Talk:YouTube/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →


Contents

So what will happen?

“ Internet search leader Google Inc. is in talks to acquire YouTube Inc. for about $1.6 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday, October 6, 2006 citing a person familiar with the matter. Mountain View-based Google and San Mateo-based YouTube are still at a sensitive stage in the discussion, the newspaper reported on its Web site. ”

Not "general discussion," but would Google's and YouTube's entire video library be merged into some viral video supersite, or...? This kind of info would probably be important to the article. -- M (speak/spoken) 19:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Google-in-talks-to-buy-YouTube-reports/2006/10/07/1159641563918.html

There's an article for citation. I just don't know how to insert it into the article. BlackbeltMage 03:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I found an article that states that YouTube was purchased for $2.2 billion.[1] Mr. C.C. 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh, that would be Australian dollars considering that the article states it like this: "would pay $US1.65 billion ($2.21 billion)". Gdo01 05:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

New York Times Reports Anti-US Videos

This section needs major work:

  1. References need to be formatted correctly
  2. Text needs to be seperated from links
  3. More sources need to be found that do not include pundits
  4. Comparisons to previous events have to be cited, determined to be applicable, or deleted

I'd apprecite any help on fixing these issues and any I have not addressed for this section. Gdo01 03:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The phrasing is also unclear. Dan Carkner 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I originally included links to the videos in controversy, showing which ones YouTube allowed on the site (snuff films of US and coalition soldiers, the burnt bodies of our troops in Somalia hanging from a bridge while the terrorists danced and pumped their fists in the air...) YouTube has no problem with that being on the site...but they ban the news footage that proves that the terrorists stage media events. They ban the video supporting the US troops showing the immorality of the terrorists actions. I didn't say it like that because I agree wikipedia should be neutral, I wrote something like "the bloggers complained" which is a statement of truth, and some YouTube editor took it all out, leaving in only the references to the New York Times articles. Fine. Now someone else even took out the other NYTimes article, with the reason cited "removing controversial sentence pending provision of supporting citation" when not only did I originally have it all cited, I had linked to the actual videos themselves.

The anti-US pro-jihad slant of YouTube is well known, and now even the NYTimes is reporting it, which is why it was worthy of being posted here (I didn't say it that way of course, as I was being neutral). I simply stated the facts NEUTRALLY and let people figure it out for themselves. Now wikipedia is having the same trouble as YouTube...NEWS FLASH: you can be neutral and STILL tell the truth...there's NOTHING WRONG WITH TELLING A HARD TRUTH. Why is everyone so afraid of the truth? Now wikipedia is going politically correct at the price of the free exchange of information. Fine. Go ahead. Pretty soon everyone will know about wikipedia too. All you people who are supposed to be so liberal are really only liberal and supporters of free spech when it's YOUR free speech and YOUR point of view you want to protect. And that really isn't free speech. You support terror and jihad because Bush is against it. Great societies like ours don't get murdered, they commit suicide. You support terror and jihad in an attempt to be tolerant...well DUUUUUH you should NOT be tolderant of evil. Why waste my time explaining it...you're never going to get it. (P.S. No need to reply, I won't be reading wikipedia or posting here again.)

not bought yet.

Google hasnt bought Youtube yet. They just offically announced that they plan to buy the company soon. No money has changed hands yet. [2] dposse 20:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another source [3] dposse 20:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


I believe they just did: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15196982/&CDP=8618 66.188.70.155 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You're confusing future tense and past tense. If that article said "Google bought YouTube for 1.65 billion", then you would be right. dposse 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
According to the article- they announced the deal Monday, which means that YouTube, unless something hugely catastophic happens, will be bought by Google in the very near future. But for all intensive purposes, YouTube was bought. Just not formally yet. Xlegiofalco 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, and formalities matter. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Google has announced an agreement to acquire YouTube. The acquisition hasn't actually taken place (yet). See their own press release [4]: "Both companies have approved the transaction, which is subject to customary closing conditions and is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2006." Please wait for the deal to close before stating that YouTube "was bought" or "is owned" by Google. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont mess with the history section

Someone keeps deleting the fact that YouTube was just bought by Google. Hey man FACE IT! It's the truth. Besides, my version, is the most comprehensive and gramatically correct. So please don't misuse it.

Like i stated above, YouTube is not bought yet. No money has changed hands. dposse 22:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The name

What does the name "YouTube" mean? --WikiCats 12:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a prediction. We'll all call it GooTube within a week. Inmatarian 16:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hah, called it. www.dvguru.com Inmatarian 03:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • A word for TV - in the US at least. As in Cathode ray tube. --65.25.221.228 01:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You = Your, Tube = TV or Television. Your Television - You control what you watch and see plus control how other people see "your television" program. (but that is just a guess, oh and I like Goobe better which should be pronounced gube) November 14, 2006

YouTube vs. Wikipedia

Google probably noticed their own comparison and took a hint.. Mlm42 15:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Haha very interesting analysis. Thanks !THE KING 01:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Private Company?

Is youtube still considered a private company since Google has bought it? xxpor (Talk|Contribs) 18:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

it is still a private company until the acquisition by Google actuall takes placed, which is expected later this year. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 23:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

New anti-piracy software

I put a small paragraph about YouTubes new requirement that they have to use antipiracy software. Can someone who has more time than me look through the article and expand the paragraph please? thanks. dposse 22:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a brief but important discussion of a branch of this at Talk:Acoustic fingerprint. --Amit 07:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations sloppiness

I've noticed that editors have been lazy and have not been citing references using proper protocol. Specifically, they have not been entering all of the relevant attribute value pairs when adding a ref. Many just enter the URL and leave it at that. These need to be fixed to adhere to protocol. --Amit 07:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur. It would be even better if they could dig up real citations the way I do (with page-level granularity), but 98% of Wikipedia editors are just too lazy. For an example of a properly cited article, everyone should see my work at Lawyer. --Coolcaesar 06:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Site down

n e one know?

perhaps because Google just bought it. yokyle 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Such lameness. The site is back up now. It was probably down to fix something. --Amit 07:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

frequent treasuretrooper.com spam

In YouTube you can find a lot of spam advertisments of a potentialy scam website treasuretrooper.com (and other similar webistes) "that enables (unqualified !) people to earn monthly hundreds/thousands of USD" could spmeone write about how this site works as there is no independent info about it to be found on the net. We can potentialy save many people from becoming a victim of a freud. Mieciu K 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean "victim of fraud" -- or was that a Freudian slip? What, are you like unconsciously anti-Semitic or something? --152.163.100.138 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We are here to write an encyclopedia not to advise fools on how not to be defrauded, SqueakBox 17:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

YouTube's Meteoric Rise -- Deserves a Mention?

Perhaps YouTube's amazingly swift rise should be mentioned in the article -- just think about it...this site was founded in August 2005 (it started in a garage). Barely over a year later (October 2006) it was 'acquired' for $1.65 billion dollars -- talk about a PROFIT for the site's founders! If YouTube's precipitous (even precarious?) rise doesn't say something great about American-style capitalism (and American-style advertising revenue) I'm not sure what does. Here's a good link that possibly belongs in the external links section of the article: Videos that Put YouTube.com on the Map. --152.163.100.138 17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Its meteoric rise, yes. American style capitalism and its alleged superiority? No, that would be original research and POV, it says a lot about the internet and a certain amount about how mesmerised people remain about America but anything in this article praising the US way will be removed, SqueakBox 17:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Emmalina

Following a DRV, Emmalina, an article that was kept once and deleted once by the AfD process and eventually redirected here, has been unprotected, and the possibility of resurrecitng the article is starting to be discussed at Talk:Emmalina. Please give your input. Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it down?

I tried to get on the site, but I couldn't get on. I am wondering if it is down or not?68.164.238.179 18:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No it isnt down, SqueakBox 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Add Google Template

template: Google Inc. --143.182.124.4 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Permenant Semi-Protection

I feel this page could benefeit from being permenantly semi-protected. I have been keeping an eye on this page and it is receiving quite a lot of vandalism. If anyone has a better solution, please say so. SilentWind 23:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think permanent as in forever is a good idea. But definitely for at least a year or so until the current YouTube craze goes away. --Coolcaesar 03:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi.

I could add to this link?

http://www.blogyoutube.com - YouTube Toolbar

Youtube popularity since google obtained it

I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning (yet, at least), but I found the following: [Click here]. It basically shows the correlation between google buying youtube on October 9th and the levelling-out of popularity thereafter. Hmm? Gregh 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well using Alexa and reporting it on a blog is original research so it probably can't be included. Maybe if this becomes more evidant, a news article somewhere will report it. Gdo01 23:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand it's technically not legitimate source of research. But the actual facts and figures are presented and available on Alexa yourself which has proven to be a fairly reliable source of information. I realise that it would perhaps need another month or so to see whether the popularity really has flattenned off. It's perhaps not factual enough to include in a wikipedia article, but I just thought it was an interesting point to make. Perhaps something more factual would be to point out that since google's appearance, FOX, CBS, NBC, ESPN and Comast sports highlights have been removed from youtube. Furthermore, content from UPN, ESPN, MTV, VH1 and more has also been removed. On top of this, some clips from video games and anime. This might be a plausible explanation for the halt in youtube's growth. Gregh 23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You tube player on google home page

There is small YouTube player based on YouTube APIs

http://padmanijain.googlepages.com/myexperiments

You can add it as a Google Gadget also.

vineet

YouTube go down?

YouTube will be down for scheduled maintenance, starting around 9:00PM PDT. Whar does that mean? i saw a message on the main page. KanuT 03:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It simply means that they will be working on the site and during that time the site will not be operating. This means thaty videos can't be added or viewed for a peroid of time. --69.156.204.212 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving up

YouTube.com is now 8th most popular website globally. In the history section it says it is 10th I am writing a paper and just checking facts thought I'd let you all know. Oh and MySpace.com is 5th according to Alexa. Just tring to help the site out. November 14, 2006


Issues with comments on YouTube

I'm wondering if this is a widespread or isolated problem with YouTube's comment system. It seems like most (recently, about 100%) of my comments on YouTube, none which would be any more inappropriate than what the other 75% of YouTube users would post, never make it (yet I still get a confirmation message that it was indeed posted). As far as I know, my account is not flagged for any violations, and is functional in every other way. So, if others are having their YouTube comments being dropped w/o any explanation, it might deserve a mention on Wikipedia. It may just be because of busy servers or heavy usage, I dunno, but you'd think that considering how often YouTube goes down for maintenance, they'd fix this problem... Similar problems include the inability to mix English with Chinese/Japanese (ASCII/Unicode issue maybe?, it was possible about a month ago). Please don't see this as a forum post. Although it may be just my problem, if it happens to affect others, then like I said, it should be mentioned, perhaps under a new "Issues" section. Vindictive Warrior 18:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Embed YouTube videos on Wikipedia?

Hey, so...is there any way to embed YouTube videos in Wikipages? In particular, I'd like to put the VM promo from Comic-Con on the Veronica Mars page. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNuqjuDWngI Thank you! jengod 21:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that youtube use on Wikipedia is usually not for legitimate purposes, I doubt any system will be created to enable this. Gdo01 00:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Lol, no chance, SqueakBox 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Never in a million years. Pacific Coast Highway {Gobble Gobble! • Happy Thanksgiving!} 00:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

uTube to YouTube Redirect

Given there's a pending court case by tube manufacturer uTube aginst YouTube which involves people thinking uTube is YouTube [5] we should probably consider whether UTube should redirect to YouTube. Not because of legal reasons or anything like that, but the whole uTube/YouTube story has gotten me to think about how redirects like this one could actually cause people to think one thing equals the other, which would be misinformation. I hope this made any sense and that you see what I'm getting at! -newkai t-c 05:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed we have an article on Universal Tube & Rollform Equipment, the mentioned uTube above. Thus I would suggest a Template:Redirect-style disambiguation. -newkai t-c 05:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Software and hardware architecture?

What is Youtubes software and hardware architecture? Java? PHP? how many servers? 212.83.71.69 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

update

will someone please continue to update the YouTube and Google articles with the infomation that the YouTube/Google deal closed? Also, please add more infomation from the news article [6] about it. thanks. dposse 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive

Time to archive this talk page? --John Seward 13:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

YouTube has gained considerable popularity in Croatia after the serving minister of interior Ivica Kirin whose ridiculous nonsensical statements from a politics TV show were published on YouTube under the title "Kiro Prosviro" ("Kiro Gone Mad": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1lAU3JXb-U) commented on the video on another TV show by referring to "JuBiTo" (pronounced "you-bee-toh") instead of "YouTube". He also added that those who post on "JuBiTo" have a low IQ unlike him who holds an academic degree. The Croatian internet community reacted by posting his "JuBiTo" comments again under the title "Kiro Prosviro 2: Povratak kralja" ("Kiro Gone Mad 2: Return of the King": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgRedHE2YOk) sparking a response from the mainstream media covering the story resulting in further public embarassement of the minister. "JuBiTo" is now widely known as a sarcastic synonym for YouTube in Croatia and there are even some JuBiTo domains registered (http://www.jubito.net).

Chain Letters

i think there should be a article about the resent chain letters on many videos.--76.18.0.54 05:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

YouTube and Censorship

I suggest we should put in a paragraph about YouTube and their censoring of many YouTube artists. Such evidence is the user 'NickGisburne' who made a video quoting the Quran and had his entire account suspended for simply offending people. Other acts of censorship by YouTube is widely seen.

Get a verifiable source for that unsubstantiated assertion or else your edit will probably be challenged and deleted. See Wikipedia:Verifiability.--Coolcaesar 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You have to remeber that You Tube reserves the right to freeze any account and the fact that, that person offended a bunch of other people should be obviously a big No-No. Though they should have probably givin him/her a warning first on a first offence.setsuka13

Office of Drug Policy paragraph

I really think the ONDCP paragraph is a bit too dailykos for wikipedia. 'Propaganda' is a loaded word, and not particularly neutral at that. Is there a better way to write that paragraph that makes it look less like an incidious plot and more like an encyclopedia entry? Kripto 09:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)kripto

Praising YouTube

This chick Brooker Allyson is probably one of the biggest under-dog that this society has to offer: lost her father while still young; guidance conselor told her she had no chance of success in life; not too bright and works in a resturant (can’t even pay rent sometimes); and not that great-looking. I’d say she caught a bad-break in life.

Yet she’s positive, energetic/hyperactive, and has natural talent of being wacky. And this YouTube technology gave this woman with only a highschool education a gateway to share her only 2 talents and passion (making movies and being wacky) to the rest of the world. The large collection of media she made, after a while, became such a big hit -- entertaining tens-of-millions all around the world -- a talent agent from MTV tracked her down and gave her a job.

From my limited perspective, this YouTube.com technology further empowers individuals with a commanding new-channel of expression in a democratic society. It further deregulated competition in the media and politics of this capitalistics society where patronage and conformity use to reign as gateway-keepers**. Just as Network-Centric-Warfare technology allows our military to tap into individual initiatives, creativity, and local battle-awareness more efficiently, YouTube.com allows this society to further rid of itself the bureacratic and regimental state that many domains of this free nation has evolved into (and are often biased, corrupt, and self-serving). Many politicians who can’t get mainstream airtime are also jumping on this bandwagon.

I think YouTube.com maximizes equal opportunity for all the ordinary folks out there, like you and me and this silly Brooker chick. It is truly an extrodinary technology! I mean, the foundation of this country was built upon such an idea of unrestricted, competence-based, equal-opportunity offered to hardworking and passionate people everywhere. And YouTube.com helped resurrect this principle once again.

P.S. This recent purchase of YouTube by Google in my opinion is a deathblow to Yahoo – wouldn’t recommend shorting Yahoo stock neither.Yahoo lost the global search engine battle due to their inferior algorithm and turned to making technology that will gather local wisdom instead. They developed a similar but unpopular version of YouTube after 2 years of work. Google turned around and just bought YouTube (for a meager 2 billion dollars, from 2 kids still in college), OUCH! This world is cruel, but never-the-less beautiful, I think… wait, this comment is not portable to everything.

Do you people realize that sites like ifilm a)existed before Youtube and b) offered pretty much the exact same service? It's not the technology that made Youtube huge, it's the built-in audience. The reason there is such a large audience is because Youtube makes no effort to purge copyrighted material. They fileter porn, they filter violence, but they leave up clips from SNL, the Daily show, et. al. because that's what brings the visitors. With millions of people on the site, people are bound to get a portion of that audience to look at their home made vids.
I think everyone going ga-ga for Youtube is a bit much. The potential to use the web for self expression has always been there, before youtube even existed. All youtube did was make it easy for lazy peolpe who don't want to learn how to put up their own content on the web to do so. The only thing is, by postsing on youtube, your video might get thousands of views, but Youtube ghets all the web traffic. That's why google gave a billion dollars to the web site owners, not the people who actually make the content on the site.

You Tube is Different

They googlized it! Someone should include this in the article. --TheBooRadley 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions archived

This discussion page was way to big and therefore has been archived. If you want to continue a discussion please copy and paste it into this page from the archive, do not edit the archive. Thanks and sorry for any disruptions this may cause. Martin Porcheron 23:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested Link Update

As there is no information about how to download and convert youtube flash videos i suggest adding the following link to the article:

Worlduser 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This page has discuusion on downlaoding off YouTube and even how to play the vids on a PSP! http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=bestforumever&msg=228.1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Realg187 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Suggestion for Notable

I came to find out about N64Kids after seeing them on a tv commercial. I was surprised not to find them. It should be added to the notable list which would mean starting a new page, which I don't have the proper skills to do. N64Kids has been on Jay Leno and VH1. They have a web site here. JoyceD 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was mistaken; there's an entry here N64_Kid I just updated my email address, though, so I'm blocked from editing the page. JoyceD 04:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Website

The name YouTube may refer to the company and the website. Moreover the article begin saying "YouTube is a popular free video sharing Web site " so I think having an {{Infobox Website}} is not incoherent. 16@r 20:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

yes though when it says youtube.com was founded feb2005, it means the company. the site went online only on nov2005 (according to the article).capi 00:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Due to being in Category:Semi-protected, Category:Wikipedia articles in need of updating, and Category:Articles with unsourced statements. --SeizureDog 15:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

incorrect info in article

"...FlashPlayer 8, which uses On2 Technologies' VP6 video codec, providing a large increase in video quality compared to FlashPlayer 7..." "Without this new technology, it's unlikely YouTube would have taken off as fast as it did."

Youtube video player SWF file is version 7 and the video codec used is Sorenson H.263. It could have been version 8 and VP6, but it isn't. 85.107.157.16 20:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly related, the article mentions an update causing videos not to start. The only such problem I've noticed is it tells me I don't have Flash (though I can grab the video link from the source code and view it), and this seems to be a Flash Player bug, not a site problem. 75.153.221.227 08:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Add to famous youtube users

DCLugi, creator of the Someone Tell Sam Jackson He's My Bro video, gets thousands of views for his videos every week.

Zach Braff has a few posts on youtube, may be worth a mention.

Also out of interest, how come I can't edit this page? Thanks