Talk:YouTube/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

Edit request on 22 October 2013

Many users have been experiencing problems with HTML5 trial. Please edit the page to add a controversy that HTML5 cannot work for some users. Miguelcervantes333 (talk) 06:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Please provide a reliable source to back up these claims and explain the controversy. My GFG didn't come up with much more than the usual tech forums with people having normal problems, as usual. DarkToonLink 07:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit needed

Currently on the page under the section "copyrighted material", it has this text:

At the time of uploading a video, YouTube users are shown a screen with the message "Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts or advertisements without permission, unless they consist entirely of content that you created yourself".

This should be updated to mention that, as of November 2013, the text has been changed to read this:

By uploading, you acknowledge that your use of YouTube is subject to the Terms of Service and Community Guidelines.

Please be sure not to violate others' copyright or privacy rights. Learn more

Many thanks. --86.141.36.84 (talk) 11:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. There is a screenshot of the new wording here. The old wording is in the source at [1].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:39, 7 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)

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.[2] The new Google+ system does allow URLs [3] 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.[4] 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 [5] "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)

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."[6] 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 [7] 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.[8] 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,[9] a response similar to Innocence of Muslims. The source at [10] 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.[11]. 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)

Content ID failure

I think under content ID there should be at least a paragraph on how the new content ID system led to a number of Youtube users, especially gaming related channels, having videos being flagged up for copyright violations. It should mention How often the companies that it was said to be protection didn't want this and any, including Blizzard, Deep Silver and Ubisoft all put out public statements that these content ID matches were nothing to do with them. It should also mention how some companies with absolutely nothing to do with content in question, were claiming that they had had their copyrights violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomadicsyndicalist (talk • contribs) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This issue has been in the news in the past few days.[12] It appears that what has gone wrong here is not the Content ID system itself, but that the game developers do not object to having some footage of the games on YouTube, even though it is technically a copyright violation. There is an element of WP:RECENTISM here, and it may not be noteworthy enough to mention in the article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

At this stage it's fair to say that there has been furore amongst the gaming community over this, (there have literally been hundreds of articles and responses to it) so it is definitely noteworthy enough to be mentioned in this article. Neuroxic (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

2012 View Count Scandal

In 2012, YouTube deleted 2 billion views and enforced their youtube terms. Major companies like Sony Music, Unviersal were involved. Swenzy was reported on news to have a connection with the scandal. Someone look into this. This was widely reported by the press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerroyal (talk • contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In 2012, YouTube enforced their view count policies which caused 2 billion video views to disappear from major record labels such as Sony Music and Universal. YouTube announced, "This was not a bug or a security breach. This was an enforcement of our view count policy." The Huffington Post reported, "The cuts affected marquee names like Rhianna, Beyoncé and Justin Bieber". Those notable musicians were caught in the scandal along with their record labels for buying youtube views. Billboard also reported, "they weren't "faked" or even double counted when they went on to Vevo, but because the videos are no longer on the channel, YouTube considers them "dead videos"." Billboard's theory was never confirmed by YouTube. In December of 2013, The Daily Dot, News Corp Australia & Cinema Blend all reported a viral marketing company known as Swenzy and a connection between the 2012 View Count Scandal. Buying fame or YouTube views has become a controversial topic which many news outlets have reported the simplicity and dangers of.

I added the second paragraph under the section "Social impact" in a subsection, "2012 view count scandal". Thanks :) Newyorkadam (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Describing this as a scandal is not WP:NPOV. It does not relate directly to the social impact of YouTube either. This paragraph contains too much POV and personal analysis. In December 2012, there were allegations of viewcount gaming, but YouTube declined to make any direct allegations, saying only "This was not a bug or a security breach. This was an enforcement of our viewcount policy."[13]. Some of the writing about this issue at Swenzy and Social impact of YouTube has serious WP:NPOV issues. YouTube did not accuse viral marketing companies of carrying out the manipulation of the figures; this was a conclusion drawn by some media reports. There is a more down to earth assessment of the December 2012 incident in Billboard here Much of the coverage of this issue is overhyped recycling of a few tech blog stories, as this Guardian article points out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is completely inaccurate. YouTube stated that they "enforced their View count policy". If you look up their view count policy, it means spammed or inflated views are the reason for deletion of views. When you inflate or have fake views your video or channel get's taken down. It's common sense. If you do your research for years like I have, the same time that the record labels got affected there are hundreds of thousands of support tickets and threads opened on Google/YouTube support asking why their videos got deleted, as this affected millions as well. YouTube staff clearly states, that gaming their view system is not permitted. Impossible for this to be "down to earth", There's dozens of AP articles published as current as today, talking about the view count incident and the labels gaming views. I will provide more sources so they it won't be a "POV"... Rogerroyal (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's an Associated Press article written by an award winning journalist concerning the fake social media industry and the 2 billion missing views. In the first paragraph, she "clearly" states, businesses, state departments and celebrities buying views. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLICK_FARMS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT In the article, Google and YouTube wrote: Google and YouTube “take action against bad actors that seek to game our systems,” spokeswoman Andrea Faville said. During the view count enforcement, YouTube NEVER said that the views were videos who migrated. They stood by their view count enforcement, which is for gaming views.

I think the title for the section should've been called "2012 View Count Enforcement" instead of using 'scandal'. Rogerroyal (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

There is little doubt that some marketing companies sell fake clicks on social networking sites. However, the Billboard article says that the bulk of the two billion views of Universal and Sony were moved to VEVO in December 2012 because they were no longer active on the site. Even the most enthusiastic marketing company would have difficulty faking two billion views. Quote from the Billboard article: "In the latest "de-spam," YouTube subtracted 1.5 million views from Sony and Universal's channels. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a fraction of the 1.3 billion it subtracted throughout its entire video library. That leaves us with 1.9985 billion views still unaccounted for. The answer comes in the second way that YouTube changed its view count. The company recently decided to remove view counts for videos that are no longer live on the channel, or so-called "dead videos." For Universal and Sony, that meant thousands of music videos that over the past three years slowly have migrated to the VEVO channel, which is jointly owned by the two companies. A senior label executive confirmed the migration."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

And this is where reality sinks in... YouTube never confirmed what billboard claimed. You keep quoting what billboard said but the whole point was that YouTube does not go by what Billboard said. There's articles still mentioning the view count enforcement loss AND fake social media services. The 2 billion views are still being mentioned in the same articles for fake followers and views BUT in the current or recent articles, they never say that the 2 billion views were legit views that dropped. You see my concern here? Take the AP article as an example. And remember that it's an article regarding fake views and followers. Notice how she wrote about the 2 billion views, and mentioned google talking about gaming views, and never mentioned "The 2 billion were because of migration and the views were legit". The whole musicians cheating is not an exaggerated claim. Majority on social media has heard about the news story, and most know the truth and most musicians, youtube partners, comedians, corporations all buys views. Also, I have actual physical evidence of what I was speaking about that was shared from Swenzy to news reporters. Evidence that Is not public regarding celebrities buying views, I can show you but they can't be published as a journalist who covered Swenzy a few months back gave it to me. Rogerroyal (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Daily Dot article: "Google slashed the cumulative view counts on YouTube channels belonging to Universal Music Group, Sony/BMG, and RCA Records by more than 2 billion views Tuesday, a drastic winter cleanup that may be aimed at shutting down black hat view count-building techniques employed by a community of rogue view count manipulators on the video-sharing site." There is a very important word in this quote, which is "may". Even the Daily Dot seems to stop short of stating as a fact that this actually happened, which is probably just as well, because accusing two major record companies of faking two billion views with a bot is potential libel if untrue. The Daily Dot story also has an update at the bottom saying "Universal acknowledged the sudden drop in views, and told the Daily Dot that the Universal Music Group channel, though popular, has been mostly dormant since the company shifted its focus to individual channels hosted on Vevo, which Universal founded in conjunction with Sony Music, Abu Dhabi Media Company, and E1 Entertainment in 2009." The December 2012 view count saga was added to the article with careful attention to due weight and reliable sourcing. There are two sides to this story, and the article gives both without preferring either. There is also a discussion of this at User_talk:Ianmacm#Swenzy_and_View_Count_Scandal.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Content of "Social impact of YouTube" section

Further to November's Articles-for-Deletion discussion (here) for the separate article Social impact of YouTube, I think the content of this section should be limited to the impact YouTube has had outside of YouTube. Conversely, content that relates to things inside YouTube (such as Bus uncle, Charlie bit my finger, and Gangnam style) should be removed as not being relevant to the social impact of YouTube that is the subject of this section. Please comment below (Agree or Disagree with reasons); otherwise I'll begin this pruning task, and add content that actually fits the section title. (Side note: Similar discussion is invited on the Talk Page of Social impact of YouTube article.) —RCraig09 (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2013

Update. Within a few days, I plan to delete content in this section that merely reflects YouTubers' accomplishments without showing its social impact. I plan to replace this section with a much-shortened version of the (newly revised) main article Social impact of YouTube. Write comments, suggestions or objections below. Thanks. —RCraig09 (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It would have to be much shorter than Social impact of YouTube is now, or it would be of disproportionate length compared to the rest of the article. Personally, I think that the decision to merge was a mistake, as there is a lot of material in it that would be too detailed for this article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: Agreeing with IanMacM's first sentence, I definitely intend to make this section much shorter than the separate article is now. But the concept is much more important than previously reflected either place, a principle that guided my article re-write of the past four weeks. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC) I never intended to merge the separate article out of existence. —RCraig09 (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

One of my concerns was setting off WP:SIZERULE issues in this article. Detailed material would be best left to a separate article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand and agree. Soon I will post a replacement section to the present article, a section whose content has less than one-third the word count of the separate article (footnotes will add to kilobyte count), and occupy minimally more vertical space than the section did previously. Most important: it's designed to be 100% pertinent to YouTube's social impact and does not merely list YouTuber accomplishments. I will move the 'view count scandal' paragraph to its own subsection. —RCraig09 (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I've also proposed broadening the name of the related article to "Social impact of video sharing websites". See Talk:Social_impact_of_YouTube#Possibly moving (renaming) article. Feedback and suggestions welcomed there. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Youtube partner revenue estimate

I added a revenue estimate ("Assuming pre-roll ads on half of videos (which may be optimistic), a YouTube partner would earn 0.5*$7.60*55% = $2.09 per 1000 views in 2013"), based on figures from sources, which Ianmacm with the justification

> this is not necessary per WP:NOPRICES. It is also not in the sourcing given, and makes an assumption to arrive at the figure it gives

However, I disagree.

> this is not necessary

It is extremely informative to give readers an idea of how much money YouTube partners make, so surely that qualifies as necessary. Most of the referenced New York Times article was about just that. If we are describing an economic marked, we need to tell the readers approximately how much money is involved.

> per WP:NOPRICES

That refers to the section "Sales catalogues". But having a single generic price estimation for a large market is not a sales catalogue. So the "Sales catalogues" policy does not seem applicable here. Disallowing "Sales catalogues" is not the same thing as disallowing any discussion of money quantity.

> It is also not in the sourcing given

It is a routine calculation, based on sourced numbers, which is clearly allowed by Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations

> and makes an assumption to arrive at the figure it gives

The calculation is an upper limit, the assumption is sourced, and the upper limit assumption is clearly stated in our text. Are you saying that upper limit calculations are not allowed in Wikipedia?

Thue (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really necessary because the figure comes from TubeMogul and is a guesstimate by a third party.[14] This is a common situation involving revenues on YouTube. Anyway, it is in the article for the time being.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

182.180.114.177 (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 08:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2014

12:00PM GMT 1:00PM GMT 81.152.176.149 (talk) 11:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

4k videos

Re this edit which says of 4k "However, it was lowered to 2048 x 1536 as of 2012." As of 2014, there are videos playing at up to 2160p vertical resolution, eg here. Not all computer graphics cards will play the 4k videos in their native format; many will only render as far as 1080p or 1440p.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Encoding the videos to HD or 4K using Adobe programs and Windows Live Movie Maker. Uploading it to YouTube with these are exceeding more than 1920 x 1080 may take much longer than lower resolution uploading. Aspect ratio is 16:9 as of my best video screen size as widescreen. --Lt. Allen (talk 06:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Update on hours uploaded per minute

Somebody please update this number, it is not 60 hours uploaded every minute, but 100 hours: http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.231.135.47 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014

Dear creator of Youtube article for Wikipedia may i please edit the article about youtube to help the article. HamishGrimm (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:03, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2014

42.104.14.106 (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit needed: New Audio codec specs

YouTube has updated it's recommended audio encoding specifications, increasing the recommended audio bitrate for all video resolutions. You can use the information at Advanced encoding settings - YouTube Help to update the YouTube#Quality_and_codecs section. E.D.J. Muckenfuss (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

SEXINT

Re this edit. This source mentions YouTube only briefly, and this source does not mention YouTube at all. It isn't a great surprise if the NSA monitors social media sites, but there isn't enough here specifically related to YouTube to make it worth mentioning. This might be more on topic in one of the articles about the Snowden leaks.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Also the second source seem more like a blog then anything else. So its questionable if its WP:RS in the first place. I feel the inclusion is not notable to be warranted. Further more I also agree that it might fit the Snowden article, but I am not an involved editor there, so I would not even be sure about that. NathanWubs (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

• Do not include SexInt content as presently reported. I agree with the IanMacM and NathWubs. The SexInt content is not specific to YouTube or even video sharing websites in general. Ogma's contributions seem to indicate a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, but the content may nevertheless have a proper home—elsewhere. Disclosure: I submitted the 26 Jan 2014 overhaul of this "Social impact" section. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

YT homepage screenshot

Am I the only person who thinks the main video on the homepage screenshot is slightly offputting? George8211 // Give a trout a home! 20:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You could always upload a new one NathanWubs (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is too small to see much detail anyway, but the image was changed.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Recommended Change to Platform Section

Currently a part of the section reads as follows:

YouTube launched its first app for the iPhone, following the decision to drop YouTube as one of the preloaded apps in the iPhone 5 and iOS 6 operating system.[100]

I recommend the following change that is clearer and supports current information. (Changes are in bold but should be in standard font for the article):

YouTube launched its first app for the iPhone, following the decision by Apple to drop YouTube as one of the preloaded apps in the iPhone 5 and iOS 6 operating system.[100] In response Google/YouTube has dropped support for Safari, Apples web browser.

Note: I tried to find a link (preferably internal to You Tube such as a policy statement) to support the above but was unsuccessful. As a Safari user myself I noted the following; the popup began in January 2014 warning Safari users to change browsers and since March/April? 2014 all YouTube search links direct first to a minimized feature version (no talk feature) with a link to the full version in a warning to the right side of the video. Since May 2014 the second link has stopped displaying the talk section also stalling at "Loading" but never completing. The video's run fine.

I suspect this has to do with the current legal battle between Apple and the Android Phone maker Samsung which uses Googles OS.

174.102.151.214 (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If no sourcing can be found, this would be original research. There is also a question of how noteworthy this is if there is difficulty with finding a source. Apple's decision to drop YouTube as one of the default apps for the iPhone received a good deal of coverage in August 2012.[15]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Still trying to find a link about the loss of support for certain browsers but the issues I reported above appear to be technical issues with YouTube and not browser specific. See the following YouTube Support link, the bottom (Other Issues) the last entry (Buttons etc not working) https://support.google.com/youtube/known-issues/16903 174.102.151.214 (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Found the source. The banner has returned for Safari and probably other non-listed browsers. Note the now very limited number of browsers. https://www.youtube.com/supported_browsers 174.102.151.214 (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Youtube Audio BitRates

Hi,

i often see on guitars video "please select 1080p for best quality". But, doing a download test, the sound is alway the same quality at 1080p or 144p : 44100 Hz-125 Kb/s-16 Bits.

So the table of the audio bitrates in the web page sound wrong for me.

What's your opinion on it ?

Cheers, Olivier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.57.205 (talk) 15:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2014

would like to change youtube itag table for HLS, its currently: 234 -aac audio only itag and 229 - H264/ts video only 240p 230 - H264/ts video only 360p 231 - H264/ts video only 480p 232 - H264/ts video only 720p 233 - H264/ts video only 1080p Yossic19 (talk) 08:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2014

<--Functionality of the revenue-sharing Partner Program:--> When a YouTube account holder develops a significant fan base, he or she will attract viewers to the website. The attraction that that particular user brought to the site will make them eligible to apply to become a member of the Partner Program. The Partner Program was designed by YouTube to award popular account holders with a stipend of the revenue that the website earned via the sale of advertisements. Although there are no guarantees that a YouTube partner will be paid, earnings are based on the portion of advertising revenue earned by YouTube from an account holder’s videos, i.e. the more views that a users’ videos have enhances the likelihood of that account holder being paid. With that said, the amount of money account holders earn per 1000 advertisements viewed on their channel is inconclusive. However, on average, the number oscillates between $5-$7 earned per 1000 advertisements watched on an account holder’s channel. But, sometimes YouTube pays users an amount far greater than the aforementioned earnings per 1000 advertisements. The amount of money that a YouTube partner could earn is not specific, but by gaining a numerous following that user will likely be paid.

AmericanGun7 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please specify where you would like this change to be made. --JustBerry (talk) 21:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Social impact

As YouTube started to grow as a site, it became increasingly difficult to distinguish amateur video producers apart from the professionals due to the increased volume of professionally produced content. In hopes to transition more amateur YouTubers into the professional media world, YouTube launched Next Up to hand pick amateur performers and aid them in producing new context to become the “new pros”(5). Next Up would allow aspiring singers, entertainers and more, whom have recorded videos on their webcam in their bedroom, to become “discovered”. The idea of amateur and professional worlds merging is not new. Ordinary people have been able to shape their individual expressive needs by creating videos of imitating their pop idols with parodies, lip dubs and more.

YouTube next up is a six week search for YouTube creators in which YouTube in return can help guide them to creating more successful content. This will help transition from an amateur dominated site to more polished and professional one. The twenty-five contestants of Next Up, each get 35,000 to build their channels in addition to a one-on-one training consultation at YouTube creator camp, as well as promotion for their channel from YouTube.

To apply to YouTube Next Up, creators must be YouTube partners, which are content producers who earn income through their channels. In 2010, YouTube partners generated more than 100 billion views and drew in millions of dollars through the partner program. YouTube Partner Program allows creators to earn money off of their videos through a variety of ways such as advertisement, paid subscriptions and merchandise. Creators also are offered various resources, features, and programs that YouTube offers to them to aid in the success of channel and build audience. The content creators large sustained, persistent audiences have been built through appealing videos, enticing advertisers and therefore monetizing their videos. After certain videos are selected to be monetized, advertisements are placed by their videos for their viewers to see and allowing the creator to earn money.

I advise against this edit request, for reasons just posted to this new editor's talk page: The content you (Snamigohar46) have added (here) to Social impact of YouTube appears to be researched and well written. However, the article focuses on how YouTube has had a social impact outside of YouTube itself. Your added material seems focused on the internal workings of YouTube's NextUp program and is much too long and detailed in that regard. (Maybe such detail belongs in a separate article about the NextUp program, provided it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines: see WP:N.) Also, you sometimes seem to add your own personal and unsourced explanations and editorializations, rather than stick to what the sources say. I wanted to drop you this constructive note here, so you can take appropriate action, rather than go through the material myself. — RCraig09 (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC) RCraig09 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it reads like a press release for NextUp and also has WP:NOTHOWTO issues.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2014

YouTube generates formal occupations through the YouTube partnership, where one can enable their “channel for monetization and videos can earn revenue from ads on YouTube”. If a channel uploads content that is original and advertising friendly, in good standing with YouTube’s terms of service and community guidelines, one can apply for monetization. “Users who join the partner program get 55 percent of advertising revenues…while YouTube keeps the remaining 45 percent ”. The ads placed on the interface of a YouTube video is positioned there by Google’s AdSense, “which runs targeted commercials alongside user-generated video”. There are different types of ads that generate potential income. Cost Per Click (CPC) is when an advertiser pays money based upon how my times a link that is clicked, usually inserted in the description box of a video. The second type of ad is Cost Per View (CPV), which is when an advertiser pays money based on the view count of a video CPV is not based on how many views the video gets, but on how long a user engages with the ad that is typically placed before the actual video plays. If a user watches the ad for at least 30 seconds, advertisers pay the money. Advertisers pay more money to be strategically placed in forefront areas to facilitate engaging, whether it is watching or clicking. Not only do YouTuber’s generate income through ads on their videos, but they can also monetize on their view count. The Multi-Channel Networks (MCNs) are “focused around a vertical and/or demo with large, targeted audiences for programming, distribution, and sales”. MCNs are entities that are affiliated with multiple YouTube accounts, in which they have multiple content creators within their one channel producing videos, to help them with cross-promotion, partner management, and other logistics. The benefit of collaborating with a MCN is that YouTube will ensure that affiliated channels would get paid more quickly without YouTube reviewing their content. MCNs have established their success in cultivating YouTube personalities in one channel and have since appealed to big Hollywood Studios. The acquisition of Maker Studios by Disney and Big Frame by DreamWorks Studios enhances MCNs possibility of the future of film studios. However, once a content partner teams up with a MCN, they do not gain finances through Google advertising. Product placement and sponsorship is a way for YouTubers to gain monetary and physical goods. For example, the beauty industry is partnering with “beauty gurus” and reaching out to them to advertise their product by mentioning their product or utilizing it within their tutorial. High end and up and coming “brands are now jumping on the bandwagon and paying a fraction of the costs partnering with YouTubers who are getting the same amounts of hits as a cable network”. Time commitment of filming and editing YouTube videos is of equal constraints of a traditional job. The ability to distinguish oneself from another YouTube channel and their content helps one’s chances of partnering with a MCN.Dswenceslao (talk) 09:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

==References==

References here

Apparently people are being asked to do this as part of Education Program:University of California, San Diego (UCSD)/Comm 106I: Internet Industries (Spring 2014) The problem is that Wikipedia articles are not coursework essays, and have to be read as part of an encyclopedia article. The above material reads too much like an essay and has a good deal of material with WP:TOPIC issues for this article, which is intended to give an overview of YouTube as a company.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Similar academic submissions under Education Program:University of California, San Diego (UCSD)/Comm 106I: Internet Industries (Spring 2014) have been made to the separate article Social impact of YouTube. I agree with Ianmacm that almost all of the submitted content is not appropriate, especially where submitted. —RCraig09 (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2014

103.17.22.206 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Empty request....72.244.200.233 (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

60 fps videos

This is an interesting development, because it is twice the frame rate of previous YouTube videos.[16] An example is Titanfall here, which (at the HD resolutions of 720p and 1080p) has the crisp, blur-free motion expected by modern gaming enthusiasts. One thing which needs clarifying is whether these videos have a separate fmt value which could be added to the table. Can anyone help here?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

YouTube is a semi-Blocked Ukle Defker (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what is being requested here. Please be more specific. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

GESTATOR

Re this edit: The sourcing given here is thin and unsatisfactory. It does not go into any detail about YouTube, mentioning it only in the context of "popular multimedia websites". I could not find any other sourcing referring to it. There seems to be no real need to mention this here per WP:DUE.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This was only published today. If it is notable, other reliable sources will pick up on it. At the moment, adding the same link to a range of articles is bordering on WP:REFSPAM. I am still concerned that apart from the word YouTube in brackets once in the document, the sourcing here is very sketchy. This needs time to settle down rather than excitedly adding it to every article mentioned in the source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You have to admit, that's a pretty n00bish thing from someone whom claims to be an admin. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2014

pls correct date youtube launchd 2005 NOT 1998 75.74.190.126 (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Good eye. Now restored to previous content (2005 is correct). —RCraig09 (talk) 15:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The launch date is still showing as 1998; 2005 is the correct date

Done again (better this time!). Both "foundation" and "launched" date are now corrected. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

At "YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim posted the question, 'why...", I notice that there is an f-word that needs to at least be turned to f*** in order to prevent religiously offending people. 98.194.29.36 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTCENSORED issue here, because this was the exact wording used by Jawed Karim.[17] This was reported in reliable sources, eg here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2014

"registered users can upload an unlimited number of videos." in the second paragraph at the top of the article should provide a citation W92z123 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The wording was changed, because of the difficulty in sourcing the "unlimited" part. There is no evidence that YouTube limits the number of videos that a user can upload, while the need to sign into an account before uploading videos is easy to source.[18]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2014

69.38.133.34 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Please resubmit your request, detailing exactly what changes you would like made and providing any required sources. Cheers, NiciVampireHeart 17:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Letter "S"

Who put it and why someone put the letter "s" for "https://www.youtube.com/"? Why there is with an "s" having it there? Why it is not "http://www.youtube.com/" (without an "s" anymore)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.77.250 (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

YouTube has had the ability to be accessed via HTTPS for quite a while now.[19] On Wikipedia, it is usual to give the HTTPS address if the option exists, as it provides more security when browsing. However, a person can still access YouTube via HTTP if they want to do this. A user does not need to be signed in to access https://www.youtube.com/ , unlike some websites.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference date

Please fix or remove date of reference #206. 85.243.244.116 (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

•  Done the citation here probably is from late 2010, but it doesn't give an exact date.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Adobe Flash that popular ?

Under Video Technology/Playback, why would i want to know that adobe flash player is one of the most common pieces of software installed on computers ? It sounds like propaganda for Flash, shouldn't be mentioned in an article about YouTube. Holytrousers (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not by choice, many (if not most) online videos would not work on a PC if there was no Flash Player installed. It is sourced here but things have moved on since 2009, particularly with hand held devices which do not always support Flash, for example Apple devices. There is a separate article Apple and Adobe Flash controversy which looks at this issue. As the article points out, it is now possible to use HTML5 to watch YouTube videos, which bypasses the use of Flash.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

it is undoubtedly a (still) very widely present piece of software, i have read the referenced article and indeed the same sentence is paraphrased in wikipedia's article. that's not my point. what i'm pointing out is that this is an encyclopedic article about a web service, youtube. citing technology that it uses, why on earth does this article tell me that that technology is so popular, how does that information relate to youtube ? for a normal reader it's like giving justification or an excuse for using flash ..Holytrousers (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This was removed, for several reasons. The cite from 2009 is now very old, and YouTube now has a HTML5 version which does not require the use of Flash. However, watching the full range of videos and resolutions will still require the use of Flash Player.[20] The figure of 75% of online video is sourced to Adobe itself, which is not ideal. Flash is still the most common format for online video on a PC, as this screenshot from the BBC website shows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

From my recollection, Flash's ubiquity isn't due to technical benefits, it's a DRM issue which is slowly developing due to EME support in browsers and from video suppliers. That said, the only thing I use Flash for these days is Homestuck, so… oh, and incidentally, I wouldn't take the BBC as proof of popularity, seeing as they use to use RealPlayer! Sceptre ^(talk) 23:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

BBC offered a choice of RealPlayer or Windows Media streams up to 2009, when they switched to Flash. Flash has always had its critics, notably Steve Jobs [21] but as of 2015 a person will not get very far with watching online video on a PC unless Flash Player is installed. It is still by far the most common format for online video. I agree with Holytrousers that it is beyond the scope of the article to debate the merits of Flash video, but unless a person opts for the HTML5 version of YouTube (something I suspect that only the tech buffs do), it is likely that the majority of YouTube videos on a PC are watched via Flash Player.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

YouTube doesn't use flash player anymore, but HTML5 player instead | 2015

Just wanted to point out of YouTube's recent change that upgraded from Flash Player to HTML5 for the video player.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.24.88 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article. Google Chrome had already been defaulting to HTML5 for some time, but when I right clicked on a video in Internet Explorer 11 today, it was still playing in Flash. Maybe there is a rollout period.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2015

YouTube is all about videos, channels, upload, share, and watch. Example Sherman (talk) 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Example Sherman: Can't be done, as you haven't said what you want to be changed. —George8211 / T 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Common Criticisms of YouTube Suggested Addition: "Ghosting"

Another common criticism of YouTube is the phenomenon known colloquially as "ghosting." "Ghosting" occurs when a comment (or comments) are still displayed for the user who wrote them but are not visible outside of that user's account. This could happen to a user for a couple of reasons. Their comment could have been marked as spam by a sufficient number of other YouTube users, or the owner of the video could have marked the comment as spam.

The original intention of this practice was to assist in the removal of inflammatory comments, both intentional and unintentional. Unfortunately, this practice can also be used with malevolence. Comments that may exhibit disagreement with a video's content or the majority of the other users in the comments section are often deleted or "ghosted," even in circumstances where the disagreeing comment was not inflammatory in nature, personally attacking someone, or violating YouTube's Terms of Service in any other way.

Owners of YouTube videos have complete authority to remove comments from their videos at their discretion, and users of the same mindset will naturally remove comments that they disagree with. These occurrences are reminiscent of "Hellbanning" and "Groupthink," respectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

As "ghosting" specifically prevents effected users from knowing that their comments were removed from the public eye, it could be considered deceptive. Complaints about and usage of this practice are common in the YouTube Help Forum.

https://www.google.com/#q=ghosting+youtube+site:productforums.google.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark SRAW (talk • contribs) 18:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This would need suitable sourcing to establish notability. It doesn't seem to have picked up much mainstream coverage, and forum threads etc are not a reliable source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggested Addition to YouTube: User Comments - Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

Another common criticism of YouTube is the phenomenon known colloquially as "ghosting." "Ghosting" occurs when a comment (or comments) are still displayed for the user who wrote them but are not visible outside of that user's account. This could happen to a user for a couple of reasons. Their comment could have been marked as spam by a sufficient number of other YouTube users, or the owner of the video could have marked the comment as spam.

The end product of such instances is reminiscent of "Hellbanning."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellbanning

The intention of this practice is to assist in the removal of inflammatory comments, both intentional and unintentional. Unfortunately, this practice can also be used with malevolence. Comments that may exhibit disagreement with a video's content or the majority of the other users in the comments section are often deleted or "ghosted," even in circumstances where the disagreeing comment was not inflammatory in nature, personally attacking someone, or violating YouTube's Terms of Service in any other way.

Owners of YouTube videos have complete authority to remove comments from their videos at their discretion, and users of similar mindsets to the owners will naturally remove comments that they disagree with. As popular YouTube personalities and their fans are in positions of authority over the comments of their videos, the practices of both comment removal and "ghosting," when abusive, are characteristic of "suppression of dissent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent

As "ghosting" specifically prevents effected users from knowing that their comments were removed from the public eye, it could be considered deceptive. Complaints about and usage of this term are common in the YouTube Help Forum.

https://www.google.com/#q=ghosting+youtube+site:productforums.google.com Mark SRAW (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable sources provided to back up addition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2015

thumbnail

82.118.3.78 (talk) 10:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC) thumbnail 9iu

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 10:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

== April Fools 2015 'add music button' There's a button on Youtube videos that 'adds music', music being a small clip of Darude - Sandstorm. 80.195.131.3 (talk) 11:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Might be worth adding this

In this section - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#User_comments - it's mentioned the video announcement of the comments change got loads of dislikes and comments. That video has actually been removed. I think it's worth adding that in. I remember watching the video like a year ago so it must have been somewhat recently removed. Here the reference the statement currently uses - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVGp8Z8Yb28 - 2.102.187.172 (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

URLs section

I have removed the section, added by Hgrosser here. If there is a reliable source for the format of these URLs, then feel free to add it. Epic Genius (talk) ± 01:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This looks like WP:OR and isn't all that notable anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)