Talk:YouTube

Edit request from , 22 November 2011

I am proposing an edit to the section called Copyrighted material. At the end of that section, there is a brief mention of the "Video Id" system that is in place on YouTube. That was when it was in beta, and has since evolved into what is called Content ID. I noticed that there is almost no information about how it works or what some of the flaws of the system are. I have procured some sources, and wished to elaborate on the Content ID system more, but as I am not an established user, I cannot make these edits myself. If the edit is allowed, it is my understanding that someone will submit the changes on my behalf which is fine as long as what is put down are my words and not someone else's. Will this be possible? Upon acceptance, I will submit a copy of said edit along with sources for approval. Thank you.

Iguerreroucb (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The article tries to avoid giving detailed walkthroughs of the site's features per WP:NOTHOWTO. Content ID is a system designed to flag copyright violations automatically, and was partly designed to prevent lawsuits like the one from Viacom, as it would be too time consuming to check all of the videos manually. Content ID is not infallible (one of my videos was blocked for allegedly infringing Formula One when it had nothing to do with it) but it does have a generally good track record of avoiding false positives.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It sounds to me like elaboration on Content ID would be a valuable addition to the article, supported by reliable sources, of course. But please be aware that all Wikipedia content can be edited by others, including people who transcribe edit requests. In general, the better sourced and more neutral your proposed addition, the less likely it is to undergo substantive changes. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'll take into consideration the fact that the edit shouldn't be a how to guide, and that at some time, whatever I write may be edited. After I've typed up the information, who should I send it to so it can be glossed over and submitted on the YouTube page? Thanks! Iguerreroucb (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you are inexperienced, perhaps a draft version could be posted here for comments.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the help. Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again guys and girls, I've finished said proposal and I noticed that I now have permissions to edit the article by myself. Regardless, I figured I post the information I've gathered for review before I expand on copyright section. I'm open to edit or removal of some of the content, but I will not be adding anymore.

In 2007 1, Google Inc.’s YouTube began testing on video identification technology in the hopes that if it could identify works posted to YouTube without the consent of the owner, the technology could swiftly remove them. With backing from AudibleMagic’s audio-recognition technology 2, in August Google launched in beta form the YouTube Video Identification tool 3. Upon moving out of beta and into final form, this technology was renamed Content ID as it is known today 4, a technology that allows “copyright holders to easily identify and manage their content on YouTube” 5, whether their content is identified in its entirety or only partially 6.

The Content ID tool works by first creating a fingerprint or, ID file, from content that the owners submit into the system, with content of higher quality and ample length yielding more effective ID Files. These ID files correspond to Reference files which are pieces of content that make up the Reference library, a database which houses copies of content that was given to the system by the owners. Whenever a piece of audio or video is uploaded to YouTube by users, that piece is checked against every file in the Reference library, looking for a match. Should one be found, a Usage Policy is carried out given the preference of the content owner. The three usage policies are Block, Track, and Monetize. A Block will render the uploaded video un-viewable. If Track is chosen, the video will be allowed for viewing on YouTube, with the owner receiving various statistics about it. Lastly, if Monetize is chosen, the video will be viewable but with ads running alongside of it. 5

In 2009, a string of tests which included various tweaks such as reverse playback, resampling, and amplification to the video, “I Know What Boys Like”, was conducted on the tool to gauge its effectiveness. While the Content ID tool was noted for its pervasiveness and ability to pick up various amplification changes, some uploads still managed to get by the tool. 78 That said, while the Content ID tool is effective in matching uploads to the Reference library, the tool is not perfect and is constantly fine-tuned to prevent user uploads from slipping past the system 5. Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This is rather long and detailed. The key points are that the system checks uploaded videos against a database of known copyrighted content. If a match is found, the copyright owner is given several options, such as blocking the video or adding advertisements. The specifics of how the system works have WP:TOPIC issues, and would best be left for a reader to explore in external links.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can shorten the middle paragraph for this then. Ill update it and post back here in a few. Iguerreroucb (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is the shortened version of the 2nd paragraph. Please keep in mind that this edit may seem lengthy, but its a three part edit where each paragraph is a short elaboration on history, the system, and flaws as i proposed. Also, while i have shortened the 2nd paragraph to flow faster and not be so technical, I still briefly mention what each usage policy does because what each one does is a short one-liner with no reference as to how they actually work. This is about as much as I can think to shave off without compromising what I want to say. If anyone can think of anything else, your suggestions are more than welcome.

The Content ID tool works by creating an ID file from content that the owners submit into the system and correspond to pieces of content that get stored in a database to be checked against pieces of audio or video uploaded to YouTube. If a match is found, a Usage Policy is carried out given the preference of the content owner. The three usage policies are Block, Track, and Monetize, where a block renders the uploaded video un-viewable, a Track yields statistics about the video, and Monetize runs ads in conjunction with the video. 5 Iguerreroucb (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm also thinking right now, if you guys think this is too lengthy for the copyrighted section, perhaps I could make a new section underneath addressing content id. Just a thought. Iguerreroucb (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello again all. Since I have not heard back from anyone since, I will be editing the article sometime today with my proposed changes. Also, I will be adding a small section underneath copyright material entitled content id, since I dont want anyone to feel that im going off topic in just that smaller subsection were video id is briefly mentioned. If anyone has any objections, please bring them forward as I would like to avoid as much conflict as possible, and get this edit up right away. Thanks for all the help! Iguerreroucb (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I updated the page, and placed a subsection under copyrighted material entitled Content ID. If any of you feel it may be better placed, please feel free make the appropriate adjustments. Thanks again for all the feedback! Iguerreroucb (talk) 03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This was copyedited and some of the detail moved to the citations. Content ID is worth mentioning because YouTube regards it as a safety valve.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

The video with the most hits on youtube is not 'Charlie bit my finger' its 'Justin Bieber - Baby'

Daniel Gilchrist (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Charlie is the most viewed user generated video (ie uploaded by an ordinary member of the public). The pop videos are premium content on Vevo, which is an offshoot of YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

YouTube for Android

[1] and [2] are basically marketing links and do not meet WP:EL. [3] does not mention Android in detail in the text of the article. YouTube is available for Android, but one cite is sufficient.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think it is relevant to mention YouTube has a native app for Android, do you think it is not relevant? If the sources are the problem I'm sure there are many other to choose from. --SF007 (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

In fact, not only I think it would be relevant to mention it, it would probably be relevant to discuss some of the features of the app. --SF007 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a WP:NOTHOWTO issue here. YouTube is available for most platforms including Android, and there is no need to go into great detail in the article. Details of the app should be left to a suitable external link.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I don't really think WP:NOTHOWTO is a concern as neither is my intention to add "guide-like" material, nor would a list of some features would really fall into WP:NOTHOWTO. I only mention this because Google has really been investing in Android, and as they are both owned by Google, it seems relevant to show Google's focus. A similar situation would be the RealPlayer article, which discusses features of the several editions of the program (Windows/Mac/Linux/Android/etc) --SF007 (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

We also get around 435,000,000 results for "youtube android app", and while google results mean little, it is certainly an indication of the relevance of the app. I also disagree that this and this are "basically marketing links and do not meet WP:EL", while I admit they contain some "marketing" focus, they are pretty much the official pages of the subject, thefore making them appropriate in the light of WP:EL. --SF007 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The two sources [4] and [5] do not meet WP:EL. They are largely adverts and do not say much if anything about how the app works. I looked around for other material about YouTube for Android, and it is mostly tech blog material based on the YouTube launch statement.[6] This is not very detailed either, other than a brief mention of Android.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

From my point of view they clearly pass Wikipedia:External links#Official links, but lets agree to disagree on that. But the main question is, do you think the native app is relevant to be mentioned in the article (I'm not talking about listing features, really just mentioning it exists) Can we at least agree on that? --SF007 (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[7] is the official page for the YouTube Android app, but it is far from ideal as a source. The article says that YouTube is available for Android, and [8] was chosen to source it as it is more detailed than some of the other links mentioned. What is worth mentioning is that in July 2010, YouTube completely revamped the mobile site at http://m.youtube.com/ to make it HTML5 and touch screen phone compatible. This is they key part of the story, rather than the app itself. YouTube is no longer an entirely Flash-based site, as the videos can be accessed without Flash if necessary. The lack of Flash on the iPad was controversial when it was launched, but there is now a realization that Flash is unsuitable for mobile devices. Flash will not be supported in the Metro version of Windows 8 [9], and the Flash plugin for Android is no longer being developed.[10]. Goodbye Flash: YouTube mobile goes HTML5 on iPhone and Android is the source that sums this up most accurately.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'll just write an article about it if/when I have more time and then we just would need an internal link... --SF007 (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

A mention of the Android app was added to YouTube#Platforms, with a couple of more detailed sources.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

New local versions

Uganda and Nigeria were added in December 2011. Ukrainian is one of the new language options, but not a content location.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)