expensive project to create. Such a tool makes audio dubbing for translation much easier, makes it easy to remove bumpers with logos or titles that are un-needed or have copyright issues, trim out overdone stylization, add or remove music, have an automatic credits generator and so forth. I think it should be done, but realistically this is maybe a decade away even with WMF support.

In such a case, I imagine that the Wikimedia community would encourage people to upload raw, unedited footage to Commons (or some other Wikimedia endeavor) so that it could be edited down collaboratively.

Here is an example of a video I shot that's really just 20 minutes of raw footage of Wikimedia servers:



I don't expect to see the video above in a Wikipedia article about computer servers, but I do expect that portions of it could be used in various videos when mentioning servers.


 * More important than a video editing tool - and the thing that would facilitate a need for it - is a good philosophical discussion (like this essay!) in the right forum (ideally involving people who understand both Wikipedia/Wikimedia and the nature of video editing) about the proper place of video within Wikipedia. Right now it's a 'wild west'. The author has delicately articulated major problems with the current state of things and I commend the author for that.


 * Existing freely-licensed long videos on commons should not be outright deleted because 1.) They may have portions that can be used in the manner I describe above using a 'trim feature', and 2.) they can be used as models to create new videos that conform to standards that may be articulated in the future.

I hope my thoughts on this are clearly written and useful.

Victor Grigas (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Trim is sort of already available with the syntax start and end. See my example below. Ainali (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This is so awesome! It can be improved but it should be promoted!!!! Thank you!
 * User:Ainali can you get this video to start at 11:10? Tear down this wall!

Victor Grigas, thanks a lot for your comments and suggestions. There's plenty to think about here. -- Colin°Talk

Translation and subtitles
I suggest rewriting the section on Translation. (It currently reads: "[...] translation has to resort to crude over-dubbing or subtitles")

Subtitles are very valuable, for making things understandable to deaf people, young people, ESL people, and for making the content potentially available in other languages.

Instead, perhaps reframe the section as something like: "Videos with dialogue should be transcribed into the TimedText system, so that they can be captioned for the benefit of deaf/young/foreign people, and also translated for use in all other language projects. Textual labels within videos should be considered carefully, because it makes the videos inaccessible for all non-English viewers."

There are many good uses of video with dialogue, from interviews to news footage to speeches. We want to encourage these good types of content, but in optimized ways. Quiddity (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added an accessibility section that covers the needs of deaf and visually impaired people to some extent - feel free to reword or add to this.Dialectric (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Quiddity, Dialectric, and User:SusanLesch (who left comment at WP:MED). I'm out of my depth wrt to accessibility issues. Years ago I tried to help another editor formulate guidelines on alternative text for screen readers and images, and that didn't work out so well. If you guys have advice on this area, or want to raise issues that need to be considered, please edit away. I am conscious that the videos that have recently been discussed are really little more than a narrated script and someone drawing on an electronic chalk board. As such, they seem to make the content less accessible to many (including those with low bandwidth connections). Of course subtitles are important and I get annoyed that some of the streaming forms of TV don't always include them. We need to consider both the translation aspect of not having a video in your native tongue, and the accessibility aspect of needing to supplement audio and also video. For example, many of the videos by Osmosis would be seriously lacking if one could only hear the content -- they rely on a combination of graphics and narration. I don't imagine that screen readers can cope with hand-drawn text scribbles being animated around the screen. -- Colin°Talk 21:26, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * For the sake of discussion it should be clear that captions are metadata that can be turned on and off, while subtitles are 'burned-into' videos and are just as much a part of a video as the photography. More info here.

I'd also say that it's important to have videos made for Wikipedia that have 2 versions - one with no burned-in subtitles to be able to fork and one with burned-in subtitles to know where new derivative captions and subtitles might need to go. This is because captions are things that audiences SOMETIMES turn on, while in many cases you want the subtitles burned-in already so that the audience has no choice.

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I see that User:WhatamIdoing has expanded the subtitle part. As a Scot, I'm not so familiar with the phrase "Closed captioning", which is a terminology difference the article expands on. Do we have examples of webm video with these captions that can be turned on/off by viewer? I must say that I think such captions should definitely be required in a guideline somewhere, and this is just an essay on issues with certain kinds of videos. What's the appropriate WP guideline for that? I also think if WMF sponsor or give grants or form alliances with any party to produce videos, then I believe such captions should be absolutely mandatory in the contract/agreement. I don't think it acceptable at all if this sector of the community is forgotten. WhatamIdoing, in your WMF-link capacity, are you able to find out if they have a policy on this? -- Colin°Talk 09:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you'd want to talk to Marti Johnson about that. In general, though, grants are proposed on Meta, and anyone could leave a note on the talk page to say that they think ______ should be required for a particular grant, so even if it weren't a formal policy for all grants, it could become a requirement for an individual grant.  (I'm not certain that the WMF makes grants to produce content at all.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: example video of webm with captions, see File:President Obama Welcomes the Chicago Blackhawks, 2010 Stanley Cup champions.webm.
 * Re: WP guidelines, sadly we do not (afaik), and neither does Commons, it's a much overlooked area. The closest I know of is Image dos and don'ts. There are of course various help pages, such as c:Commons:Video and Help:Creation and usage of media files. The desired advice should probably (?) be integrated with Manual of Style/Images and Image use policy in order to prevent mass-duplication of common elements. HTH. Quiddity (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Examples of donated commercial video




The above were donated by a local (to me) film production company, who were quite happy to let us have them. They are "outtakes" (surplus footage, rather than "bloopers") from commercial shoots, so would otherwise have gone to waste. They are already used on multiple non-English Wikipedias. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Can you write a Wikimedia blog post about your experience getting this production company to donate the unused footage? I’d want to share that with other production companies. Victor Grigas (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett these are great. Just the right length to illustrate the subject, and in a way that couldn't possibly be done with text or a static photo. Someone sitting in a room with a microphone and electronic whiteboard can't explain rowing or wheelchair basketball. They are also short enough that there are no WP:V issues -- one merely has to have consensus / good faith that the photos are what the photographer/uploader says they are. No further claims are made, no opinions expressed. -- Colin°Talk 12:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Guideline proposal
After reading through WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis RfC, it seems to me that some of the most important points were already made here at Wikipedia is not YouTube. What do editors here think about proposing this as a guideline on Village pump (proposals)? Is it ready? Daask (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The page was written more as an essay than guideline, in that it raises concerns and argues a case. A guideline would tend to stick to presenting consensus advice on what to do or not to do. I think there are some possible directions:
 * Create or adapt a guideline specifically on videos for embedding in articles. This would have a mix of dos and don'ts and recommendations.
 * Add a section to WP:NOT that links to this essay and provides a short summary of the rationale and conclusion.
 * I think both are possible. One thing the medical video RFC showed is that many people invested in producing such videos, or who thought they were great educational material, did not really consider or accept that being educational and free did not necessarily make them a good fit for Wikipedia. So I think there will still be some opposition by people who haven't really absorbed About. For them, I wish there was a WikiMedia project for the videos (besides Commons, which is really just a media repository). At the moment they are being told "Thanks but no thanks" rather than "Thanks, could you put it over there, great!" -- Colin°Talk 13:20, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Potentially relevant example


While editing the Stephen Hawking article, I noticed the attached video can be found in Stephen Hawking § Appearances in popular media (permanent link). It is 12:02 in length and was, in fact, imported directly from YouTube, specifically this video.

I don't know if this is an example which violates this essay in letter or spirit (or both), which qualifies as a very exceptional case of a good video addition, or which is otherwise unaddressed by this essay and worthy of mention. Regardless, I might as well mention it here for you all to evaluate. I have no particular preference with, nor personal investment in, this video's status in the article; and, moreover, I already understand some rationales for both its inclusion and exclusion. I am just mentioning a potentially relevant example for you all to consider.

Thanks for your time. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 11:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nøkkenbuer, thanks for the video. It is helpful to have lots of different kinds of examples. Looking at that one, I struggled to find a moment when Hawking spoke (via his machine, obviously). It was rather sad to see all these other people talking and interacting and Hawking just having to sit there and be posed for the cameras. My feeling is it doesn't have many of the problems of videos that inspired this essay, in that it offers a video of one event/fact -- Hawking visited the Whitehouse. But that could have been demonstrated by a really great photo or perhaps a short clip. It isn't hard to trim a video, but it isn't trivial either, and MediaWiki offers no tools for it. So nobody has tried to create a version that shows this in a short way. For example, if this was on the TV news, the video would be mere seconds long. So I guess the fact that this is so long is that nobody has edited it, rather than that anyone thinks having a 12 minute video of people arranging themselves in front of cameras makes for great encyclopaedic material. Probably then a good example for a guideline on videos where we encourage editors to trim long material to make their point quickly. -- Colin°Talk 13:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)