Talk:Video aggregator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Linkspam and non-notable listings[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to list advert-like listings of sample Video Aggregators - particularly ones that have not yet established notability under Wikipedia guidelines. I removed the content once already - which left only the shortest of stubs which was unsourced and redundant to News aggregator#Media aggregators; however, the redirect was reverted, and the non-notable website listings were restored. These listings (using primary sources as "refs" are spam, and need to be removed. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are missing the sources. The links to websites in the text are not sources-- they are external links for further edification. The sources are the PCWorld mag article and the blog at Mashable. (this blog is written by an established internet reviewer (Quantcast estimates several million unique visitors per month to the site) and so is a reliable source. The article follows these sources and the sites mentioned are talked about in them.
I do see that the website mentions do stand out because of the additional wikilinks. I can see how you might think I'm try to promote the sites. I could see getting rid of the redlinks by delinking.
I see you've deleted this again, I'll restore the article less the redlinks. If one wants to delete an article, anyway, nominating it for deletion is the appropriate step. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
The links to the websites meet the threshold of linkspam - they do not serve to expand knowledge of Video aggregator, only to promote specific example companies.
I did see the two sources; they are superficial "reviews" of only a few sentences for each site mentioned. These two articles do not establish notability of the sites, they only establish that the individual authors have different opinions of preferred sites (ie: arbitrary lists). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 06:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Notability refers to a topic's ability to have its own article-- the topic in this case being each of the individual websites. And you are right, notability is not established for the sites via these sources. But that is irrelevant. They can be discussed in the article as reliable sources discuss them. And the sources do discuss these site specifically.
As an aside, I think the reviews are not superficial, but a succinct summary of each website.
The links to the sites expand the article video aggregator by linking to the sites where users can examine examples of different types of video aggregators and better see what they are about. I doubt the summaries completely explain what these sites do and therefore the topic "video aggregator". Diderot's dreams (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to use those sources to mention common content and features of video aggregators, without needing to mention any site by name. That at least would eliminate the linkspam issue.
Yes, Notability is a guideline for establishing if a subject qualifies for it's own article; but it also functions to eliminate lists of arbitrary and non-notable examples within articles.
Take a look at the two refs: http://mashable.com/2007/07/12/online-video-aggregators/ states "We’ve tried out 7 video aggregators" and proceeds to list the seven they arbitrarily tried out. The other source, http://www.pcworld.com/article/128248-13/the_webs_most_useful_sites.html , is a bit better as it attempts to rank the sites; but makes no mention of the criteria or if any sites were reviewed other than the handful they list - which happen to be a completely different set, so the two lists don't even support each other.
Meanwhile, the coverage within each is minimal. The mashable content is a bit better, as it at least reviews the pros and cons of each, while the PCworld article is only a few sentences each giving only trivial mention before moving onto the next site in the article.
As I mentioned, a better solution is to focus on the features that are common, without needing to provide arbitrary examples of non-notable websites. That improves the article content, while avoiding any linkspam issues. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 07:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you that more general discussion about video aggregation is in order-- I have added info about the purposes (there are two I see) of video aggregation. I did this implicitly by the paragraphing of the discussion of the sites, but that is really not enough, of course. It seems to me that the new information balances things nicely. Thanks for the suggestion.
The notability guideline says nothing about limiting examples, mentions, or discussion of article subtopics. It just doesn't and I don't think there is a guideline that does. Hence the depth of coverage is irrelevant. As they are discussed in reliable sources is the limit.
As for which example sites used, I based that on those that appear in reliable sources, especially lauded by those sources, to present the different purposes and methods of video aggregation.
I think you are misreading these sources when you say they arbitrarily chose the sites they discuss. The Mashable author specifically says they tried out seven new aggregators with different approaches to video aggregation. They were not chosen arbitrarily, but to show the types of new aggregation sites. The PCworld article doesn't rank the sites listed, they were chosen as "best in their class", of video aggregators, by knowledgeable internet journalists. The entire article, spread over many pages, is about the best web sites on the internet. Being in this type of article is a sort of award, and so these sites would be excellent examples.
To not use examples would detract from the article by making it less interesting and readable, even if they were arbitrary choices.
If we were dealing with an article that is not discussing a website class, I would think an inline external link was inappropriate. But any individual video aggregator discussed in reliable sources could be discussed in depth here because they are a part of the topic "video aggregator". And since that in-depth coverage is appropriate in this article, an in-line external link is appropriate for further information. Best. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In-line external links are not appropriate - per WP:EL, "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." I see no extraordinary reason to make this article an exception. The commercial links are not needed as refs, as they are primary sources and are by definition self-promotional. While the links to each site would be appropriate within an article about itself, they are not appropriate within an article about the general category "Video aggregator". The in-line links simply do not belong within the article - they are linkspam.
On the sources, the Mashables site only states that they tried seven, then proceed to list them with pros and cons. Any assumption that they were specifically selected by anything other than arbitrary is original research, not supported by the source. Contrary to your claim, the PCworld site does rank the sites listed, clearly labelling in bold a "Winner", two "runner-ups", and some "also-rans", and does so with extremely brief and trivial mentions of each - passing mention of a few sentences. These sites are not established as notable for being the first with certain features, or the any other notable claim. And the two sites don't even support each other on their lists. At least if there were some overlap, that could help establish a site as being covered in multiple independent reliable sources. Instead, we have arbitrary and trivial mentions. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 05:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I just think it is an sensible exception to include the links, and next to the sites. WP:EL says common sense should be used as well as the guideline, and all guidelines admit sensible exceptions by definition.

I think it's clear from the text below in the first paragraph of the Mashable article:

A new breed of video aggregators is emerging, and they’re trying to help you organize all the bits and pieces from various video sites into something a bit more coherent. We’ve tried out 7 video aggregators with quite different approaches to see what they’ve got to offer.

that the author chose these sites to present because they were quite different from each other, had different approaches. And that's why I chose them for the article (except the 2 that are defunct) to explain different approaches used to video aggregation. In any case the article makes no claim that these are the only methods available, and so it is not original research.

It seems we are not closer to a solution. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. Diderot's dreams (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, we're at an impasse. Per WP:DR, I went ahead and posted at WP:ELN#Video aggregator to request additional comments regarding the external links. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If an organization is sufficiently notable, there will be an article: link to that article; no external link. Otherwise, why mention the organization? This article has very little encyclopedic content, and is essentially just a list of external websites. That approach is contrary to the purpose of an article. Further, having "example" websites is an open invitation for passers by to promote their site, which is contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Johnuniq (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY[edit]

Barek has asked for other opinions at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard. I think that is a smart move, although my experience is that the editors who tend to respond at the Noticeboard tend to favor minimizing external links (I had a bad experience with an editor who wanted to delete a second official link - I finally resolved the issue by deleting the first official link). While I do not like unofficial external links (in my experience, they are prone to abuse), I'd like to offer the following comments:

  1. Barek, this is a stub article, but Diderot's dreams should be given some time to develop it before there is discussion of deletion or redirect, etc. I'm sure there must be WP:COURTESY, whatever (I did a quick check and it redirects to WP:CIVILITY, one of the five pillars).
  2. Diderot's dream, I don't like in-line external links. I'd rather see you mention the video aggregators by name, but without a link (with the only references your two sources). Previously, I would have put all the external links at the end of the article, so interested readers could investigate further. However, there was deliberate abuse on the article I have been working on and it seemed best for that article to confine external links to the official site. Anyway, for a developing article, I think it would make sense to include these links for now (with the understanding that this might change if there is abuse) at the end of the article.
  3. This is just my two cents, but I was interested in the subject once I stopped being distracted by all those inline external links. I hope this helps. Vyeh (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree - this is not a WP:COURTESY issue. I fully respect Diderot's dreams opinions on the issue, and believe that I acted respectfully in the course of our discussion. I may not agree with Diderot's dreams position, but please do not confuse disagreement with lack of civility.
If you review the history, you'll find that my initial edits explained my reasons in the edit summaries - the first edit removed what I viewed as linkspam [1], which left content that was fully redundant to News aggregator#Media aggregators, which is why my second edit changed it to a redirect.
At this point, Diderot's dreams reverted back to the initial version with the edit summary "please discuss on talk page"[2], but did not make any post to explain a reason not to view the additions as linkspam. As no explaination was provided, I then restored the redirect [3], and initiated the talk page discussion by spelling out my reasons in more details. Diderot's dreams then restored the content again [4], and provided a reason in the reply to my talk page discussion[5].
I have made no further edits to the content of the article - accepting that reasons were now provided beyond a desire to simply spam links, I proceeded to discuss the links - and I believe we both took the other's position on good faith. One result of the discussion was an improvement by Diderot's dreams to insert summaration of sample feature content. [6] However, we remained at an impasse on the external links. Per WP:DR, the main two options available to us at this point were either WP:DR#Ask_for_help_at_a_relevant_noticeboard, or to WP:DR#Ask for a third opinion. As a relevant noticeboard existed, I chose that path. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. You have acted in good faith, especially in seeking a third opinion. I'd like to hear from Diderot's dreams, but as long as you are willing to discuss your actions, you are being courteous. Vyeh (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to advertise. I thought the above discussions had made that clear. A paragraph which solely states traffic of three sites is clearly advertising those three sites. Claiming that stats that are bot generated establishes notability is clearly false, while the sites are reliable sources, any interpretation of what those stats represent is data analysis/synthesis, and falls under original research. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 02:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. An article should be based on what an independent, reliable source has said, in an article focused on the topic (see WP:SECONDARY). Editors should not extract statistics from individual sites and present it as encyclopedic information. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the above interpretation is going too far. Wikipedia favors secondary sources (an article with only primary sources fails the notability requirement); however, assuming siteanalytics.compete.com and www.quantcast.com are reliable sources, they would be secondary sources. While I do have problems with the following sentence being original research (WP:OR): "Prominent video aggregation sites include vodpod.com, mefeedia.com and videosift.com," I think statistics do have a place in WikiPedia. Vyeh (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Vyeh, I think we're essentially agreeing on the core issue ... although I agree that I may have been too insistant on my statement/interpretation of it being advertising.
We both seem to be agreeing that the text added was original research. The sources used certainly have a place in Wikipedia; as I mentioned above, the sources are reliable sources. However, their use here was the issue - as those statistics were being interpreted/synthesized in order to justify the claim of prominence. --- Barek-public (talkcontribs) - 17:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Barek, I think we are in agreement. If there were a RS that said vodpod.com, mefeedia.com and videosift.com are prominent video aggregation sites," then we wouldn't have the issue of OR, but merely citing traffic isn't enough. For one thing, we don't know what is the traffic at sites other than the three mentioned. If there is a reason to include particular sites in the article, then a properly sourced discussion of them would be okay, although the danger in mentioning specific names is that it might encourage in-line external links, which I am sure you know, WikiPedia discourages. Vyeh (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, I have unfortunately been busy. Despite the length of time that has passed, I would like to begin to reply to the comments made here.

First a point and a question. I actually did check many others from a list of video aggregators, which I've added to the article as an EL. I ignored those sites which seemed to be mostly video hosting (like YouTube). Sites over 150,000 US monthly visitors I listed specifically as prominent. I didn't feel like adding a bunch of citations for the others that had less traffic. If these citations were included, would there still be objections as original research? Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If that list is a reliable source, I think it would be fair to say "There are 70 video aggregator sites. (citing "Definitive List of Video Aggregator Sites, etc."). In August 2010, the following have over 150,000 U.S. monthly visitors: (list them with individual cites). In August 2010, the others on the list have fewer than 150,000 U.S. monthly visitors (and just a single cite referring to your statistical analysis site)." I am concerned about the characterization of "prominent" as you have made a judgment about 150,000 as the cutoff. I don't think it is necessary to list 60+ cites for the ones below 150,000. The purpose of WP:V is to allow another editor to verify and I think the purpose is satisfied with a single citation for the ones that don't meet the cutoff. Vyeh (talk) 08:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Marketing-jive is a blog, but a professional blog by an internet marketer. It is part of their business to be a knowledgable of the where and who of video aggregators. And they are not new as they were founded in 2006. So I think this is a blog by a knowlegeable expert (non-amateur) and qualifies as a reliable source. However, the list is 3 years old, and this is a rapidly changing field, (for example the list omits the 3 aggregators I listed before as "prominent").
Which leads me to an error I made in my previous comment. The Marketing-jive list is not, as I thought, the list I went through to find the "prominent" sites I added to the article. That list, I can't seem to find again. So clearly I shouldn't say anything about who is prominent. I just don't know, and thanks for questioning it. So instead, I've created a table of those aggregators that have more than 500,000 U.S. monthly unique visitors, going through the Marketing-jive list and including VodPod from the previous list. But note I don't claim this table to be complete, and I'm not going to say that most aggregators have little traffic, either.
But the number of aggregators I found with 500,000+ unique visitors turns out to be a quite a few. Video aggregation is clearly a big deal, and I think the article is just getting into it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I found the original list [7]. Diderot's dreams (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the updates; I agree that this is a much more neutral means of identifying those to list. I would personally prefer a higher threshold to be on the list of 1,000,000+ unique visitors; but I won't debate or press the issue.
I would suggest wikifying the names of the sites on the list. Several (but not all) have pages on Wikipedia - under vaiations of their name (several drop the ".com" extension for the WP article name), and internal links would be useful for those who want extended information on any group listed - and redlinks are fine, as it just identifies pages that are in need of research to find enough reliable sources to support the additional articles. --- Barek (talk) - 20:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)