Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube

See also: Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 2

Comments

The contents of this page have been moved to the project page to allow this page to be used to discuss the proposed guideline. --Spartaz 11:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made some amendedments. Feel free to disagree. --Spartaz 11:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This entire essay is misguided and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of YouTube's business model. Much network broadcast material is being directly published on YouTube through numerous partnership arrangements with major media networks, broadcasters, music publishers etc. YouTube is being used by these copyright holders as an annex to their official sites and/or a direct publishing platform. There is no reason not to link to this sort of authorized content. The person who wrote this needs to get informed by reading the previous discussions on the topic at WP:EL. --JJay 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

"The exception would be if a respected organization or a well known expert officially used such a site to disseminate their videos." ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's wonderful. This entire overly-long essay can be summed up in one line: Don't link to material that infringes copyright. As such, it is already covered by a number of existing policies/guidelines and this page should be deleted. --JJay 20:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well there has been a major debate about this and a lot of heat generated and apparantly there is a widespread view that its not as simple as you state. Personally I tend to agree with you but if we need to build consensus on this point we need to talk through the issues. --Spartaz 21:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, there's a lot of verbiage below, but JJay's summary is absolutely on the money and does the job as far as I'm concerned: Do not link to material that infringes copyright is neat, unambiguous and prudent. As such, I advocate this as the final version. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been talked to death at WP:RS, WP:EL (where I actively participated) and elsewhere. We do not need 100 lines on YouTube (or any other site for that matter) because YouTube does not merit any particular or special attention. To rephrase my previous statement, if a video at YouTube does not violate existing policy including copyright and adds something as an EL it should be linked. --JJay 21:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube and related discussions

YouTube 1

The recent change to the EL guideline re YouTube is in conflict with copyright policy. Barberio's Nov 3 statement:copyvio links are already forbidden, and it isn't a specific problem with Youtube but with all publicly contributed sites is correct. The means already exist to delete copyvio ELs, per copyright policy. YouTube is not a prohibited source, and claiming on EL that YouTube should not be added is confusing and incorrect--the current EL policy has merely created a fraudulent technicality for the deletion of YT links on a grounds other than cr violation--simply because they are external links. The wording should be changed back so that it's in alignment with V and C, which do not strictly prohibit YouTube. Any YouTube link which is a cr violation can already be dealt with under C--deleting them under EL and referring editors to the EL page does nothing to educate people about how to judiciously use YouTube--it just erroneously informs them that YouTube should not be linked; it doesn't explain under what terms YouTube can be linked. Explanations of the terms under which YouTube can be linked are explained at C, V, NOR (and RS). Cindery 05:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed specific mention of YouTube to address the concern that YouTube might specifically be targeted for removal even when properly copyrighted. --Barberio 00:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all specifity to brandnames of sites, and clarified that licensing is the issue. I agree with Cindery that this change was targeted to Youtube and that that sort of thing (targeting a type of site) must never be done. It goes against the very core of wikipedia. Any content which gives a clear license, including Youtube, Flickr or any other is fair game. And even sites which do NOT should be handled under copyright, NOT as an exception here. Wjhonson 08:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Since Jossi does not want to discuss, I've gone further, and completely removed all reference to the copyvio issue, which does not belong on this page whatsoever. Wjhonson 18:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

If licensing is the issue, then that needs to be made more clear and cannot have a blanket negative view of YouTube or any other site. Licensing is an issue not specifically reserved for YouTube, it affects all webpages without exception. YouTube must not be treated as a special case. Wjhonson 18:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube 2

As per discussions in WP:ANI:

1. The source and legitimacy of the videos on YouTube are almost or totally impossible to determine, hence they are not reliable sources and are not verifiable (A key requirement).
2. Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Wikipedia
3. Since many videos are personally made, they represent original research, which Wikipedia is not in the buissiness of publishing. They may also be biased in their presentation of material.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you chose not to respond to my comments on the matter, I'm copying it here to your new thread. Let's take a closer look at one of these sites: YouTube. Besides the masses of home videos and the like, YouTube also hosts an enormous amount of authorized content for major media companies as part of negotiated agreements or other types of partnership deals. NBC is an example [1], but there are many, many more. YouTube is not violating copyright by hosting material placed on its site by the publisher and we would not violate copyright by linking as specifically authorized under wikipedia policy [2]. Given this context, your concerns regarding WP:V are not relevant. Considering that we do articles on many of the TV shows, stars or other media phenomena that may be covered by the authorized content, an external link to YouTube may be warranted in certain situations. That is just one small example of when a YouTube EL may be necessary. Another is when YouTube content itself gains enough prominence to justify an article at wikipedia. For example, Lonelygirl15 can not be treated in any serious way without linking to the YouTube content. In short, given the many, many valid exceptions and the rapidly shifting nature of the internet, blanket bans on specific sites are always a bad idea and should never be included in policy. --JJay 00:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow editors to add original research, but external links certainly do. If Madonna and George Bush do a music video and place a copy on Madonna's official site, we can and should link to it. The criteria for editors working on the Wikipedia itself certainly are not the same as the criteria for linking to other websites. External links can have original research, or point of view, or other things that our edits here can not. 2005 01:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with User:2005, except that in the example given we would not be dealing with original research, but rather with primary source material roughly in the context of Point 2 of "What should be linked to" of this guideline. The entire discussion here on "original research" is off base. --JJay 01:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Creating original work is original research, but I should have said the video was placed on YouTube, but was linked to from both from Madonna's official site and whitehouse.gov. This valid external link would be original research and a Youtube link that would be clearly a non-copyvio one. 2005 02:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is not about authorized content uploaded you YouTube, such as those videos uploaded by movie studios, record labels, and news organizations, but about all other content (that makes the bulk of YouTube) that is uploaded by individuals. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. The discussion is most definitely about authorized content (and thanks for finally recognizing that authorized content exists, after the mispresentation in your point 1 above). Non-authorized content, i.e. copyvio clips (which YouTube actively removes), and insignificant home videos are already fully covered by the EL guideline. Given that YouTube (and other sites) acts as official host for a full range of authorized content, it can not be listed as a site that "should not be used". As I have explained, there are definite times when it should be used to link to material released by publishers.--JJay 02:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You could have avoided the use of "wrong". If it is wrong explain why and leave it at that, OK? So, If there is agreement, then the guideline needs to spell out when it is permissible to link to video sharing sites rather than be ambigous about it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears you were misunderstanding a combination of things. Authorized content is allowed by the guideline; content with no clear copyright clearance is not. You were adding text that prevents any YouTube stuff from being linked, and that is plainly wrong even give your own comment, so maybe we just need to move on here. Authorized content can be linked, something with no clear rights can not. Okay? 2005 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree again with User:2005. The guideline and other policies fully cover the issue. We don't need another line that says don't link to copyvio videos, don't link to stupid home movies and don't link to someone's partisan video. --JJay 03:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

You can look at this is way: If a person uploads a video to a blog or a personal home page, that is not an acceptable page to link to as per guidelines. So, my argument is that the fact that is in YouTube or Google Video, does not make it more linkable. On the contrary. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No one has argued that a personal video becomes "more linkable" due to YouTube hosting relative to a blog. The situation is identical and is already covered by the EL guideline. However, your argument in no way justifies a complete ban of named video hosting sites as you have tried to impose. --JJay 02:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

More straw man arguments? I never discussed a complete ban of video hosting sites. Mybe the wording was not perfect, but the intention was to make it clear that linking to content that is not verifiable and that the copyright status is questionable should be avoided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Rather than strawmen, your edits speak for themselves- "should not be used" etc. [3]. I would also remind you that verifiability and copyright issues are already extensively covered in the guideline. --JJay 03:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have already explained in the long NOR thread, at ANI,and at the J.Smith YouTube deletion project page here are examples of exceptions:

1. Imelda Marcos--a short fair use clip of a political documentary
2. Barrington Hall--a 1988 8mm film digitized and uploaded to YT for accessibility/storage--only known film of no-longer existing murals
3. Joshua Clover--YT video of the poet reading at the Bowery Poetry Club
4. International Fair Trade Association--short fair use clips of a nonprofit org
5. Brent Corrigan--original art/trailer of film featuring the subject

There are also the hypothetical examples of the many films which are legally in the public domain due to expired copyright, and which could be YouTubed for stable storage and easy access--Krazy Kat, all the Max Fleischer cartoons, Alexander Nevsky--and hundreds more... Cindery 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(ed conf)Another example that relates to WP:NOR: An editor wants to add OR to an article, as that is not permissible, the editors creates a blog on Blogger.com in which he places the OR. That link will probably survive for a short time before being deleted, if at all. The editor then, creates a slideshow or home video, ripping videos from air TV broadcasts and creates a pieces of OR designed to advance a specific viewpoint, and uploads it to YouTube. Would a link to that video be permissible? Of course not. So, unless video material (or any other material for that matter, is placed online by a reliable/reputable source, link to to that material is not permissible as per WP content policies. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The examples above may be very well exceptions. The vast majority (I would not exaggerate if I say 99% of the links) are not in that category. So, the burden to argue for the addition of a link should be on editors adding that link. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

99% is a gross exaggeration, per the mass-deleters highest (and biased/unscientific estimate it's 90%); the big copyvio prob is music vids, and if music vid copyvios are a huge problem C should be updated to expedite their removal. "Burden to argue" depends--delete pre-emptively by bot with prejudice and under EL and leave editors confused about what, where, or how to argue? No. Discussion by editors on talkpage with respect for editorial process? Yes. As Jodyw pointed out, even if 90% of the links in general are problemmatic at present, no one link is 90% in particular problemmatic. Editors do contest any and all questionable info in articles--there is no need to pre-emptively delete YT links by AWB without clear evidence of copyvio. In stubs or little-edited articles, perhaps a note could be placed requesting GDFL verification (but again, unless there's a material copyvio issue, GDFL extremely unlikely to be an issue, as self-published YT largely public domain or fair use). Banning YT or going overboard on deletionism is censorship and a gross disrespect for the editorial process (which is the only way to determine which self-published YT links are legit/useful links or sources).

Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...some problems with your problems, below: 1. Imelda Marcos likely and arguably fair use per substantiality; fails nothing prima facie. Obscure political doc for which the author may very well be happy to get exposure. Not a justifiable deletion--something to query on talkpage and submit to editorial process, in absence of any complaint. Same for "POV"--could be POV insufficient. Anything could be POV. And then of course, NPOV is not the elimination of viewpoints. Per EL, it would have to tip over the balance of the links egregiously to one POV, and then it still wouldn't be a prob inherent to the video. 2. Good luck contesting Barrington Hall! (you don't seem to have examined it closely, watched the film, or seen the original link, included in article and mentioned on talkpage. Credit for Clark at the end of the film. Location verifiable per all the sources in the article, including matching photos, and all the editors. Year part of the title.) Cindery 03:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Some problems with the some of the examples:

1. Imelda Marcos documentary -- (a) Selective selection of a documentary to assert a POV; (b) lacks description of source, author and who owns the copyright so it fails fair use doctrine. Could be removed as violation of WP:COPY.
2. Barrington Hall unverified OR. The statement "A film my brother Clark (now a video editor in Albuquerque) and I made in 1988 about the murals, graffiti, and general ambiance of the late great Barrington Hall co-op at UC Berkeley" is not verifiable (who is Clark?), the date is not verifiable, and the location is not verifiable. Could be removed as violation of WP:V

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And you seem to be proving my point that video ELs are not a special case, but are instead adequately covered by existing policies and guidelines. There is a really strange policy creep going on here where people are copying entire sections of policy into the EL guideline, or want every single specific site on the internet to be named and have a full list of what can and can't be done. The guideline is not meant to be a directory of good sites and bad sites. A certain degree of common sense is required from editors --JJay 03:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

We are in violent agreement, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't noticed any violence. Stubborn agreement maybe. --JJay 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a figurative form of speech. Yes, we are in agreement, common sense and the good judgement of editors is always needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube2 - another arbitary section break to facilitate discussion

Comment: As the person who started this mess, I appreciate contribution stalking. I make an attempt to judge what is a clear copyright-vio and what is not and I don't mind it if someone points out when/if I'm wrong. (As far as I know, I haven't been wrong yet)

Comment on policy: I'm the one who originally added YouTube as an example. I did it because YouTube was a particularly large problem. (4000+ links, with the overwhelming majority copyvio) Should YouTube be singled out? No. I don't mean that it shouldn't be used as an example, but the policy shouldn't be built around preventing YouTube. Ideally, the policy/guideline can be written in a way that there is no doubt when a link is acceptable or not with out needing to make a list of the dozen or so classifications of websites.

Comment on YouTube acceptability: Well, YouTube is particularly a bad source in most cases. In a political article I was editing someone linked to copies of a debate that was hosted on YT, and was using it as a source. At first glance that seems like a useful external link... and it really is. It's quite useful to be able to talk about a debate and then SHOW them the debate. But usefulness isn't the only concern. How could I know if the video was accurate? If I can't be sure it's accurate then how I can ever use it to verify anything? The answer is... I can't. Now, there are some cases where the up-loader is known and is reliable, but that is the exception and not the rule. ---J.S (t|c) 12:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• All your points are pretty reasonable, but the guideline already covers in great depth the issue of not linking to copyvio material. Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out. That was a mistake that raised tension on this sensitive and frequently protected page. We should not be naming specific sites in the guideline because it leads to acrimony and edit wars between anal-minded link patrollers, rather than careful consideration of the link in question by editors directly involved in editing specific articles.
• YouTube can be a great source in some cases - in fact, the best source for authorized video (NBC, CBS, Sony, Universal, Warner, NHL, etc)- and is actively working to prevent copyvio material [4]. In addition, many of the content deals allow any user to upload intellectual material from the partner, with the partner company responsible for authorizing or removing the content. The situation is rapidly evolving, but there is still very deep misunderstanding among a certain group of wikipedia editors concerning YouTube. With Wikipedia lacking video capabilities, links to video and other media can greatly enrich the utility of articles for readers.
• Your point about verifiability is noted, but that is a different issue. As with any reference, the validity and suitability of references need to be worked out by editors of a given article. When we link to referenced articles located on third-party sites, how can we really know those articles are fully accurate? Editors need to remember that external links are not references. We are merely pointing readers to sources of additional information (within the strict parameters of this guideline), not vouching for the integrity of the content, which we can not control. -JJay 13:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube, as is the case with all other similar sites, is subject to the provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act - YouTube deletes videos that are found to be in copyright violation, and increased dilligence thereto is occuring as a result of the Google acquisition. Individual videos on YouTube should be regarded, as is evidenced above by the assertion provided by the uploader, as not being in violation of copyright until otherwise deleted. Wikipedia should not serve as an arbitrary decision maker on the issue of YouTube copyright - as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content. Such content is completely appropriate. The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link, which is wholly inappropriate. Especially in the area of music, YouTube can be an excellent illustrative resource which is miles better than Wikiepdia's 30 second ogg clip. Tvccs 19:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Right now the vast majority of content was uploaded before YT became more careful about copyvios and two concerns come to mind. A) we need to follow Wikipedia policy not YT policy on copyright and they are not necesserily going to be the same and b)how can we be confident that all the existing content we are linking to is legal and compliant with the DMCA? Spartaz 19:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Even you agree that YouTube and other sites should not have been singled out." - Not true. Thats not what I said. We had a massive number of copy-vio links and at the time awareness needed to be raised to the issue.

"The result of this discussion is that some editors are bascially running amok deleting every YouTube link" - You clearly don't understand what we are doing. We are not deleting every YT link. We are reviewing each befor deleting and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links. "as many artists, including some I know personally, are using YouTube to distribute their own content" - Thats why I skip over those links. ---J.S (t|c) 19:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"Should YouTube be singled out? No." Your words, not mine. I have no problem with raising awareness of the issue. I do have a problem with the attempt to change this guideline without talkpage discussion or consensus. I also object to the confrontational approach that seems to be the rule among those who see themselves as self-annointed link removers, rather than collaborative editors. --JJay 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

"and deleteing those that are clearly copy-vio links" - The discussion I'm having with spartaz implies otherwise. The Katana link is not obviously copyvio. It might be, but I'd guess not. His edit summaries strongly imply that there's a blanket "delete all youtube links" policy, which even you're saying there is not. (The summary is the worst part; an occasional mis-guess of copyright status is one thing, easily corrected - but asserting in thousands of pages via summary that all youtube links should be banned, even if he didn't mean to, is another. And the summary implies there's no need to review the links, and therefore that they haven't been reviewed.) jesup 20:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am looking at at least two pages I have added YouTube links to and EVERY YT link is being deleted - the assumption is that the material violates copyright, and editors here are assuming the role of copyright holders, which is inappropriate. YouTube and the DMCA have a legal mechanism for dealing with this issue and that is the mechanism that should hold, not arbitrary self-appointed copyright protection by Wikipedia editors, no matter how well-intentioned. If the editors here think YouTube content violates copyright, they should be contacting the copyright holders and alerting them as such, instead of deleting material based on their own judgements and assuming material is guilty until proven innocent, especially in the arbitrary means done here. It is also specifically NOT required that copyright holders posting to YouTube post a specific legal copyright disclaimer on their posts, that need is covered in the posting agreement, and no Wikipedia editor can know the actual copyright status of any given video, they can only assume, and ASSUME is a well-known acronym for making mistakes. It should NOT be a policy for Wikipedia editors to assume the role of copyright holders and make arbitrary judgments, period, there are so many better things to spend time on that need work. Tvccs 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And here's a direct example of exactly what I am talking about - Derek Sherinian. This is the most grotesque example yet of a YouTube removal I've found. A link was removed for a video that was shot specifically for YouTube and was announced as such at the head of the video in front of the interviewees. Permission was granted by the interviewees for the interview to appear on YouTube, and yet the link [5]was removed per the new "policy". Furthermore, the artist in question is personally known to me and wanted said link to appear. As I have indicated on the discussion page, this new "policy" on YouTube is ridiculous, and allows editors, as I exactly indicated prior, to indeed run amok. Tvccs 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

<deindent> I just reviewed the deletion. The loss of that link does not really affect the article - how many interviews do you want linked to there? There are far too many links on that article. Your comments imply that the subject of the article wants to control the content. That's not how we do things here and I don't think thats a valid argument. I didn't delete the link but I'm guessing that the admin who deleted it properly reviewed it. Instead of making accusations here, have you actually raised it with him and sought his commments? --Spartaz 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the last comments by Tvccs (NB: the similarity in our usernames is total coincidence - we do not know one another). Articles are being distorted by perhaps well-meaning editors' wholesale removal of YouTube links, even when they are central to the text in an article, in the reference section, used as citations for facts. I just saw an instance where a You Tube link that provided objective verifiability was replaced with a {{fact}} tag - well, the YouTUbe video was the citation, so now the article is tainted with an "unsourced" tag, for no reason because the source exists and is clear. This has gotten out of hand, and needs to be reined in. We should let You Tube monitor itself - as they do - they are quite aware of copyright issues and constantly take steps to maintain the integrity of their site. We need Wikipedia editors to stop zealously, arbirtrarily and somewhat mindlessly, cleansing Wikipedia of all such links as if they were poison, throwing "WP:EL" into edit summary after edit summary clearly without any reason other than the "you tube" URL. You say this is a "guideline", yet editors are treating it as a sixth pillar. There is indeed much more important work to be done here. Tvoz 03:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think we can simply leave YT to monitor this. If a link is an obvious copyvio it has to go. What would be much more useful would be showing us examples of links that are acceptable so that we can understand where we need to draw the line. At the moment we seem to be generating more heat than clarity with this discussion and I'd like to more forward constructively. Instead of complaining, please can you provide examples of incorrectly deleted links with an explanation of the reasons why. This would be extremely helpful and constructive. Spartaz 05:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I would argue that you are positing yourself as a self-appointed guardian, and ultimate judicial arbitrator of copyright, which you and others of like mind should refrain from, when the Digital Millenium Copyright Act exists specifically to deal with this issue. You do NOT have infinite knowledge of what is and isn't a copyright violation, you simply assume you know, and making those assumptions leads to exactly the kind of deletions I cited above, which were and are simply absurd. The amount of deleting going on by editors on Wikipedia is getting totally out of hand, denigrates the project as a whole, and discourages legitmate contributors who find their considerable efforts flushed by people who seem far more interested in removing content than improving it - this is yet another example, as I stated earlier, of editing run amok, and is wasting hundreds, if not thousands of hours of Wikipedians time and energy trying to revert, or deciding to revert, this type of content attack. Tvccs 06:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

And I just found your prior comments - the artist in question specifically does not control the content, I simply have the luxury of making sure items such as the one in question are legitimate and useful, as well as access to images and other material he has chosen to provide - and although you are entitled to your opinion as to how many links are "appropriate", it shouldn't be done under the premise provided - you asked for an example of an incorrectly deleted link, and I had already provided it - and as to the person who removed the link (it wasn't an admin), if you'd checked my user contributions, you'd have seen I did indeed address the issue on his discussion page. Again, I totally disagree with those users who want to assume the role of copyright judge for YouTube content, time and effort would be far better spent on constructive additions rather than arbitrary deletions. Tvccs 06:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

After having read much of the ongoing discussions here and on the userpages of the mass-deleters Dmcdevit, J.smith, Spartaz, and Rory096, I would like to hear their answers to the following questions:

1. There is a list of youtube links on the user subpage User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links that is automatically created as explained on User:Dmcdevit/YouTube. This seems to be the list has been used in their AutoWikiBrowser assisted mass deletions. Who is checking the individual links for copyright violations. The mass deletions were at such a fast pace that one has to wonder if they were checked at all. Checking means at least watching the clip and trying to find out about the licensing status.
2. If they were indeed checked individually, what is the qualification of the checkers to determine if a clip is a copyright violation. As it is now clear from the ongoing discussion, many TV and music clips might be correctly licensed.
3. The edit summary the mass deleters used was "Sites which fail to provide licensing information" for video clips per WP:EL using AWB". However, this reason is clearly not covered by WP:EL. J.smith has told me that he will change that summary in the future. What are the exact guidelines you are following and were can they be found.
4. Youtube clearly differs from anonymous copyvio content somewhere else on the web in that youtube actively checks its content for copyright violations and deletes them. What are the legal implications of that related to linking to such content and which legal experts or sources support your view.

Cacycle 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your last point is incorrect. YouTube does not actively checks for copyvios. They only respond to request by content owners. See http://youtube.com/t/dmca_policy. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

J.smith's response...

• 1. We are checking the links as we go along. We are making a good faith effort to clean up a mess on wikipedia.
• 2. We are wikipedia editors in good standing and it doesnt take a degree in rock science to tell that a full copy of of a music video is a copy-vio. We might make mistakes and I don't mind if you let me know if I removed one I shouldn't have.... thankfully wikipedia has a nice little revert feature for those cases, so not much is lost.
• 3. Edit summary reflected the guidelines of WP:EL when we started. People have been tinkering with the policy and that section was removed without any discussion. *shrug* I've updated the Edit Summary to be more vague until WP:EL settles down. The exact guidelines are in WP:C and previously in WP:EL/WP:RS.
• 4. YouTube has a policy of requiring the copyright owner to complain. (That may have changed with the Google takeover, I hope so, but I'm not sure.) Here is the legal justification, verbatim from WP:C: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)." ---J.S (t|c) 17:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Youtube 3 - questions/issues

Thanks for finding the source of the mass-deletion - I never would have thought to look for the "list of links to be deleted" and the justification for a major change to large parts of Wikipedia on a 'random' user-page.

Reading the justification there: Wikipedia cannot link to sites which contain copyright infringements, which much of YouTube does, or sites which fail to provide licensing information, which even most of the possibly free content on YouTube is. The reasoning is obviously that we have no way of knowing whether it is free or not, and without licensing information we must assume it is a copyright infringement. I see some problems, which makes me wonder why the terms and justifications for the mass-delete were not worked out here first, and then a publicly-visible project created to enact the consensus.

1. Wikipedia can link to sites which contain copyright infringements. You can make arguments over whether we can legally link directly to a copyright infringement, but guidelines are (correctly) that we should not knowingly do so.
2. Can't link to sites that fail to provide licensing information — in addition to that not being in WP:EL and definitely not consensus, that would exclude large portions of the web as link targets.
3. Without licensing information we must assume it's copyright infringement — why? Where does that come from? Especially since most of the sites in question (youtube, flickr, etc) explicitly require their uploaders to do the same thing we do here, and youtube in particular does scan for and remove copyrighted material. This isn't j. random pirate storage site.
4. Where was this debated, discussed? Where was warning given? Notification? Since one of them mentioned this in spartaz's talk page or mine, I'll note that I don't feel WP:AN (whenever something was mentioned there; not sure what was mentioned or when - the comment was unclear) was enough - it should have been debated here, and once consensus was reached a project created. I'm not saying it was hidden, but was it publicized? It is a significant change to large sections of WP.

Yes, many of the youtube links in Wikipedia probably do fail WP:C - but even for material (images) uploaded to wikipedia's own servers without copyright info there is often a grace period and the item is flagged first. Also, note that ALL external links are to copyrighted material, unless there's an explicit "this is public domain" statement, and most external links are to pages/sites without explicit licensing information. And there is licensing information for all of youtube (and flickr, etc). Users of it may violate that, and have, and we should remove links to known copyvios. Which brings us to Cacycle's point: who is determining the copyright status of these, and how are they doing it, and where are the criteria? Is it "I looked at it and it's too professional", or "it looks like what I'd see on MTV" or "I saw it on NBC" (but NBC and others have deals with youtube)? As witnessed by the link that was in Katana (link) - User:Spartaz's comment when re-removing it was Remove youtube link because the video is not demonstratively not a copyvio, which is a direct example that the operating assumption is guilty until proven innocent. As per my discussion with him on his and my talk pages, it might be a copyvio, but I'd bet against it pretty strongly, and it certainly isn't an obvious copyvio, and given the youtube license requirements, it should get the benefit of the doubt. To repeat myself, "not obviously not copyvio" != copyvio.

jesup 14:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Wrong. Wikipedia should not link to copyvios
2. If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed. WP is licensed as GFDL and should not be tainted by copvios
3. The deletions were made on the basis of current understanding. Note that this is a guideline and not policy. Guidelines are there to assist editors, and not to designed to act as rules

As for your description of a "random user-page" where a list of YouTube linked articles was placed, note that is the user page of a respected member of the community and a member of the ArbCom, that created a page by using a database dump for the purpose of exploring these links. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I think that jessup meant that if a site has copyright violations we can still link to pages on that site that do not violate copyright. I.e. http://mypage.com/MPG_of_NBC_news_telecast.htm - can't be linked; however, http://mypage.com/NBC_news analysis.htm, which contained an analysis of the telecast could be linked if it complied with other provisions even though elsewhere on the site their are copyvios. To me this is a close call. If the site was a bunch of videos of NBC news, with a navigation page that indexed them and provided brief descriptions - then NO! If the site is mostly commentary and without a license included a recording of a few videos of NBC news, then maybe - but if Yes only link to commentary not to copyright vio - and probably not to page that prominently displays a link to the copyright vio.
2. agree with jossi - as applied to youtube - since the uploader certifies it is theirs I would say we can link since there is no copyvio ONLY IF it is obviously not a copyvio OR the description provides a license. We shouldn't link to youtube haphazardly as they have no enforcement mechanism until a copyright holder objects.
3. I don't think we should assume it is a copyvio, but we should be conservative in assuming the uploader understands and complies with the directions in youtube's terms of use.
4. Notification is not required to enforce the current policies. The increase in the links to youtube have made this issue more visible.

Thoughts? --Trödel 16:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say we should link to copyvios; I said Wikipedia can link to sites which contain copyright infringements.. I agree we should not link to known copyright violations. Note the word "known"; I did not use "possible".

No licensing info on the link target is, again, not the same as failure to provide licensing info when adding content to Wikipedia. Probably most of the sites we link to have images. All (or almost all) of those are covered by copyright, and many of them were not created by the page owner. Few (very few) of those sites provide licensing info for the images on their sites, the assumption is that they are not violating copyright. Ditto for the text on those pages we link to - we assume (barring a claim or evidence otherwise) that the text is not a copyright violation. Please be careful to make a distinction between content on Wikipedia, and content linked to by Wikipedia.

I have no idea if that user is a respected user, etc, but I'll happily take your word for it - great! That doesn't explain why this apparent project wasn't discussed publicly here, where the notifications were, where the consensus was obtained, why it wasn't made into a formal project, etc. I'm afraid most editors not only don't have time to monitor all admin's pages, why should they expect they need to?

I'm sure there is a lot of angst over all the links to truely blatant copyvios. I agree strongly that a project to weed them out is appropriate. I think said project should have been public, discussed, and with known and reference-able criteria for evaluating targets of links. That would have avoided huge amounts of wasted time and contention here. Also, the project as it is currently does not seem to have been careful to review links ahead of time. I don't think someone could objectively review 4+ links per minute and change the pages, and the link I mentioned is an example. There was a jump to conclusion based on an assumption of violation.

jesup 16:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re Dmcdevit: everybody can make mistakes, even members of Arbcom. I think we just hope Arbcom members will be the first to diplomatically own up/move on/come up with a better solution. Putting the whole project on his own page was indeed a "random user page" --under community radar. I don't think editing the EL guideline while it was protected, and refusing to revert/discuss was very cool either. And his actions at Guy Goma--deleting a YT link and then putting a fact tag in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary.

Re If there is no licensing info, copyvio can and should be assumed--as per below, there is licensing information for YT. Hence, the original claim of mass deleters was grossly incorrect. Without evidence of a copyvio to contest that each and every link is a copyvio, they're all licensed properly. I would suggest, jossi--if you're concerned about the problem of a high number of music vid copyvios on YT--that you cease unproductive arguing about the 5-30% of the links which are fine/should be judged by editorial process, and initiate a discussion at C regarding the possibility of an expedited process for removing blatant music vid copyvios. Endlessly bickering here for an outright ban on YT --via EL--on the basis of a high number of those sorts of copyvios is really a pointless waste of time. YT exceptions exist, hence no ban is possible; EL is not the place anyway. Give it up and go to C to address the real problem, which is that some people feel the need for quicker removal process of some blatant copyvios at YT. Cindery 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, after checking a few links, I find the list User:Dmcdevit/YouTube_links definitely has a bunch of clear non-copyvio cases in it, starting with YouTube and another random example geriatric1927. Not surprising, given the comment that it was created from a database dump, but that shows that the list was not reviewed before deletions began; any reviewing must be happening as the deletion is done. When looking at random examples, I noticed removed were links to a user account on YouTube, in particular 'genocideintervention', removed from Genocide Intervention Network (as well as links to the organization's account on Flickr, etc). This also directly speaks to removal without review, or removal with an strong assumption of guilt, given that these were links to accounts, and the accounts were those of the subject of the Wikipedia page. (There may be other reasons for removing those links - but they were removed under the same summary as all the other removals. Perhaps the organization uploads copyvio videos to it's own user account, but it would seem odd to assume an real organization would do so.) Note: being at work I can't review the youtube links directly right now. jesup 17:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"And his actions at Guy Goma--deleting a YT link and then putting a fact tag in the empty spot and threatening the editor with a block?--totally unnecessary."

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what happened? I find that highly dubious. The link was clearly copyvio. The link was being used as a citation. Replacing with a {{fact}} tag was appropriate. The user who added it originally kept re-adding it and was using highly in-civil edit summaries. The user was blocked for edit waring, incivil edit summaries and continuing to add a copy-vio link against policy. ---J.S (t|c) 17:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...I think it was very poorly handled--there was no assumption of good faith towards a regular editor at the article, who clearly added the link in a sincere attempt to improve the article. He was obviously a newcomer, and he was treated with contempt and hostility. A cooperative and friendly explanation of how to cite the link should have been provided at the outset, not a fact tag added on after he was already upset about the total lack of AGF and civility that accompanied the removal of the link in the first place. That's what I meant about the hostile "spirit" of the project. He was treated as though he deliberately added a copyvio link, and was deliberately trying to re-add a copyvio link when he restored it--he was not; he was trying to add what he thought was a useful source to an article he cared about and edited regularly--that was obvious. Apologies were in order--not baiting and threatening him, making things worse. It's more than possible to be civil and assume good faith while removing copyvios; removing links is not a higher value than or justification for ignoring other policies and guidelines. The "project" has taken itself a little too seriously. Cindery 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Three points to add to this discussion - the citation of (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry) above is not the applicable precedent when the U.S. Federal government specifcally created the DMCA to deal with this exact issue, and a specific mechanism exists which is in fact, and is regularly applied as such, legally enforceable. It should not matter what any individual Wikipedia editor believes to be true when they are in fact unable to truly factually determine actual copyright status and are not the copyright holder - again, the DMCA is the applicable law in this area, and third, it is dead wrong to ASSUME a full music video is an automatic copyright violation - I have loaded numerous full music videos onto various Web sites worldwide with the direct consent of the artist(s) in question, who are in fact extremely grateful to have people that know how to properly do same, and realize the value of such distribution, including via Wikipedia. Once again, the blanket assumption editors are making here of copyright violations is in FACT dead wrong. Tvccs 18:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why there is so much lack of clarity on this issue. WP:EL is a guideline, it does not enforce a specific ban on anything, just provides guidance to editors on how to apply our content policies. YouTube, Flicker and other media sharing sites are wonderful sites to explore, but for an encyclopedia that is based on the principles of NPOV, V and NOR, most if not all user-uploaded videos are not suitable: These videos are not verifiable (possible WP:V violation), the text included with the video usually carries the commentary of the user (possible WP:NOR or WP:NPOV violation), as well as all other issues related to WP:C. YouTube does not enforce a policy of checking content for any of these criteria and only responds to requests filed via their DMCA process. Give all this, saying in the guideline "Links normally to be avoided" means that unless there is a significant reason to include such material on external links section, editors should not. If anyone here has an issue with this, then bring your dicussions at the policy pages as this guideline can only support these policies and not bypass them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

YT and similar links for music provide excellent examples of what's actually being discussed that are a huge asset to a printed page and should be added whenever possible, IMHO. The application of the standard of linking you advocate means pratically no Web page would meet the suggested criteria of being totally crystal clear - bascially every Web page and entry without a GFDL license couldn't be linked to, especially if it had any media content - and that is patently overreaching. Tvccs 23:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

External links need to be kept to the minimum and only when the link provides verifiable and good quality material that is verifiable and does not bypass other policies. We are building an encyclopedia, not a web directory or link farm. We spend considerable time editing articles with the intention to make them excellent and complinat with NPOV, V, RS, NOR, etc. only to add crappy stuff to the EL section? That is not a happening thing, I am afraid. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate YouTube deletion example

Spartaz and some of the others (J.Smith?) had asked for an example of an inappropriate deletion of links. I have a very good example to add to the previous one (the multiply-mentioned link on Katana, which I cannot agree is an obvious copyvio, and Spartaz feels since it's not obviously not a copyvio, the link must go).

J.Smith removed[6] these links from Genocide Intervention Network:

• MySpace, Facebook, Flickr, YouTube)

Note that a) these links are to a user, not a video or image directly. b) If you go to Flickr, you'll see that their images are directly licensed under the CC license, and so tagged, obviously. c) If you go to YouTube, you'll see that the two videos under that account are apparently ads produced by that organization, which uploaded them itself.

So, there's your example, and that's an excellent example. I don't see how someone could look at the Flickr page and miss the creative-comments license. Which backs up the point that we shouldn't be doing mass-deletes, which we apparently have. Maybe some have been more careful about vetting the links from that master list than others, or maybe some assumed that others already vetted them - it doesn't matter.

That page should be restored. But I don't have time to go through every page where this was done. The editors doing these deletes need to be responsible for not making these sorts of mistakes in the first place, especially since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed". Which means editors of those pages, even if the link shouldn't have been removed, will be unlikely to challenge it. I almost didn't challenge the removal of the Katana link; I saw the summary and said to myself "oh, ok, I guess there's a policy about that. Oh well.", but then I decided to look it up so I'd understand better - and couldn't find the policy/guideline quoted - and came across this huge hornets nest.

So where do we go from here? There are lots of links to blatant copyvios still - but as shown here, there are incorrect deletions that have happened. Who will go an recheck the deletions already done? And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?
jesup 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube and Flickr are found at www.genocideintervention.net/educate/multimedia/. Also, the license has nothing to do, as they are nc (non commercial). -- ReyBrujo 21:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make — non-commercial doesn't really matter. It appears that they own the copyrights; they license them under CC (certainly the photos), and that they uploaded the photos and videos to Flickr and YouTube. jesup 21:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask how many deletions you reviewed to find this example? --Spartaz 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

<edit conflict>

I had bowed out here as I wanted to do something constructive but Jesup left a message on my talk drawing my attention here. I don't want to appear difficult, but how many links to different GIN sites do we want here? The main site links all the content given in the links. I would argue that this is a clear tidy up. No doubt we will continue a sterile argument about edit summaries but I don't see that any relevent links were removed. They are all still there, just via the GIN site - which is the appropriate place to lead off to sub-site from anyway.

Sorry Jesup but I'm not really persuded by this one. I deleted links on 53 articles tonight if you fancy another trawl - you will see that we discussed a borderline case and left the link alone. I also had a couple of other articles where the links were valid and correct. So you see, this is not a mass deletion campaign - its an exercise to review a bunch of suspect links where the vast majority are blatant copyvios. Interesting that of the hours spent arguing this only two suspect deletions have been identified and neither of these is a cast iron "wrong" but more a case of different judgements. I submit that were we acting as reprehensibly as some would have us believe there would be much more direct evidence than this that we are acting incorrectly.

I'm off to bed. I may review this tomorrow - or I may just go and do some constructive editing. You know where my talk is if you want to raise any problems with my edits with me. Spartaz 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesup - I have notified J.smith of this section. Do you not think that you should have done this yourself before posting this? This is the second time I have had to raise on this page the question of making public allegations of misconduct against users before the poster has raised the issue with the editor concerned. This is hardly colleagiate and does nothing to control the temperature on a debate that can easily become heated. Spartaz 22:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to, but once I finished the post I forgot to. I was (as Cindry mentioned) responding to repeated requests for an example. There's no allegation of misconduct, just of a mistake. Everyone makes those. jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesup, I do appreciate you "stalking" to find mistakes. It looks like I did make a mistake in that case. I usually skip-over profile links like that, but apparently I didn't look at that one close enough. Let me know if you find any more so I can modify my methods.

Sure, no problem. BTW I wasn't stalking; I just clicked about 4 links from the huge page of youtube links of dcmartin's. I really only checked a few (though I'll admit I chose links that didn't look like band-name links). jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

since the edit summaries used until the last day or so (i.e. over several weeks) have told/implied/etc to other editors "this is policy and is not open to debate; no link to that site will be allowed". - If that was your impression, then I'm sorry. It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that no YouTube links were allowed. That's why I didn't specifically mention YouTube in the edit summary. (I did use a template on talk pages requesting users review the YouTube links in the article, but I saw almost zero response from that... that's why I shifted to an active active response.) ---J.S (t|c) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted; I definitely got that impression from the comment, and from other comments here others did too. It may be too late, but I (personally) would have advocated that after review the link in the page (not the talk page) be tagged with a possible/probably copyvio tag, asking people if they remove it to put justification on (some page) for the removal of the tag. Those justifications for tag removals could be reviewed, and links where the tag wasn't removed could be deleted after a week, say. That's a lot more in keeping with how we handle most other items - speedy deletion, AfD, regular copyvios, all sorts of other good-faith problems. But that's just my opinion; I haven't thought it through. jesup 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

...It's a public project; discussing it--including mistakes and what's wrong with it--in public is good. And repeatedly examples have been requested. You should stop deleting while discussion is ongoing. Cindery 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't being sarcastic, I appreciate stalking of my Link deleting and I encurage anyone else who wants to help out.

I'm not going to stop removing YouTube links until either the project is finished, a RFC shows consensus that I shouldn't, or I see a convincing argument that I should leave copy-vio links on the pedia. ---J.S (t|c) 22:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read all the discussion above, but I reviewed these 4 links, and they duplicate information already on the linked website without providing meaningful additional content. Additionally, as this page clearly shows, these links are for promotion and recruitment and thus are not really appropriate for Wikipedia as it is an encyclopedia not a platform for promoting any specific group, agenda or idea see WP:NOT. --Trödel 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I put 'em back. Feel free to revert me on that Trodel. ---J.S (t|c) 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you challenging me to a revert war? Why? The links are unnecessarily duplicative and should be removed - that is my view - regardless of the whether or not there is any copyright issue. Nevermind - I had a Dooohhh moment (picture Homer). I don't think they should be there - I'll consider removing after I take a look at the talk page etc. --Trödel 22:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's moved out of the scope of what I'm concerned about, so feel free to remove. It's a content issue at this point. ---J.S (t|c)

"And how can we continue to deal with links to youtube without making more of these mistakes?"

We continue exactly as before. I started this project knowing we'd occasional make mistakes. I even expected discussions like this one. :) ---J.S (t|c) 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you know you're making mistakes I'm sure you won't mind if I undo everything you do without looking at it, to make sure the mistakes are undone. :-) Cindery 00:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Barrington video and verifiability

Verifiability standards for stuff hosted on Youtube or anyplace else should not be different than they are for stuff hosted on Wikipedia. If I take a picture of Barrington Hall and upload it to Commons under the GFDL, there normally would not be verifiability issues about using it in the article, unless someone actually disputed the authenticity. Use common sense. We are constantly encouraging Wikipedians to take pictures of people and places and upload them, and we don't go berserk over authentication unless there's a dispute (e.g. someone has serious suspicions that a claimed celebrity photo is actually a lookalike or fake). Barrington Hall was a large building in a major university community that has produced many Wikipedia editors. It housed hundreds of students at a time and was a neighborhood landmark well known to surrounding community members who didn't live in it. A number of those former residents and neighbors edit the Barrington Hall article and its talk page on an ongoing basis. They know what the building looked like. If they look at the video and recognize it as Barrington Hall, then further hassle about whether it's really Barrington Hall absent concrete reason for doubting that amounts to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.

I've suggested to the filmmaker that s/he release the video under GFDL and upload it to Commons. If the video had been on Commons in the first place, verifiability disputes would be very unlikely. So concocting them just because the video is on YT seems to be grasping at straws. With the video on Youtube and numerous editors deciding they're satisfied with its authenticity, what's left is mainly an editorial decision about whether the video is a unique resource beyond what would be in the article once it reaches featured status. A lot of the talk page participants feel that it does qualify as such a unique resource, based on fairly persuasive reasoning. If they reach editorial consensus that it's a unique resource, Jossi should not substitute his judgement for theirs. (Edit: I believe the struck-out sentence to basically be true but writing it as I did was a slight overclaim without supporting diffs.) 67.117.130.181 10:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that, if the video is PD or GFDL, you can upload it to commons-- you needn't wait for the filmmaker to do it. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's better for technical (not copyright) reasons if the filmmaker does it, since it has to be re-encoded, and he has a higher quality version of the video to start from than what's on YT. 67.117.130.181 22:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for the filmmaker to upload it to commons - the video is an external link. If someone had created a photo gallery of the murals and graffiti in Barrington Hall, and someone else had put a link to that gallery in the External Links section, there would be no controversy. The pictures would be too numerous to reasonably include in the article, and wouldn't really be relevant to many other articles, so it wouldn't be appropriate to upload all of them to commons. But the gallery would illustrate the environment of Barrington Hall much better than words or a single picture could, so the gallery would be an appropriate external link in the article. If the gallery was on Flickr.com or Photobucket.com, people would not challenge the link, even though those services are notorious for hosting copyvio work. Argyriou (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Be clear on copyright issues

I read the new wording and wasn't sure what it said. Thus I restored it closer to what it was before - dont' link to sites that either fail to provide licensing information or fail to respond to requests to obtain licensing information. --Trödel 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The "new" wording is the exact text of the Copyright policy on external linking--I will be reverting. There is a big issue with the "licensing" hooey lanaguage that was subbed in recently to ban YouTube on a technicality--please see discussions above.

Cindery 07:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

If the video in question violates copyright and the poster refused to provide license information then it shouldn't be linked. We shouldn't have any specific rules to ban or allow links from YouTube. Providing evidence that copyrighted material is properly licensed isn't "hooey" but the duty of any responsible content provider (website, or individual in the case of a content aggregator like youtube). --Trödel 13:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

...you're missing the point--for original videos not under copyright, but merely released into public domain, there is no license--that's the vast majority of YT links. The absence of copyright on a work is not a copyvio. "No licensing info" is a technicality that has been recently added just to exclude YT public domain links. Any copyvios like pirated music vids are covered under C; there is no need for additonal confusing language/licensing caveats in order to delete them. Cindery 14:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Not having license info was not recently added to exclude YT - it has been there for some time. Additionally, what is the license (contribution) criteria of youtube. It probably provides protection. The key is that we should not be determining fair use/license requirements etc. We should be relying on the claim made by those others (except where it is obviously a lie: "I swear NBC licensed this to me in an email, well I deleted, I didn't think I needed it..."). The lack of license info has long been a reason to exclude external links to sites that flaunt the copyrights of others, even if it was not spelled out. I'll review youtubes terms of use. Basically, the language re licensing of info allows ADDITIONAL websites to be linked (rather than only the source of the work) since both the original publisher and anyone licensed both can be linked. If we strictly enforce links to exclude copyvios then we exclude sites which have posted information but for which we don't know if they have the right to do so - a quick email will often resolve the confusion and provide additional sources, especially where the orginal publisher has not put them online. --Trödel 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As I expected the Terms of use provides a proper license:

B. ...In connection with User Submissions, you affirm, represent, and/or warrant that: (i) you own or have the necessary licenses...to use and authorize YouTube to use...all User Submissions...in the manner contemplated by the Website and these Terms of Service; and (ii) you have the written consent...of each...person in the User Submission... For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your User Submissions... The foregoing license granted by you terminates once you remove or delete a User Submission from the YouTube Website. However, by submitting the User Submissions to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the YouTube Website...

C. In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted... YouTube does not permit copyright infringing...on its Website, and YouTube will remove all Content and User Submissions...that...infringes on another's intellectual property rights.YouTube.com Terms of use

Thus user submissions are licensed to youtube for proper use and can be linked to. If it is an obvious copyright violation then we won't link to it obviously (as youtube seems to be infested with people who steal). But requiring that the material on youtube be licensed properly does not prevent linking to it since: it is licensed properly. --Trödel 14:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Can I ask whether we should simply rely on the honesty of those uploading videos? Our image files are stuffed full of copyvios where the uploader has either incorrectly certified the status of the image or fails to properly document the copyright. I would be very reluctant to just accept that a video is safe for use unless there are clear indications that they are free to use. --Spartaz 09:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed "If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine." This is too broad - in that all sites which violate copyright claim fair use (even Napster did). We should not state that linking to fair use is fine as it invites linking to fair use; however, when the only link available is on a site claiming fair use, one can then make the argument that the external site does not violte Wikipedia:Copyrights. Finally, a reference that has no link, but provides verifiable information for the source is much better than one that violates copyright. --Trödel 00:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

	Reference/Link	Comment
Best	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	link to source which publishes on the internet
Good	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11. Full text (fee required).	link to site which requires fee to view
Ok	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	No link
Bad	Jones, Micheal. "News article with facts." My Hometown News, 2006-11-11.	link to site has article but not legally

We should not use fee-for-view links for news citations for the same reason we shouldn't link to Amazon for book citations. It favors some particular vendor. For example, it's often possible to access news stories at no charge through subscription databases if you have a library card. If there's no non-obviously-infringing free link for a news cite then we shouldn't have a link at all. I hope the above table is not in the guideline. I would change "good" to "avoid" for the pay-link example. We are not the sales arm of the pay sites, and allowing those links would just create a new set of people with incentive to spam us. (It's not the case that the pay sites are operated by the newspapers--they're often random companies who have licensed access to the content in order to resell it). 67.117.130.181 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you have this a little wrong here--It is much better to have a paid link than none at all. As you mention, many people will access WP from places where some links will indeed work, & its hard to specify in advance. Further, even when a link does not operate, it frequently permits viewing of an abstract or lede paragraph that provides at least some information. There is no analogy between newspapers sites and amazon: the newspapers have the content, and license the online use through one or more distributors--typically, this will include some very expensive databases such as Lexis or Dialog, & if there are others they should be linked to. (& Lexis & Dialog don't show abstracts or ledes. If there is a link at the newspaper site, that would normally be the one to link to. There is much less choice here than there is with books. DGG 01:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: "It is much better to have a paid link than none at all." That might be true for references or sources, but not for external links. The guideline is clear that "A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." There are plenty of articles with no external links that are none the worse for the lack. -- Mwanner | Talk 01:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's true for references or sources either. We should avoid being a sales tool for the content industry whenever we can do so. Yes those databases are expensive to subscribe to, but many universities and public libraries buy subscriptions and offer access to their users at no charge, or have microfilm copies of old newspapers, and most can get even hard-to-find articles at no charge through interlibrary loan. And the pay urls are generally easy to find with Google once the article citation is given. We should stick to he existing guideline of not linking to url's that require registration or payment. Exceptional cases for specific articles can be determined by consensus on the article's talk page. 67.117.130.181 04:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In a case where the first paragraph of the article is shown and contains the relevant information, would it be acceptable to link it? [7] would be an example as a citation for McIver becoming LIRR president (assuming the link is permanent). --NE2 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

YouTube and content-aggregator sites RfC

Per the suggestion of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, I'm bringing this to an RfC. The issues, as I see them, are:

• External links to video regarding an article's subject matter are sometimes appropriate. The obvious cases are where the video illustrates some sort of motion (ie dance, sports, orbits) which is hard to clearly describe in words or with still images, but other cases can exist where video has been used to document some aspect of the article much more thoroughly than a single photograph could.
• Where the content of the video is actually relevant to the article, video is usually an inherently reliable source.
• Linking to known copyright violations is a form of contributory infringement, and is against Wikipedia policy.
• A significant percentage, perhaps the vast majority, of all video on YouTube and Google Video is obviously in violation of copyright, but some amount of video on those sites is produced by amateur videographers or others seeking exposure, and is not in violation of copyright.
• There exists on Wikipedia a project headed by User:Dmcdevit to delete all (unjustified) YouTube links. At least some persons involved in the project are deleting all YouTube links with no examination of the article context or the video. YouTube links are sometimes deleted after having been restored after significant discussion regarding the validity of the YouTube link.
• Even if only 1% of deleted YouTube links are justifiable, deletion of all YouTube links without some control or oversight will result in the deletion of hundreds of valid links in a short time.
• Restoration and deletion of YouTube links has led to repeated edit wars.
• Linking to photo galleries on sites such as Flickr.com or Photobucket does not appear to be nearly so contentious, despite the high volume of copyright violations on those sites.

Suggested policy

• The project to delete all YouTube links be allowed to continue, subject to some modifications to prevent deletion of justified links.
• The particular modifications to the project will include:

• Creation of a page setting forth specific policy on YouTube links and deletion thereof.
• All YouTube link deletions will include a link to the YouTube policy page in the edit summary.
• A standardised tag (probably an HTML comment) may be placed on the same line as any external link to YouTube, to indicate that there is justification for the link on the article's talk page. YouTube links with this tag may not be deleted without discussing on the article's talk page.

• The policy will extend beyond YouTube in particular, to include any other content-aggregator site with a high volume of copyright violations, including Google Video and the more popular photo gallery sites.

Discussion

I got dragged into this when a video link on the Barrington Hall article was deleted. That particular deletion has a long, contentious history, partly because the provenance of the video wasn't entirely clear. When I saw the original deletion, it was not clear that this was part of an organized campaign, and it was clear that User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington had not reviewed the extensive discussion on Talk:Barrington Hall regarding the legitimacy of the link, so I put a {{Test2del}} on his talk page, to request that he not remove valid links from articles.

Sir Nicholas, in particular, has been particularly recalcitrant regarding YouTube deletions, with his comments on the subject (not just in the Barrington Hall case) bordering on incivility and showing an utter lack of assuming good faith, as seen here: User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Lennon.

User:Dmcdevit claims that YouTube "fails to provide licensing information", which is patently incorrect. YouTube's Terms of Use states that users retain all their ownership rights, but license YouTube to display their content, and requires that users not upload material which they do not have rights to. The actual failure is that quite a lot of YouTube content violates those terms of use.

Under both US copyright law (the DCMA) and Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith policy, any content on YouTube which is not obviously infringing should be assumed to be properly licensed in accordance with YouTube's Terms of Use. Sites other than YouTube presumably have similar language in their Terms of Use; I know Flickr does, but I'd expect that Google Video, Photobucket, Ofoto, and others do, too.

However, at a first approximation, it's not unreasonable to assume that a random YouTube link is infringing. Thus, rather than shutting the YouTube link-deletion project down altogether, I think it is reasonable to continue it if there is some way to easily communicate that a particular link has been examined by a human, and that it has been found to be appropriate to the article and non-infringing. Having to restore a link once, and discuss the restoration, is not an undue burden. Having to restore the link every month or so is an undue burden. I'd think that with some way to safeguard against inappropriate deletions, like those I suggested above, it would even be possible to program a bot to do the work which is currently occupying several editors nearly full-time.

Argyriou (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Even more important, we have no control over the copyright status of any external link or reference. Wikipedia shouldn't link to obvious sources of infringement, like warez or mp3z but we shouldn't hold our copyright policy over other sites. YouTube is increasingly signing blanket non-infringement licenses with all sorts of content ownership companies making the case for blanket removal of YouTube links inappropriate. SchmuckyTheCat 19:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be useful to link the relevent WP policy which states inter alia:

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, please don't link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine. --Spartaz 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Use common sense, please. Nobody is going to sue Wikipedia for contributory infringement because of a few external links. If we become aware that a specific link on the external site is infringement it is easy to remove. Just because something copyrighted appears on YouTube doesn't mean it's infringing. Nothing justifies this kind of paranoia. SchmuckyTheCat 07:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much promised myself that I'd stay out of this, so I'll keep it short. Several people are going around deleting said links (and most of these deletions are fine!), and then their justification for the cases for which the uploader does claim to be the creator are that we should only be linking to free content. I don't understand this at all; the rights the owner gives to YouTube to present it should be sufficient. I would hope that people understand the difference between the removal of obvious or probable copyright violations and the removal of links simply for being to YouTube, and the difference between the proposed policy above and any opposition to the removal of links (since there may be flaws with the proposal that are irrelevant to the larger picture). --NE2 18:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Why is this not filed at WP:RFC? ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Where I think the relevant category (at bottom) would be "Wikipedia policies, guidelines and proposals". – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:24, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

I'll gladly praticipte in an official WP:RFC. Please let me know when it's filed Argyriou. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this, the RFC has been correctly filed here, and can properly be discussed on this talk page. So, no problem continuing this discussion. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 18:50, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Addressing one argument made at WP:ANI#YouTube_link_deletion: Copyrighted works, legitimately posted off-Wiki, do not have to be GFDLicensed or made public-domain or otherwise released in order to be linked from a Wikipedia article. In order to be copied to Wikipedia or Commons, yes; in order to be linked, no. The criteria for WP:EL don't require such a release; they require the absence of copyright violation by the site being linked to, not the same thing at all. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 19:02, 21 Dec 2006 (UTC).

This was already discussed at length. See comments in this page and in the archives. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet editors persist in removing links which are justifiable along with links which are not. Hence this RfC. Argyriou (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you document which links you are referring to? I have removed several hundreds and have had a number challenged. On occasions I have had it wrong and on other occasions I felt I was right after the discussion. I really feel that we are all getting too exercised about this issue. The vast majority of the links are blatant copyvios and they must go. The borderline cases mostly involve videos where the attributation is unclear and its not obvious what they are referring to. But then if its not clear to an editor what the link refers to should we be linking it anyway? I personally feel that the onus should be on the linkee to document what the link is for on the talk page and to offer an attributation. If this isn't done the link should be fair game if an editor isn't clear about it - subject of course to being reverted and the link being attributed at that time. We are very strict about providing sources and references in the articles. Why are we so casual about the external media we link to? Spartaz 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The particular case which caused me to notice this was the video link at Barrington Hall. There are several screenfuls of discussion over the legitimacy of the link which occurred before the latest deletion. When an editor pointed out that there was a copyvio soundtrack in the video, someone found a silent version of the video, and replaced the link. However, the link has been removed due to spurious claims of copyvio, unreliability, and irrelevance advanced by Sir Nicholas, and the page was protected immediately after the link was deleted. The talk pages of each of the participating editors are full of claims of inappropriate deletion, but those claims seem to number somewhere between 1% and 10% of the links actually deleted.

The fact that so many of the deletions appear to be uncontested leads me to believe that the best course is to allow the project to continue, but to implement a mechanism where the deleters will know that a particular link has been reviewed and retained, to avoid the sorts of edit wars and incivility which occur. Argyriou (talk) 22:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. You can strike most of what I said then because its not relevent to the actual issue in hand. I think there is merit in showing that YT links have been reviewed and showing the basis on which they have been retained. No doubt we will have to redo the project at some point and the historical reviews will save shedloads of time. That said, don't ask me how to do it as I lack the design skills. Spartaz 22:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact my approach has been informed by the very useful debate here and I find I have become more inclusionist as I go along. Spartaz 21:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Policies and guidelines can never exercise judgement - only editors can. That means that removing an external link, or ANY material, asserting "in accordance with (IAW) a policy" mandates the editor review the material the link actually goes to. Just "removing" since it's on a site is disruptive and biased, I don't care what Wikiproject or Wikicabal or Wikipogrom an editor subscribes to. Example, someone didn't like an external link to a "how it works" site, citing "links to avoid" criteria, on the face of it valid criteria ... except that the external article actually complemented the WP topic article, no facts that the WP article was missing, but a very different writing style. As a resource to the reader, it provided something WP's article doesnt.
  
  What I'm saying is that I don't think any discussion or consensus here will effect anything, not the policy, not the need for editors to do more than just remove ELs based on a policy. Editors have to think. Thoughtless editing is usually pretty transparent, no policy change can do better than other editors' judgement, or RfC, or Dispute Arbitration, etc. Just my two cents. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 20:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure thinking is enough. Someone has to actually watch the movie. I have to say, I am not spending any of my life reviewing random youtube videos linked by anyone who feels like adding them. My inclination would be to remove them on sight unless they have been added by an editor I otherwise have reason to trust. That may be wrong and evil and contrary to the wiki spirit, but it's what I think, subject to being convinced otherwise. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The proposal I outlined above would place the burden of watching on the person who placed (or replaced) the link. If you remove a link, and someone sees enough value in it to replace it, (s)he can tag the link so that you'll know that someone has made some effort to review it, and either skip over it, or dig into it. If there's no tag, delete away. Argyriou (talk) 21:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely anyone would be able to add the tag though. Instead of just adding a link, they add a link with the tag - "I'm J. Random Public, and I apporved this link." Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Until the link is first removed, User:J.Random wouldn't know to tag the link. Afterwards, editors on the article could discuss the validity on the talk page, just like they discuss everything else. If someone goes and checks the video and finds it to be copyvio, or spam, or utterly irrelevant, they can remove the link and say why in the edit summary. At that point, the editors who monitor the specific article can remove the link if it crops back up, just as they'd remove any other problem insertion or vandalism. Argyriou (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not YouTube--consensus is that some links are fine. The PROBLEM is the behavior of smith, devit, mimsy-whomever etc. I fear for how will Wikipedia will be embarassed in the press if this continues--based on the opinion of NY journo friends, I have to say that, to outside observers, Wiki does not appear to be having an intelligent discussion about digital copyright; Wiki appears to be a place where people enact immaturity/personality-disorders behind the scenes. Continued idiocy will make the whole project look bad, I'm afraid. Cindery 21:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, the problem is that many contributors, through ignorance or lack of caring, add links to copyright-infringing videos on YouTube or Google Video, and that is a form of contributory infringement which puts us in legal jeopardy, as well as going against our external link guidelines. We have had this before with YTMND - for example, YTMNDers claimed that their use of copyright material in soundtracks was covered by fair use parody, but this applies only to parody of the copyright work. Some of the YouTubes which are not themselves copyright violations have the same problem, using copyright infringing sound or images. It really is not straightforward. The project to remove the links was discussed beforehand, but obviously the message did not get everywhere, and the number of links was truly staggering, so it's hardly a surprise that some valid ones got removed. Perhaps in a year or so when Google's copyright policy has reduced the number of infringing videos on YouTube this will all prove completely unnecessary. How many videos are uploaded only to YouTube and not published on the originator's own website as well? What's to stop the originator uploading to Commons? Guy (Help!) 22:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a strawman; I (and hopefully most of us) agree fully that if there is copyright-infringing content like images or sound it should go. Here we're talking about cases where someone uploaded their own work to YouTube, but doesn't want to freely license it for Commons. --NE2 22:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the problem with that argument is that we find it very difficult to properly atrribute contributions to YT and there is a danger that a determined vandal could upload some media in the identity of the copyright holder. Granted that's an extreme example but the onus has always been on the person submitting material to wikipedia to justify inclusion over those who disagree with the content. I don't see why verifying the content of external links shouldn't be the same. Spartaz 22:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

the onus has always been on the person submitting material to wikipedia to justify inclusion - I don't think that's an entirely accurate expression of Wikipedia policy. However, provided that the link is actually reliable and relevant, the standard for verification of copyright status is different for material included into Wikipedia and material linked from Wikipedia. That's because some content cannot be included without becoming a copyvio, but can be linked to, but also because the legal standard for copyright infringment is different for inclusion versus linking. Argyriou (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we fundamentally disagree here although I do agree with a lot of your other points. Please see the policy on copyright - we are not supposed to link to copyrighted material. This is a free encylopedia and our aim is to promote free content. There should be no difference between the standards expected of material in the articles and the external links we link to. If we link copyvios we are not promoting free content and are therefore being hypocritical. If there is a suggestion that something is a copyvio the onus should be on the person asserting its not rather then the person asserting it is. The degree of evidence required to assert that something isn't a copyvio is really what this is all about and we should be directing our attentions there. --Spartaz 22:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The same exact problem exists when using media uploaded to Wikipedia or the Commons. How do we know that Image:Anole Lizard Hilo Hawaii edit.jpg was taken by the uploader? --NE2 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To be a little more exact, I'd say that any work which is not obviously copyvio should be given the benefit of the doubt, unless someone advances a supportable claim that the work is copyvio. On the other hand, what I'd like to see first is a policy which makes is possible for links for which there is a claim of being acceptable can be saved from the "Delete 'em all" sweeps conducted by Dmcdevit, Sir Nicholas, and others. Once that is established, I think that normal Wikipedia processes can handle the disputes over whether any given link should remain. I think part of the problem is that naive contributors add YouTube links without any real understanding of what are appropriate external links, and once they're removed, the editor who created the link reads the policies, and realizes that they shouldn't re-link. Argyriou (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think your charactarisation of the project is inaccurate and unhelpful - we are reviewing the links not deleting them out of hand. How many times do we need to say this before people get the message? You raised the RFC over one link not the hundreds we have deleted already. Spartaz 22:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How much review is actually happening when there's maybe one or two minutes between each link deletion? That's enough time to examine the context of the link, and to fix text around it if the link isn't in the external links section, but not to go through a long talk page discussion over a link, or to actually watch a video which isn't obvious copyvio. I raised the issue over not just the one link deletion on my watch list, but the tens of other links which people have complained about on the talk pages of the YouTube link-deletion editors, and over the incredibly hostile and aggressive responses of User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington to any challenge or revert of his deletions, when it's obvious that he did not actually "review" the link he deleted. If the problem was confined to the Barrington Hall article, I'd have made the RfC about Barrington Hall. But the problem is that the policy regarding copyright status of external links is not clear, and that the current mechanism for handling the problem leads to edit wars.

I've tried to propose a reasonable solution - I think that in general, you are right that most YouTube links don't belong, but I think that there has to be a better way to preserve those links which do belong. Argyriou (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that we are actually very far apart in our positions. I have had no part in the Barrington Hall dispute and frankly the debate on the talk page doesn't encourage me to involve myself in it. I do think that whatever mechanism you come up with to show that a link has been reviewed and considered OK is always going to be subject to challenge and a major part of the problem is that any deletions of external links appears to be upsetting for some people and for others all external links are bad (OK i'm exaggerating for comic effect). There isn't going to be a way to square the circle because people take different approaches to stuff and that's part of the way it is. What we really need to concentrate on is exactly how much certainty we need that a link isn't a copyvio and I have no strong opinion on that. Spartaz 23:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

...what is being ignored is that this discussion has happened OVER and OVER and OVER again, and the result is always the same--consensus that some links are fine, the one at Barrington in specific. (Please see NOR, ANI and EL history). What is also being ignored is that I started all the policy board discussions, after the link at Barrington was deleted, and the people who deleted it while I was on break did so out of PETTY MALICE, and are wasting everyone's time. Cindery 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery - your comments are verging on the uncivil - please try to advance this debate in a constructive manner instead of indulging in ad homien comments. The number of links reviewed is just staggering and we are bound to make mistakes. That's fine as long as we discuss them in a reasonable way and try to avoid being dogmatic. Links can always be restored if we are wrong but there is no external link that is so vital that its removal becomes a federal crime. If the material was important enough it would be in the article anyway. Raising the temperature simply offends people and entrenches views. Spartaz 22:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No, you are completely in error. I repeat:

The problem is not YouTube--consensus is that some links are fine. The PROBLEM is the behavior of smith, devit, mimsy-whomever etc. I fear for how will Wikipedia will be embarassed in the press if this continues--based on the opinion of NY journo friends, I have to say that, to outside observers, Wiki does not appear to be having an intelligent discussion about digital copyright; Wiki appears to be a place where people enact immaturity/personality-disorders behind the scenes. Continued idiocy will make the whole project look bad, I'm afraid.

Furthermore, accusations without evidence that anyone has put up a link which violates copyright place the project in legal jeopardy--libelling living people. Cindery 23:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"I have to say, I am not spending any of my life reviewing random youtube videos linked by anyone who feels like adding them. My inclination would be to remove them on sight unless they have been added by an editor I otherwise have reason to trust." Ha-ha, dude I think that violates more basic, thoughtful editing guidelines here on WP than I can count. If you ain't got the time to even LOOK at the externally linked material (and I'm talking about anything there, not just YouTube), you ain't got the time to revert someone's edit. Assume good faith, etc. Now, if JoeUser spams the link to > 1 article (as some IPVandal did to about 20 film/tv related articles from an IP address within FILM.COM recently), you probably ought to. But if you revert a link just because it's to a site, and you didn't take the time to look, I'm gonna revert you as a vandal. Blanking, y'know? Indiscriminate, or biased. Disruptive editing. Following my drift? If you don't have time to look before you leap, go outside and breathe some lovely winter air. Live long and prosper, David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. and while we are on the subject of disruptive, please see below, from Barrington discussion page.

evidence of bad faith

...mimsy-whomever was clearly editing in bad faith in late Dec by deleting the link without discussion, as he was politely informed in early Nov that the link was not a copyvio, and that he should not even be attempting to delete it without discussion (see below). He is also an official member of the "You Tube Deletion Committee" started by Dmcdevit--i.e., has an admitted bias/ego investment in something other than editing this article. From his current talkpage, you can easily observe that "Nearly Headless Nick" is a close ally, and not constructively for the benefit of Wikipedia, from what I have seen--NHN has recently made the bizarrely ludicrous accusation on mumsy's talkpage--to Arygiou--that stating any alternate opinions about YT links is "disruptive." He clearly has ZERO idea what "disruptive" means, as on-topic good faith editorial opinions on talkpages are never disruptive--or perhaps he does know and is trying to bully??? NHN, on the other hand, is in fact participating in a project which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point; has certainly had a decidedly and idiotically disruptive effect on this article, in my experienced judgement. My feeling is that they can get lost and stay lost, or we can take it to a higher level. They are not editors of this article, they have categorically refused to engage in discussion on the talkpage of this article while making edits they know are disputed, and they do NOT have consensus on policy pages--consensus is against them. What they lack in consensus they have tried to compensate for with bullying (which disgusts me).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barrington_Hall" Cindery 23:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this type of argument is helping your case. You have some good points, but they're being drowned out by the style. --NE2 23:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My style is intentional. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cindery (talk • contribs) 23:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal jeopardy

A lot more attentuion needs to be paid immediately to the legal jeopardy false accusations of copyvio place Wiki in. At Barrington Hall, several living people are currently being libelled, in gross violation of Wiki policy regarding living people. Cindery 23:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Youtube clarification

This isn't anything new, there was never any consensus in support of blanket restrictions on potential copyvio sites such as Youtube. I had thought this was understood from the deliberate removal of the phrases identifying individual sites from the guideline, but that doesn't appear to have worked. Many sites do not give an up-front presentation of copyright licensing information, but it has never been policy or guideline to proactively vet all links for this. Policy is to remove copyvio when it is identified or reasonably suspected as copyvio. The suggestion that we should assume copyvio without sufficient proof of licensing would be very hard to implement fairly, due to the inherent difficulty in being able to verify that any given site truly is legitimately copyrighted.

It is not disputed that Youtube has copyvio materials, because of it's user-submitted-content nature. And this nature marks it out under the guidelines for close attention. However, Youtube does carry a significant and non-zero amount of legitimately reproduced materials, so any blanket ban is inappropriate. This was the consensus formed back when this issue was first raised, and I have seen no sign that it has altered.

I would like to stress again, there has never been demonstrated consensus to support a blanket ban on Youtube or similar sites that have potential for copyvio. Copyvio should and must be addressed on an individual case by case basis, and not given guilt by association. Blanket deletions of this kind are bad procedure and go against the spirit of community editing, and they should stop immediately.

The correct method if editors believed Youtube to require a blanket restriction was to form a general consensus on the issue both here, and from the pump, and have Youtube added to the blocklist. Organising a cabal to proceed with deletion of these links as and where found without support of the community is not acceptable behaviour. It seems almost designed to cause upset and annoyance. It should stop, and those involved should apologise.

In this case I would be prepared to support any RFC taken on users shown to be continuing this behaviour, since it's clearly being disruptive. --Barberio 01:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A user conduct RFC should be filed against Mimsy-whomever, who persists in disrespecting community consensus, deleting valid links, making false accusations, and deliberately giving erroneous information/attempting to bully/mislead. (Against the advice of even the other YT-deletion-minority, at least one of whom has advised him, "sometimes it's better to drop it and move on." See "Lennon," at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington

Cindery 06:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Blanket restrictions on potential copyvio sites such as Youtube not to be used as external links, is not a good idea. Links to external sites should be addressed on an individual case by case basis. feydey 19:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have had links on Derek Sherinian now repeatedly deleted that are YouTube, even though the artist in question has directly APPROVED their use and has seen and reviewed the Wikipedia page. This is yet another example of the inmates running the asylum here. Jimmy Wales himself has said the Digital Millenium Copyright Act/DMCA is the vehicle to resolve potential YouTube copyright issues. What is going on here? Tvccs 05:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear god, Derek Sherinian has more External links then actual content... (I guess thats not realy relivent to current conversation, but... yeah...) ---J.S ^(T/C) 17:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Draft policy

I've created a suggested policy page at Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube. Please comment, and indicate whether you can support the policy as written, or if you have suggested changes. Argyriou (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved the draft to the appropriate project page to leave the talk page free for discussion. The draft can now be found here--Spartaz 11:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not think we need aditional Youtube specific policy or guideline. The current policies and guidelines work well if applied fairly. I've added some text to make it clear that link removals under copyvio should be considered on a case by case process. --Barberio 20:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, that cannot/shouldnot ever be a policy. Policies and guidelines are here to describe, in the most general terms possible, how actions should be carried out. They are not here to proscribe specific solutions to specific problems. (see WP:CREEP)

It should however be rewritten as an essay and given it's own WP. (Wikipedia:Dealing with video sharing sites?) The essay should discuss the downfalls of linking to sites like YouTube/googlevideo/etc and outline a reasonable method of deciding if a link should/shouldn't be linked to. I think the current page is halfway there... but it needs to focus more on how to avoid the problem we have now (4000 questionable links with the vast majority linking to copyvio). ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've rewritten some sections with the intent of converting it to an essay and expanded some sections to include more relevant policies, etc. ---J.S ^(T/C) 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem, again, is that you are violating C policy, which clearly states that you must provide evidence on talkpages, respect editorial process, engage in discussion etc. You have ignored all invitations to make attempts to modify C policy to accelerate removal of say, obvious music vid links. There has been bo onslaught of complaints re copyvio regarding these; there is no urgency. The PROBLEM --what has wasted so much time and upset so many prodcutive editors--is that project and individual actions by you, mimsy and Dmcdevit have massively disrupted Wikipedia by violating policy, being grossly incivil, etc. Cindery 09:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Cindery we are close to consensus here - simmer down and let us discuss it without inflammatory comment. Spartaz 11:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I added by 0.02p worth. Please can someone else come and have a look? Spartaz 12:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Different Policy Suggestion

I've been thinking about what can be done to try and appease both sides and protect Wikipedia. I propose a very basic and simple solution. All YouTube links must use the {{YouTube}} template (a bot can convert, as can AWB, not difficult) which includes a disclaimer about YouTube and a link to report copyright concerns to a small project on Wikipedia where people like dmcdevit, Sir Nicholas, myself and other volunteers from the spam project can review pages and YouTube videos before making a decision on whether or not to remove that link to YouTube. Something like this should do the trick.

External links/YouTube at YouTube
YouTube may contain material in breach of copyright laws.
If you believe this video breaches copyright Report It for Review

Addendum. It should then be possible to start to create a list of YouTube videos we are happy are either safe to link to or which we can't link to, allowing a bot to create a list of pages using the template which need to be checked, pages which contain only links to material which doesn't violate copyright and remove links to material we're know to be copyright violations automatically, though this is obviously something for much later when we have a large list of good and bad links built up. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we just go though the links that are in place now and remove the ones that are bad? Seems reasonable to me... And I'm not sure if this is entirely relivent, but it might be worth considering: Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates ---J.S ^(T/C) 23:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a rather massive bit of WP:CREEP. Why not a disclaimer saying any external link may be a copyright violation? Why would we pick out one site to say this about? Unhelpful idea any way you look at it. 2005 23:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I know how unwanted this will be, but how about when adding an http:// link to a page, an automatic disclaimer is added at the bottom of the page with a link to a page on Wikipedia where general users of the Wikipedia and editors who don't get involved with external links can report a link for linking to copyright material, allowing pages to be listed much as copyvios tagged by editors are at the moment and removed once an editor has carried out a check. We need the MediaWiki to lend a hand on this one as there are 1.5 million pages, most containing an external link and probably 99% have not been checked to see if the sites being linked to are violating copyrights. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 23:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither solution seems fine. Having a disclaimer is WP:CREEP. However, the normal disclaimer that "The site may break copyright" is not enough, as if we know the link is breaking copyright, we must remove it or could be held responsible for keeping it here. The best that can be done is manually review every YouTube review, and add the video id to a white or black list. Then, having a bot use those lists to automatically remove any video that has been blacklisted. -- ReyBrujo 00:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, there's a straightforward way to do things but it relies on a bot and a lot of reliable volunteers, a bot that looks for every unique YouTube link (to begin with because YouTube copyvios are surely the priority) and compiles a list of videos that need to be checked. The bot is then run daily and removes any links we add to a Blacklist (perhaps a fully protected page only available to admins, just like the userlist for AWB which could either be uploaded to the bot or the bot can use the page) and adds a comment underneath videos on a Whitelist saying it's been checked and believed to be OK and a comment on the page detailing what videos have been removed (we wouldn't want anybody else removing videos believed to be OK or thinking a copyvio video hasn't been removed for goodreason). There would need to be rules on how to classify videos which would satisfy people like Brad Patrick and which is reasonably acceptable to users (there's no point engaging in a massive project like this only to find it doesn't satisfy the Foundation's Attorney, though unpopularity with editors is going to happen anyway) and we would also need a method to deal with people adding videos to the whitelist in a disruptive manner, just as we would with people incorrectly tagging images. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 06:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Get real! YouTube is a republisher. So if, CBC aired a small 20 second clip on Electric Cars and I place a link. The proper citation be to follow Terrubian style (or something like that). For example:

The article may say: "According to the Discovery Chanel the electric car, in 2006, remained the most efficient vehicle in the world"[1].

The End note would be: something like Fuel cells and electric cars, November 14, 2006, The Discovery Chanel, reproduced by youtube.com, Accessed Oct 11, 2006 <www.youtube.com/videolink>.

Who cares about YouTube. They have their own watch dog and copyright stuff. If, the material is a copy violation then it should be up to whoever notices to take it up with YouTube! For the Discovery Channel's Copyright, (Plus you're getting into laws from foreign land! (for me anyway)) I doubt it will really matter because they have released a few of their video's online through their website!). So, all this to say, if you think it's a copy vio, bring it up with YouTube and keep it here on wiki until they clear-it up. We not going to get in trouble for linking to the file. Further more! I would suggest having a poll or vote on the subject. --CyclePat 21:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If you read this page, quite a lot of people care about youtube. Unfortunately, a clear consensus appears to be eluding us. You may find this link illuminating. Spartaz 21:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Personnally, I care about YouTube. But Wikipedia shouldn't more than any other source of information (ie.: Discovery Channel Online, Google videos, etc...)(or in this case current republissher). To be blunt, "Wikipedia shouldn't give a dam about YouTube's legal obligations." And, if someone sees a reliably sourced video (WP:V), (ie.: CBC news, Tech Weekly, CNN, etc.) that was republished by Youtube, they can reasonably cite it. Again, there is no reason not to cite it and we are permitted to add the url. (Now if, I can't find out that the video came from CBC, well then that's another issue) Again, that is taking into consideration that the video is properly cited WP:CITE, verified WP:V, and not original research WP:OR. (The Original research will probably bring on many issues which I'm sure have happened with photographs. For example, how do you justify the use of a photograph of a building. Isn't that WP:OR original research? And isn't a copyright violation of the engeneers that built it and the blue prints! etc... etc... etc...) If a team wants to get together to pick on Youtube links, they can go right ahead, but it should remain a case by case analysis of each one. In the mean time, I see no reason to take this any further. Unless you can pinpoint a specific violation (cited) to OUR wiki rules for all articles from Youtube. Or even if you can pinpoint some... I doesn't really matter. That's because, if I see movie of for example "Frosty the snow man" and at the end there are credits or famous scenes, I can quote those under fair use policy. Again, and finally, we are "citing" information from a video republished by Youtube. If you wish to strike an educated debate on this issue I would suggest finding WP:AMA to help you please present us with the exact violations. --CyclePat 05:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"To be blunt, "Wikipedia shouldn't give a dam about YouTube's legal obligations."" - Ok, thats your opinion, but it's not policy. We can't knowingly link to matterial that is in violation of copyrights. (See WP:C) (Yeah, yeah, not all videos on YouTube violate copyrights. I never said they did.)

"but it should remain a case by case analysis of each one." - As far as how I'm working, thats what I've been doing. I see a YT link. If it's obviously a violation of WP:C I remove it. If it's a violation of WP:EL, I remove it. If it's a violation of WP:V I remove it. If it's a violation of WP:NOT, I remove it. Otherwise, I leave it. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks like a group of us (at my instigation) are going ahead with the idea of reviewing every YouTube video on Wikipedia and blacklisting copyright violation stuff. There's only around 11,000 videos to sort through so with a few users and admins on the case, a couple of months should see us up to date with a list of videos wholly unsuitable for WP on copyright grounds only and which will be removed automatically. Actual operation is a few weeks off yet, but I'll be getting a Wikiproject up and running in the next few days to find a consensus on how links will be removed etc. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just run AWB and review/delete the links one at a time... like we have been doing? Adding bad links to a list befor removing seems like an entirly unessary extra step. ---J.S ^(T/C) 02:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop a copyvio video being reverted, so a video added to a BL once will be automatically removed by one of our proposed bots should they video be reverted back into an article. Also, the same video may appear on WP more than once so if it's reviewed and added to either a White or Black List, further occurrences can be dealt with automatically (either kept or removed). I'd also like to see a comment added beneath a video being kept saying it has been reviewed and found to not to violate any copyright laws and it's not necessary to remove the link or to check as the process has already been performed. It's purely to try and maximise what we can do with the few volunteers that will come forward. There's also the option of a pre-emptive action against YouTube, Blacklisting videos known to breach copyright but not yet added to WP, but again, that's something for the future. Something along the lines of Commons:User:FlickrLickr to find and import a list of all licensed and unlicensed material for sorting could be another possibility for later. Building the framework now for this will help later if we get more ambitious in trying to stop material we know to violate copyright from being added from the outset, but that's my eventual aim. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The YouTube links are highly unstable and I know of atleast 3 ways to link to each video on YouTube. This sounds like a massive maitnance project.... ---J.S ^(T/C) 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Temporary notice proposal.

Since there seems to be a lot of mistaken beliefs going around on the Youtube issue, I'm going to propose adding the following temporary notice to the guideline, above the contents list.

Notice on linking to YouTube and similar sites There is currently no ban on linking to specific video on these sites as long as the links abide by the following guidelines. Inclusion of external links should be considered on a case by case basis. Video that has been placed on YouTube in violation of copyright should be reported to YouTube. Wikipedia makes no effort to verify the contents of external links.

And this notice should remain until the issue dies down. (ie, YouTube is less in the spotlight) --Barberio 23:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Lots of editors misread the guidelines (especially if they don't check the immense amount of verbiage here on the Talk page), and it causes a lot of bad blood and confusion. — jesup 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The box is misleading. YouTube dosn't take complaints from third-parties and this entire page is about verifying the contents (to a reasonable degree) of external links. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeap. the page on YouTube specifically states A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.. That isn't 99.99% of Wikipedia users sadly. Regulation of YouTube links on Wikipedia has to be done by Wikipedians on Wikipedia by users who can be trusted to remove genuine copyright violating material whilst leaving everything else. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Blatent copyvios have no place either here or by linking. All external links have to meet a threshold concerning C, V and RS although we all accept that the burden should be less then for article content. I see no reason why we should grant these links special protection to prevent users evaluating then and reacting accordingly. Saying that we should leave it to youtube is simply washing our hands. I see no real difference between a YT link and an obviously inappropriate image uploaded by an editor but one gets deleted and the other is apparantly not our responsibility. I firmly disagree with that position. --Spartaz 16:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The original proposal (not the template proposed immediately above) is to prevent bot edits (and AWB trawls) of links where there is a claim that they are valid. The tag (which I proposed) asks editors to review the link manually, and discuss the deletion. The primary issue I see with YouTube links is that people are repeatedly deleting all YouTube links without sufficient examination of their validity. I don't really mind a presumption of guilt in the YouTube case, but I do mind that some editors feel that the presumption cannot be overrriden, and that misquoting policy over and over constitutes a discussion. Argyriou (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to indicate that the link is legitimate is to indicate it in the contexts of how the link is used. [http://www.youtube.com/exmaple Official band profile] usually automatically gets skipped by me. Similarly [http://www.youtube.com/exmaple The YouTube video that made YouTuber123 famous]. If there is a special case where the link is legit, but looks bad and it can't be made obvious in context then a simple HTML comment (such as: <!--See talk for details -->) would be enough to make me pause and go read the talk page. ---J.S ^(T/C) 21:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I like that - it makes sense and I reiterate that bots and AWB should not be used to remove such links. We are big boys and can use talk pages. --Spartaz 22:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Argyriou but when people talk about people are repeatedly deleting all YouTube links without sufficient examination of their validity, I find it very frustrating because its totally untrue. Just to be clear - neither J.smith nor I are arbitarily deleting every YT link we find. We are reviewing them and deciding on a case by case basis according to WP:C; WP:V & WP:RS. We are not engaged in some war against YT. We are simply removing inappropriate linkes. Anyone is very welcome to review all of my deletions and if I have made a mistake, I'll put my hands up and accept the restoration of the link. I know J.smith has reacted the same way as well (although he makes less mistakes than I do). I realise this sounds a tad like a stuck record but hopefully, at some point, somebody will actually accept that this is true and react to us based on what we have done rather than some perception of what someone thinks we are doing. Spartaz 21:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There are too many instances of refusal by members of the deletion minority to respect editorial discussion when links are disputed. (There is instead evidence of the minority repeatedly deleting valid links and misquoting policy.) The notice at EL re You Tube should stay. Links should be reviewed and removed manually, per C, with civility and respect for the editorial process at articles. Cindery 00:26, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Please use indenting so we know who or what you are responding to. Can you verify that there is a deletion minority? There seems to be a rough consensus emerging that we shouldn't deleted out of hand but review per C, V & RS. J.smith and I are both signed up to that so who exactly is this minority? Can you cite examples of the "deletion minority" refusing to accept editorial discussion and misquoting policy and deleting valid links? In particular something that isn't already covered in your RFC of Sir Nick and relates to a different editor? You have after all sought community opinion on that and we need to look outside that now. Spartaz 11:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think I will file an RfC against JSmith and Dmcdevit at this point, there are links in this draft which show that they have deleted verified links/been uncivil to objectors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cindery#JSmith.2FDmcdevit_user_conduct_RFC_draft What particularly concerned/concerns me is that some variation of "we are cool about it if we make a mistake" is repeated, but actually the opposite happens: false accusations of NOR which are neither defended nor apologized for; ganging up to delete a validated link. In the Barrington Hall edit history, Nick, Rory, and Dmcdevit appeared to join together in a coordinated effort to delete the link. I have already mentioned the handling of Guy Goma. I want to be clear that there are three separate issues: 1) the project itself 2) how editors at articles with verified links are treated when they have objections and the disruption that causes and the time it wastes 3) the disruptive effect misinformation--citing the EL guideline in deleting links--has: causing confusion among editors who do not read policy boards, about whether You Tube is prohibited. I think it is also important to note Barberio's recent statement at Nick's RfC: the project itself may be attracting liability, not minimizing liability. I would like to see a statement from Jimbo or the Foundation attorney endorsing the project, or else I think it should be suspended. I have said all along that I would happily support a modification in C policy to expedite any and all music vid copyvios--I think it is reasonable to have a higher degree of suspicion regarding those, and pre-emptively deleting them is probably a good idea. Pre-emptively deleting You Tube links with AWB (deleting on source bias without a complaint from article editors or copyright holders who say their copyright is being infringed) is a) not in accord with C policy b) could cause a lot of legal problems--not just disruption--the more that I think about it. Intent torts are the hardest to prove--it is extremely unlikely that anyone will ever accuse Wikipedia of "knowingly infringing" with regards to a link, as most of what Wikipedia links to is under copyright. Five people?--you, JSmith, Dmcdevit, Nick, and Rory started a project based on one ANI discussion which had minimal participants, and IRC chat--i.e., not community consensus. I think the project is misguided, massively disruptive, and is serving the opposite of its purpose: attracting rather than minimizing liability, and losing rather than gaining "free" content. But, the point of this discussion is the EL tag: again, it should stay. It reflects consensus at EL, and makes it clear to anyone at an article where a link is deleted "per EL," that You Tube is not de facto prohibited. At this point, the tag is necessary, since links were deleted by the deletion minority "per EL" after it was already clear that You Tube is not prohibited (in general, and, specifically: per EL.)

Cindery 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I made it more noticeable and consice. I realy have no problem with it being there for the short-term... but it's not a long-term solution. ---J.S ^(T/C) 09:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A "long term solution" would certainly be a statement from Jimbo or the Foundation attorney: is that forthcoming? Dmcdevit has invoked "the Foundation" and "free" content as the rationale for the YT link deletion project. So, let's hear from Brad or Jimbo.

(Regarding the "conduct" aspect of the YT deletion project, I think it would go a long way towards restoring good faith if, for example, you apologized to Jody for the false accusation of NOR which you did not even bother to defend at the NOR board, and made an assertion that--if the project is allowed to continue-- you do not intend in the future to treat YT link copyright owners so badly.)

Thanks, Cindery 14:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• The onus is on those seeking to include content, to justify it. Not the other way round. This has been discussed in numerous places, and the view from legal experts was that linking to copyright infringing material may be a form of contributory infringement under US law. I've not heard a legal opinion to rebut this, although there's been a fair bit of arm-waving. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem unclear on the fact that most of what Wikipedia links to is under copyright. Also, the tag as written now--"Wikipedia makes no effort to verify You Tube links" is a blanket protection from accusations of knowing infringement. Intent torts are the hardest to prove. Merely having a YT deletion project opens up about a zillion cans of worms re liability and "knowing" --it makes proving intent easier. If a mass project is being conducted--and even one mistake is made that somebody somewhere doesn't like-- as long as this project is going on, they can argue that "Wikipedia knew or reasonably should have known, since they were supposedly reviewing all You Tube links." Dealing with possible copyright infringement under current Copyright policy--a report is made and investigated, or a copyright owner complains--is more than adequate for liability protection and article quality. "Reviewing all links" opens Wikipedia up to liability for knowing whether each and every link--and not just You Tube--in any way infringes on copyright. Reviewing each and every link of any kind (and never making a mistake) is impossible, and attracts liability. But again--let's hear from Brad and Jimbo on that. If they want each and every link Wkipedia links to reviewed/deleted if there's any doubt about copyright status, let's do it. If they don't, let's drop it.

Cindery 15:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not unclear about it at all. The BBC website is copyright the BBC. We link to it, no problem. We have in the past blacklisted sites which host copies of newspaper reports (violates copyright). We also blacklisted YTMND (most of the soundtracks violate copyright). There is a world of difference between linking to copyright material, and linking to material which infringes copyright. I thought this was obvious. You appear to be arguing that by adding a disclaimer we somehow remove the legal problem. I don't believe that is the case. It's not about reviewing the links, it's about having them. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you review the EL discussions before continuing to argue/in order to contribute usefully to the discussion, as you are rehashing points which have already been argued/put to bed, and people have complained--as you can see above--that this has "been talked to death"--You Tube has agreements with major news outlets for licensed content, which is one of the reasons there can be no blanket ban of You Tube.

Thanks, Cindery 15:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

Well I for one have a massive problem with the proposal above. What is should say is, in my view:

Notice on linking to YouTube and similar sites Do not link to any external content unless you are confident that the content does not infringe copyright. This applies particularly to video, and animations with soundtracks that include copyrighted music recordings. Linking to external media which infringes copyright is a form of contributory infringement and places Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. External links which are believed to violate copyright may be removed by any editor, provided a reason is given, and should not be re-inserted until copyright is unambiguously established from reliable sources. Personal testimony is acceptable only via the Foundation's Permissions address.

Because, in the end, I am not going to pay for the legal costs when we get sued for linking to a YouTube ripoff of someone's copyright content. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This proposal does not reflect, and in fact contradicts, current stated policy on copyright in external links. We do not require such a high standard of proof for copyright licensing, since it would be a huge burden on editors simply wishing to link to a site. The requirement is that we are not to *knowingly and intentionally* link to copyright infringement, the level here is a reasonable belief that the site is properly copyrighted. Please re-read Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. I find myself repeating the statement that unless you are a lawyer, you should not represent legal opinions, and you specifically should not represent legal opinions on behalf of the foundation. --Barberio 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any case in law where a failure to be sufficiently diligent, especially in cases where the likelihood of infringement is high, has been accepted as a valid excuse. Can you cite any? Nor am I aware of any elements of intellectual property law where assuming something is OK, rather than checking, is an acceptable way of exercising due diligence. Especially where the likelihood of infringement is known to be high, which it is in this case. Can you cite any such cases? We have cited case law which says that linking to copyright infringing material may expose us to liability, and there is abundant evidence that many YouTube links infringe copyright, so it seems to me that we woul be extremely unwise to rely on looking the other way and whistling innocently as a defence against failure to verify copyright. And to be honest I am not sure why we would want to try - linking to copyright violations is unambiguously bad, and it is hardly a big deal to ask those inserting links to verify the copyright status authoritatively - this is normally obvious anyway. (The Previous unsigned comment was added by User:JzG 17:33, 1 January 2007)

Again, unless you are a lawyer, you should not be giving legal opinions. My brief experience with this kind of law is that it may in fact increase liability as actions to vet links show as accepting liability for any infringing links, and the complications related to 'intent' make liability a complex issue to settle. Until a lawyer employed by the foundation says 'Doing $X will reduce our liability' it is an extremely bad idea to assume it will.

The actual legal opinion represented in policy is that there is potential liability from Knowingly and Intentionally linking to copyvio.

While it is accepted that many YouTube links infringe copyright, this is no justification for barring links to youtube.

It has not yet been demonstrated that current policy requires the discovery and verification of licensing information for all external links. Such a requirement would in my opinion be over burdensome, and impractical. If it would be reasonable to assume the link is properly copyrighted, I believe that satisfies the requirement to not knowingly and intentional link to copyright. If it is immediately obvious that the copyright is dubious, or someone specificaly questions the copyright status, *then* it should be investigated.

The issue should remain one of investigation on a case by case basis, and the expectation being not to "Knowingly and Intentionally" link to copyvio. --Barberio 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not giving legal opinions. I'm referring you to our copyright policy and the legal opinion which backs it, and stating that before you advocate looking the other way and whistling as an alternative to checking copyright status, you get the support of the foundation's legal advisor, because if I, as an admin, find someone re-inserting links to material with unclear copyright status without first verifying the copyright from an authoritative source, that person will be blocked. End of story. Guy (Help!) 21:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Youtube (Again)

I'm rather disappointed in the people refusing discussion and just editing the guideline to represent their view on an issue. I don't want to be dragged into an edit way, but we now have an extraneous 'copyright' subsection that repeats the section on 'restrictions on linking' and adds another attempt at directly targeting Youtube. --Barberio 14:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Seems that version has consensus. Guy (Help!) 21:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That has more to do with the page being protected. Unless anyone comes up with a good reason to keep it, it should be deleted since it's just redundancy of text already in the guideline and the copyright policy. I don't see the point in adding an extra section that's simply a quoting of a section of the copyright policy, when we already link to that policy and explain that linking to copyvio is forbiden. --Barberio 22:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

So you say. But when you removed it you were immediately reverted by others. Funny, that. Guy (Help!) 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... Reverted by you, not "others". --Barberio 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like it if you could explain why we need to have a two sections on copyright, which duplicate each other by restating the Copyright Policy. It seems like useless redundancy to me, would you like to explain why your second section should stay? The section in "Restrictions on linking" seems to be sufficient, and gives a link to the copyright policy as well as giving a summary of it. Your new section added nothing extra to the guideline. --Barberio 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, reverted by others. Check the history. You seem to be the only one intent on removing the copyright policy references from WP:EL. We have a reference to copyright because it's plainly necessary (else we sould not be having this discussion). Guy (Help!) 11:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... Can you please re-read the guideline, since you may not have noticed this... But the copyright policy references *were already in there*. I wrote that section during the rewrite. And I do not appreciate your dragging this down to ad hominem by saying I want to remove references to the copyright policy, when it's obvious I do not.

Tell me, exactly and clearly and without resort to making this about me, what is wrong with the wording in Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking that needed you to add a new section that just copy pasted in from the copyright policy. --Barberio 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing from participation in this RFC.

Showing willful ignorance opens us up to more legal issues then being able to show a good-faith effort to police our own website. Your entire argument is ridiculous. Your recommending apathy over action. Policy is very clear in this, and the copy-vio issue isn't the only issue at stake. Go read WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM.

All I've been hearing OVER AND OVER on this talk page is complaining, half-truths & outright lies, faulty generalization, ad hominems, uninformed speculation and a whole field full of straw men. What I don't see is any realistic solutions being presented.

I have laid out my solution in simple clear language half a dozen times and the response I get has been very positive.... except for one person who has been nothing but combative, aggressive and downright nasty to me. All I want to do is go though and check each link from wikipedia to YouTube. Over 4000 in article space last I checked. I stopped removing these thinks for nearly a month now. You know what? Unless I'm given a compelling reason not to, I'm going to go back to my work. I've done enough to appease the tiny minority. ---J.S ^(T/C) 00:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You do that. And if anyone disrupts that activity in order to prove a point, they may very well find themselves blocked. You know where to find me. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you did not intend to write that as I read it, it's not really appropriate to offer your support in "getting people blocked" so someone can edit the way they want to. --Barberio 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh I meant it exactly as I wrote it. Anyone who disrupts a legitimate activity to prove a point risks being blocked. And I'm not offering support in getting people blocked either, I was thinking of something a bit more direct. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

Er guys? We're having a rather silly edit war here. The page says "Proposed policy" right at the top, so how on earth is this not a {{proposal}}? JJay - just because it's proposed doesn't mean it'd get accepted. >Radiant< 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'd say it was a workshop for a WP:EL section myself. It appears to exist mainly because some people didn't like the implications of copyright policy for linking to all those cool YouTube ripoffs videos. Guy (Help!) 11:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That'd mean it's a proposal for a change in WP:EL. Makes me wonder why you're not discussing it on the EL talk page, but still. >Radiant< 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• umm, because someone moved all the YouTube threads here maybe. --JJay 12:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I don't particularly care if it has the proposal tag or not - enough people know it's here. The original intention of this proposal was two-fold: to clarify the requirements for external links, and to set a guideline for the use of (semi)automated tools for removing YouTube links. The edit wars don't happen on 99% of the automated removals; what I wanted was a way to signal to people using AWB (or bots) that a particular link removal was likely to be contentious and needs either a custom edit summary or discussion on the talk page. Whether that guideline should be a part of WP:EL or standalone, I'll leave to people like Guy. Argyriou (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need to establish a rule for the semi-automated removal of links as it's intended to be a one-off to purge large amounts of inappropriate links from the project. As long as we have a concise and unambiguous policy statement - do not link to material that infringes copyyright - we probably don't actually need anything else. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Decision tree

Here is what I believe should be the decision tree for determining whether or not a YouTube(ish) external link should be kept:

Is the content linked to relevant to the article?

• No: Delete
• Yes: continue

Is the content a reliable source? (Keep in mind that much video is a primary source.)

• No: Delete
• Yes: continue

Is the content obviously public domain (U.S. Government, pre-1923, labeled "released into public domain", etc.)?

• No: continue
• Yes: Keep

Is the content obviously hosted by its copyright holder? (ie a TV station website for news clips)

• No: continue
• Yes: Keep

Is the content reasonably ovbiously copyright by a content creator well-known for defending its copyrights (ie major motion-picture studios, RIAA members, TV stations or networks, newspapers or press agencies, or book publishers)?

• No: continue
• Yes: Delete

If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, is there a version of equal or better quality available at the copyright-holder's website?

• No: continue
• Yes: Replace link with "authorized version".

If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with permission of the copyright holder?

• No: continue
• Yes: Keep

Is there other reason (besides those checked above) to believe that the content is infringing?

• No: Keep
• Yes: Delete

The standard for linking is that we not knowingly link to infringing material. A reasonable person should be expected to know that content produced by major content providers (like news media, movie studios, RIAA recording studios, and most book and magazine publishers) is copyright and requires permission directly from the copyright owner. So linking to a Metallica video or a TV clip of "The Play" (where Cal beat the Stanford football team and band) when hosted on YouTube is not ok. But if some unsigned band has made a video, the band may give permission to all and sundry to post the video everywhere so that they get more exposure; some amateur film-makers will release their work for republication for ideological reasons or to obtain exposure. Therefore, in the absence of information to the contrary, we do not know that the material is infringing, and we are therefore not liable for contributory infringement if we link to the material. Argyriou (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links do not have to be reliable sources unless used as part of a citation. If it's reliable source or not is irrelevant if it's not being used as a citation. --Barberio 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, in part. The main exception to the "reliable source" standard I see for external links are links to official sites/publications of the subject of the article, where those might be unreliable for establishing facts otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've edited this a little, and put it up as an essay at Wikipedia:External_links/Copyrights --Barberio 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding at least the statement regarding "knowingly linking" to your essay; perhaps an actual citation from the Lighthouse case would be better. I'm also not certain that's the best title for the page. Argyriou (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Up to "Is the content obviously hosted by its copyright holder? (ie a TV station website for news clips)" I'm with you, but after that you seem to assert that there is a qualitative difference between infirnging the copyrights of litigious versus non-litigious sources. This is a very bad distinction to draw. If the content is copyright, and not hosted by the copyright holder, then we need to check - always - that the uploader has rights to upload it, and if we can't prove that then we should not link. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree. The legal standard is knowingly linking to infringing material, which is different than pretty much all other copyright infringement standards, which only require proof of infringement, not intent nor knowlege. The distinction I make could be read as "litigious vs non-litigious", but it is intended to be a guide to those providers known to not license free distribution of their work, versus those not known to do so. Argyriou (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, but what's knowingly? If it's pointed out by another editor that the copyright status is problematic and you reinsert the link anyway, that could be seen as wilful and knowing. See the problem? Better to be sure and simply not link to material that infringes copyright - which is in any case the decent thing. Why would we want to link to material that we think might infringe copyright? Why would that be good, in any way? Guy (Help!) 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• It depends on why another editor believes the copyright status is problematic. If he has evidence that the link is copyvio, then the link ought to stay deleted. But if the only reason for believing the copyright status is problematic is because there's no evidence that it is acceptable, then reinserting the link is not "knowingly" linking to copyvio. I suppose that a video (or image) hosted on a site which doesn't have any copyright statements or Terms of Use at all would raise a greater suspicion, but both YouTube and Google Video require their members to only upload video which they have permission from the copyright owner to distribute. Failing a moderately good reason to believe that the user is in violation of the terms of use, it is reasonable to assume that the user is not violating the ToU, and that the link is not infringing. Argyriou (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly the number of links where the status is unclear are such a small subset of the mostly straightforwqrd majority that I wonder why we persist in spending so much time trying to come up with a perfect solution that will please everyone? At the end of the day if an editor thinks in good faith its a copyvio than they can delete it. If someone disagrees they can research it and discuss it on talk pages and all things being equal a rough consensus based around each item will emerge. The world will continue to revolve whatever we do and I'm done with this dispute as well. I have some links to review so I can go back to editing articles - something this stupid issue has keep me away from doing for far too long. It would be interesting to plot a graph of how much this issue has drawn away from editing time for the participants - and very shameful. I invite anyone to review my deletions. If you don't agree with my decisions lets discuss them as long as you accept I'm doing my best I don't see any reason for a disagreement to occur. End of story. Ciao. Spartaz 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. And the problem was caused, I think, by people who were unwilling to assume sufficient good faith on the part of Nick to do the research it bit, until they were forced to - at which point, it seems, they discovered that if they'd done that in the first place, there would not have been a problem. We appear to be trying to legislate Clue. I go with Jjay's version at the top - Don't link to material that infringes copyright. Says more in seven words than most of this entire page. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Do not link to material that violates copyright." is still a bad oversimplification of the current policy on copyrights, which is "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

Guidelines should not conflict with or misrepresent policy. If you feel the policy on copyright relevent to linking is wrong, I suggest you take this issue to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, however it does appear that the issue was discussed and no change came of it. In fact, some hefty evidence including citation to court case indicates that the current standard of 'Not knowingly and intentionally link to copyvio' may be more than is required by law. --Barberio 12:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The consensus is that you should not link to material you have good reason to suspect has been posted in breach of copyright. Whether that is right or wrong, meets a legal standard, is too restrictive in your view, whatever; it's what the editors here, over months of discussions on this and other copyright-related issues, have agreed to. The "policy" is simply a reflection of the consensus. The page you mention, Wikipedia:Copyrights, has this: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Even if it was legal, it's not considered ethical here. Like most policies though, this has to be applied with common sense, not blindly. Grace Note 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We're agreeing on the same things here really. The thing is, what's been proposed is that we require editors to get licensing information for every external link, and delete links where there is no explicit licensing information. This is a change from the 'good reason to suspect' standard. And it contradicts that in the copyright policy. This issue really needs to be brought up in the policy talk page first if we're going to change this standard.

I don't think the standard should change, since it adds a new extra burden to editors, and introduces cases where we'd bar links to properly copyrighted material that just lacks an explicit declaration of licensing. --Barberio 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it adds no additional burden to editors. The burden has always been on those seeking to include something, to ensure it meets policy. We do not need a guideline that endorses no looking too hard as a way of meeting our obligations. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright policy does not state that all links must have licensing information. "Licensing information" has only come up with regards to links, external or otherwise, in the YouTube discussion. Moreover, EL is a guideline, not a policy (Copyright policy would still take precedence, and it is confusing to have a guideline which contradicts a policy). Consensus at EL has consistently been not to invent specific new requirements--such as licensing info--for only one type of link. Again and again, this discussion has come to: can there be a blanket ban? (No.) And: what should happen if the copyright holder affirms permission to use the link? --the majority agree that the link should stay. A minority think that the link should be deleted anyway because it is a YouTube link, and the justification for this is "licensing information," (not copyright). The thing to do is go and try to change the copyright policy--there's no consensus (or rationale) for changing EL to contradict C for the purpose of deleting YouTube links which have copyright permission from the copyright holder. What Arg's "decision tree" illustrates is "editorial judgement," which has been posited all along as the only way to suss out the acceptability of a link for inclusion, and should remain as the means for sussing out whether a link is acceptable for inclusion, particularly 1) if the link is disputed 2) because there are other grounds for which editorial judgement is necessary. Guidelines exist to guide the editorial process, not to pre-determine or usurp it-- a good guideline makes for sharper editors, it doesn't replace editing. Cindery 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright section

I'm rather disappointed in the people refusing discussion and just editing the guideline to represent their view on an issue. I don't want to be dragged into an edit way, but we now have an extraneous 'copyright' subsection that repeats the section on 'restrictions on linking' and adds another attempt at directly targeting Youtube. --Barberio 14:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see why anyone should think it acceptable to link to material which violates the creator's copyright. This is, so it seems, wrong both legally and certainly IMO morally as well, and Jimbo is very big on Wikipedia having a sense of moral responsibility. It is perfectly valid to mention YouTube as the biggest, most well-known and most successful site where you have to be damn careful what you are linking to. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

We decided against directly targeting YouTube for the following reasons.

• You should be careful when linking to any site, not just ones named in the guideline. Naming sites like this will quickly turn the guideline into a big list of 'forbidden sites' not general guidelines.
• There are a significant number of useful and acceptable links on YouTube, editors should not be mislead that all YouTube links are in violation.
• Issues should be taken on a case by case basis.

--Barberio 19:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No one else seems to have stood up to say "This new section should remain", so it should probably be removed. Please note that there is already a section on copyright, that this new one is redundant too. --Barberio 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Still no support for a second section? --Barberio 20:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's gone. --Barberio 18:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed this because of all the other stuff going on. I reverted your deletion of the section because I hadn;t realised that there had been a talk discussion. My mistake, I'll revert back on a second. I do personally think there is no harm in having an extra discussion of this contentious area. Spartaz 18:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I just restored Barberio's last edit already, as per this discussion. Nevermind, your edit superseded/preempted mine. All is well. I agree it's redundant and unnecessary. Also as per the discussion about naming sites like YouTube, the deleted Copyright section sets us up for confusion with a specific mention of that site. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 18:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, yet again a particular editor disagreed, and the resulting edit war has left the page protected again. --Barberio 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy and Radiant edit warring

Let the record show:

• 1. Guy and Radiant made changes against consensus without any discussion, and refused to engage in discussion when asked.
• 2. Neither Barberio nor I are "You Tube fans"--we're "fans" of discussion instead of edit warring at EL.

• (cur) (last) 16:40, 10 January 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Wikipedia:External links: YouTube dispute continues [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
• (cur) (last) 16:39, 10 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (Well there's a thing - the admins are edit warring and the YouTube fans are not?)
• (cur) (last) 16:35, 10 January 2007 Cindery (Talk | contribs) (→Restrictions on linking - rv --Guy and Radiant edit warring, making changes not discussed on talk.)
• (cur) (last) 16:18, 10 January 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) (You're not seriously implying that our concept of consensus trumps copyright laws, now do you?)
• (cur) (last) 16:11, 10 January 2007 Barberio (Talk | contribs) (rv, these changes didn't have consensus support. Take it to the talk page.)
• (cur) (last) 13:15, 10 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Restrictions on linking - Let's not actively encourage Wikilawyering, shall we?)

Cindery 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• 16:35, 10 January 2007
• 16:11, 10 January 2007

So Guy and Radiant are edit warring, but not Barberio and Cindery? Or are you all just editing boldly? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barberio and I reverted back to a consensus version which was based on discussion, and invited Radiant/Guy to discuss rather than make edits they knew were contentious, without discussion.

Cindery 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, the "other party" seems to be missing from the description above. The title of this heading makes it sound like Guy was edit warring with Radiant... Oh, and by the way... I agree with their wording, like many others. Thanks/wangi 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My edit was based on the above discussion on Copyright section, where I asked three times for editors to support keeping a redundant section. As you can note, removing the extra section was supported. So far, JzG has declined to discuss his rational for keeping a second redundant section. --Barberio 17:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, Barbiero discussed his version and had support for it. Radiant and Guy made their edits without any mention on the talk page first, much less consensus. It's unfortunate to see admins revert warring and ending up getting the revision they want by the page getting locked on their version. I agree with the previous consensus discussion, the section is redundant with the box at the top and support removing redundant text. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

My position on this is as follows :-

1. The current copyright policy explicitly bars knowingly and intentionally linking to material breaching copyright.
2. The current copyright policy does not require licensing.
3. No particular type of site should be singled out for higher requirements than any other site, and all instances of suspected copyright breach should be investigated on a case by case basis.
4. Until the copyright policy is altered to require licensing for external links, no such requirement should be represented as policy here. Guidelines should and must not misrepresent policy.
5. Known copyvio should not be linked to.
6. Suspect links to copyvio should be investigated until it would be reasonable to believe it's not a breach of copyright. If it can not, then it should be removed.

Stated as some people have been misrepresenting my views. --Barberio 17:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reasonable to believe is subjective. If the link is challenged and it is not possible to establish its copyright status authoritatively, why would we want to take the risk? How many links are of such pressing importance as to make that worthwhile? Guy (Help!) 22:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Yup, absolutley right. Atom 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG's point. The burden of evidence should lie with the editor who wants to include the link. If a site's copyright status is suspect, it should be removed until its status is verified. --Muchness 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Any standard we can apply to this, due to the nature of linking, is going to be subjective. However, 'reasonable belief' is the standard inherited from the copyright policy. The alternative seems to be to allow anyone make an unqualified 'suspicion' of copyvio, and delete the link because unspecified requirements of 'proof' are not provided.

A reasonable belief that copyright is valid is the best standard we can fairly apply.

Those suggesting a requirement of 'verification' have so far declined to offer exactly how we should perform such verification. Anything less than notarized license document is making an assumption based on reasonable belief. --Barberio 22:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If a document, photo, whatever has a copyright mark on it, or if someone claims it is copyrighted, that is sufficient to remove it unless the copyright owner gives permission. If we can show that the image or document is clearly marked as released to the public domain by the author, or Wikipedia compatible licensing (such as CC-sharealike of GFDL) then due diligence to licensing has been taken. If two people argue as to whether it is or is not copyrighted, then we should assume that the copyright is valid. We can ask the person claiming copyright to release it the public domain, or decline to use it. If we can not show any licensing history of copyright, or any other licensing, and research does not clarify the licensing status of the text or image then we can't use it. Atom 22:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note, this discussion is about linking to other websites, not including material in articles. Requirment for GFDL or CC-Share licences are explitily *not* required for external links. --Barberio 22:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

To sum up why I'm opposed to the proposed changes... It not only puts Wikipedia in the business of verifying external sites, but puts it in that position with no clear guidelines on a standard of proof or verification for copyright status, leaving us open to abuse from both ends. I've not seen anyone address these concerns.

Wikipedia does not have the resources to run a full legal check on every external link. In light of this 'reasonable belief' is the best available standard to us. --Barberio 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why is it unreasonable to request lisencing information when "resonable doubt" exists? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Because "licensing information" is not the same as copyright verification--as in the case of Barrington Hall. Which is a good example, because it was a video--like many You Tube videos--for which the copyright holder did not file any papers, register copyright, etc. He stated in writing that he was the copyright holder, asked how he could affirm his permission for the link...and was ingored; the link was edit-warred over, etc. (Re licensing: publishing on both You Tube and Wiki is GDFL license...but that hasn't been good enough for the project.) You're reversing the standard specified in the Copyright policy: you've made all the links suspect on source bias--that is not "reasonable doubt"--and *then* rejected any affirmation of copyright permission except major media licenses. A lot of good links will be lost that way.

Cindery 23:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, saying almost exactly the same thing) How do you define "reasonable doubt"? I suspect it's difficult to get licensing information for information found on websites. If there is genuine reason to believe that something is a violation, we shouldn't link to it. But if we require proof of licensing (whatever that would be) to link to anything, it could easily turn into a convenient veto for any link you don't like. If I don't like your link, I can insist that it's probably a copyright violation and refuse to allow it until you show proof that it's not a violation (which in most cases is impossible to produce). There needs to be a happy medium that can keep out obvious copyright violations but can't be wikilawyered into an excuse to delete any links you feel like deleting. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbiero and Cindery edit warring

Same applies, really. Per WP:C, do not link to material which violates copyright. What is the benefit in making that less clear? Barberion reverted my addition of a section taken from WP:C and quoting WP:C directly, as "redundant". I therefore merged the part of the text which was not redundant (i.e. Barberio's complaint is baseless, I did not re-insert redundant material). Barberio reverted. Did Barberio make any move to discuss? No. But only Radiant and I are edit warring? I don't think so.

Barberio and Cindery are part of the small group who wants to make it easier to link to YouTube videos with questionable copyright status. I, Radiant, Thatcher and others see no compelling reason to encourage, implicitly or explicitly, linking to material with questionable copyright. Nor do we see any compelling reason why the usual onus on the editor seeking to include content should be reversed, as Barberio advocates, in the case of links which may infringe copyright. That seems particularly bizarre, given that it would legislate a reversal of the usual practice in situations where that reversal may give rise to legal problems, and which in any case goes against copyright policy.

All of the above is in any case a spillover from Barberio's war against Dmcdevit and others who were working to reduce the number of YouTube links to content with questionable copyright status. Barberio and Cindery know full well that Dmcdevit, Radiant, Thatcher, myself, Nearly Healdess Nick and a lot of others are opposed to introducing ambiguity and making it less clear that we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright. Barberio's changes were made in the full knowledge that I would oppose them and so would others.

As I have said many times before, looking the other way and whistling innocently is not a reasonable way of approaching this. If a user wants to link to something and someone removes it in good faith citing possible copyright violation, re-inserting it without first verifying the copyright status to be clean violates WP:C and might be counted as "wilful" under the rulings cited in that policy. What is good about linking to material with unclear copyright? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You knowingly edited the guideline against consensus, after discussion. You stopped contributing to discussion at the You Tube RfC, [8] and did not discuss your proposed changes on talk. You refused to discuss on talk after you you were asked, both on your talkpage [9] and in edit summaries: you were edit warring.

Cindery 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

While I generally agree with you, JzG, I'd like to take small exception. First, allow me to support the inclusion of the statement that we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright. Any editor who disagrees with this is opposed to our fundamental goal of making a free (beer and speech) encyclopedia. Linking to material with unclear copyright is a different issue, which requires a weighing of the issues. This, of course, is not releven to the disputed edit - [10] which appears transparently obvious to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Jzg, please do not attribute bad faith motives to other editors. I reverted because you hadn't discussed your change, which was to remove text that had been discussed and supported by consensus with text that had not been discussed, and was part of a section that had been removed after discussion supported removing it. Merging a section that had been deleted should almost always be discussed first. Removal of you additional quotation of the copyright policy, and removal of specific highlighting of 'YouTube' as a problem site, were discussed and supported above. Specifically, not highlighting 'YouTube' as a 'problem site', and specifying a case by case review, were discussed and supported previously. Your edit however was not discussed. You claim wide support for it, but decline to engage in any open discussion that would demonstrate such a wide support. Again, I ask you to take this to dispute resolution if you feel so strongly about it. --Barberio 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Barberio: WP:KETTLE. Guy (Help!) 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Guy, you did add redundant material, specifically "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" which is identical to the text box at the top. Barbiero did discuss this, and people agreed with him, see above. And much of your argument seems like it's against a straw man. Barbiero's version specifically said not to link to infringing material, and I don't see anything about it that would make that easier or more ambiguous. I still don't see why you made these reversions without any mention beforehand on the talk page. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding metacomment about edit warring (Potentially infringing links should be reviewed on a case by case basis. vs. other)

Let's stop talking about edit warring, and instead focus on the problem. Is there any disagreement with the statement that "we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright?" From this we can move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As made clear above, I've no objection to that at all. --Barberio 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. How about: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Me too... except that the "creator" dosn't alwase own the copyright... but thats just splitting hairs :) "creators" -> "owners"/"holders" or some such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if you believe that a site is carrying content that it does not have the rights to, you should not link to that content? --Spartaz 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

What, specifically, about the first sentence of the consensus version--complete with a link to Copyright policy--is unclear/should be changed, and why?:" Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. "

Cindery 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You guys do realize that "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" is already in the article, right? And in Guy's version, it's in there twice (which makes me wonder why he keeps insisting he hasn't added redundant material). Guy, I'm also not sure what you mean by your kettle reference since Barberio's discussion of his edit is plain as day on this page and yours is...where is yours? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ahem. Consensus version? I think not. Have you chaps thought about constructively engaging with Hipocrite here instead of arm-waving? As to the canard of redundancy, here is the version as it stands:

Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

So,

Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Statement of principle. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Uncontroversial. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. Statement of policy, worth having as reasoning (people need to know it's not arbitrary). If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Specific, applies to the individual link and not to the website - arguably, item 1 makes YouTube a blanket "no", this clarifies that it's acceptable to link to non-copyvio material but not copyvio, which is, after all, not in dispute. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Uncontroversial, surely? Free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Context, pointing our that it's not acceptable to just guess, if linking to sites which routinely carry copyright violations you should actually check. Again, I would have thought that was uncontroversial.

If someone wants to suggest a condensed version which includes all of the context, I have no problem with that, but I am adamant that we should not leave the door open to people looking the other way and whistling innocently rather than actually checking, where copyright violation is known to be likely. I am a pragmatist, as a rule, but this really does go to the heart of the Wikipedia ethos. As a point of principle, we should be seen to be responsible. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work is extremely controversial, contrary to what you claim, and there has been a great deal of discussion over what "licensing" means. It does seem that the deletionists would like to delete all You Tube links which are not licensed directly from major media outlets. However, over and over again it has been pointed out that the majority of You Tube authors/Wiki linkers are abiding by You Tube's Terms of Use--which means they agree to license their un-formally-copywritten work under GDFL when they link, and that authors who post their original work to You Tube want to be linked elsewhere. (There's also fair use and public domain.) Finding a technicality under which to delete all the You Tube links which aren't licensed from CNN has already been shot down here--more than once--in favor of case-by-case editorial judgement. Licensing and copyright are separate issues, and original work is not de facto copyvio. The assumption that orginal work is licensed under GDFL--as editing Wikipedia is done under the condition that the author licenses their contributions under GDFL--is not a copyvio-favoring assumption. Note that C explicitly states that publishing elsewhere does "not affect an author's right to publish here under GDFL."

Cindery 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"It does seem that the deletionists would like to delete all You Tube links which are not licensed directly from major media outlets."

Wow. I've been strawmanned again.

Can you state exactly what you mean when you say "license"?

Cindery 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was quoting you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

"However, over and over again it has been pointed out that the majority of You Tube authors/Wiki linkers are abiding by You Tube's Terms of Use--which means they agree to license their un-formally-copywritten work under GDFL when they link..."

Wow. Do you understnad copyrights and GFDL at all? If I link to something I've made it does not suddenly put it under GFDL.

See that notice at the bottom when you're editing?--if the You Tube publisher and the Wiki publisher are the same person, they agree to "license your contributions under GFDL." (You might remember that from the argument at NOR--you accused the publisher of OR after he verified copyright permission/that he was the publisher of the You Tube link you were trying to delete?)

Cindery 23:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I'm amazed. Let me see if I can correct your missunderstanding. Since the person didn't upload the video to wikipedia, the person's contribution to the article is only the actual URL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask you to please re-read the copyright policy, "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material -- just as an author of a book does not need permission to cite someone else's work in their bibliography. Likewise, Wikipedia is not restricted to linking only to GFDL-free or open-source content."

We are not required to obtain permission or licence to link, and we are not required to only link to GFDL-free or open-source content. Your comments seem to indicate an opposite belief. --Barberio 23:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Then you need to re-read my comments. I've never said an open-lisence is a requirement. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to Cindery. --Barberio 00:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have argued the don't-need-license-to-link argument in various places (talkpage of Nick's RfC, most recently). I also point out the GFDL license when licensing comes up--because it illustrates that there's no way to affirm copyright permission (author giving permission in writing not good enough; author on You Tube and Wiki same person not good enough...)--Cindery 00:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand is that most of the links on wikipedia to YouTube are not to personal home movies. I agree, home movies arn't usualy a problem under WP:C... but most of the links on wikipedia arn't to home videos. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• note: Spartaz and JSmith on the subject of a video they identified as a You Tube "home movie," and dismissed because it was about "some guy's kid": [11]-Cindery 04:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you deliberately misrepresenting J.smith's views? Where does J.smith state that he endorses that deletion? Oh, he doesn't - so why did you state that he did? This is typical of your contribution to this debate - constantly using argumentative and agressive language and generally stirring up trouble with "misreadings" of the situation, bogus strawmans and incorrect accounts other editor's views. Why don't you work with us to find a way forward instead? Spartaz 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Right--it should have had a more sitcomic title: "Spartaz and JSmith try to rustle up some examples of their fine work to show people how worthwhile their project is, and one of the examples is a You Tube Director's Series video dismissed as a home movie "about some guy's kid." Nice work--I can see why you're taking good-natured pride in it.-Cindery 07:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • yawn. Not listening as usual are you? Why are you blaming J.smith? That's my work, my decision? Not his so why are you asserting that it is? --Spartaz 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm...it appears JSmith was listening, here: [12], and chose not to say, hey, that's not a home movie about "some guy's kid"! :-) -Cindery 07:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue I see with "as long as the website has licensed the work" is, how do we know the website licensed the work, and what does that even really mean? Why not just say "as long as the website is presenting the work legally"? Yeah, I know there's still the question of knowing if it's legal, but at least that seems less open to arguing over the definition of licensing the work. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And this loops back to using judgement based on a reasonable belief. --Barberio 23:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who uploads to YouTube a video they legitimately own automatically gives a limited licence to YouTube to publish the video. This is implied and spelled out in the YouTube TOS. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break to address one comment

"The issue I see with "as long as the website has licensed the work" is, how do we know the website licensed the work, and what does that even really mean? Why not just say "as long as the website is presenting the work legally"?" - Milo H Minderbinder

Both statements are basicly the same and I'd be fine with either wording. Getting permission to host something (or haveing permission) means in essence they have "licensed the work. The first is just more formal then the second.---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

But you've still offered zero illumination about what you mean when you say

• 1. "reasonable doubt"
• 2. "license."

Copyright policy already covers copyvios--reasonable doubt is not a specific source, it's finding, for example, evidence of lifted text or that an image that isn't fair use. Your project is the equivalent of deleting all text and images from Wikipedia, and then demanding that "licenses" be produced to show that each specific instance was not a copyvio (without defining what a "license" is. In the absence of a definition of license, nothing can be proved to have one.) Cindery 00:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I refuse to respond to strawmen arguments except to point them out: "Your project is the equivalent of deleting all text"

Reasonable doubt: Means I have reasonable suspicion to suspect that the video is copyvio. There are lots of little red-flags. Obviously taken from a movie or tv show is one realy big red-flag. Containing mainstream (big label) music is another. If the video obiously wasn't made for YouTube then it's reasonable to request more details.

license: A license in its most fundamental form is a formal or informal grant of permission(s).

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

...your criteria for investigating the links is not suspected copyvio, it's that they are You Tube links. Your criteria for deleting them isn't published anywhere/agreed upon by the community. (And you repeatedly deleted a video which was made specifically for You Tube...) You've had nothing but support from me and everyone else here regarding the deletion of blatant music-vid copyvios, including support for modifying C to expedite their deletion. The trouble regarding the links which aren't blatant music vid copyvios is that you haven't defined:

• 1 "reasonable doubt"
• 2. "license"

You are mass deleting without following C procedure: finding evidence of copyvio, posting on talkpage of article. You're mass-deleting and no one knows exactly what criteria you are using (only that, as Barberio pointed out, you do not have the resources to get notarized copies of all copyrights. You are doing a lot of guesswork.) And you have made mistakes. The trouble with the mistakes is that, since "license" is so vague, there is no way for copyright holders to assert their permission to link/"license." The project has not defined license (or respected, say, the copyright holder asserting permission in writing as sufficient "grant of permission," per your definition of "license.) The trouble with not publishing your criteria or following C procedure--and quoting EL and C in your edit summaries instead of discussing on article talkpages-- is that you are giving editors the impression that the links were deleted per policy, not your own guesswork. -Cindery 01:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I grow tired of your misrepresentations and your requests for shrubbery. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's nice--were you planning on answering the questions: how do you define "reasonable doubt"? and What is a "license"? or to continue evading them?

Cindery 02:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already awnsered both questions directly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Specify reasonable doubt, in writing, and get community consesnus for it. (I imagine it should look like Arg's "decision tree.") Then submit to the community whether pre-emptively deleting with a "decisison tree" (that is made available by link at every article where a deletion has been made) or using current C policy/procedure is preferable. (I still think that rapid AWB deletions are a bad idea--when I look over project deletions, it's only easy for me to quickly suss out what's what if I already have knowledge of the subject--I reverted Rheingold Beer, The Heart is Deceitful Above all Things, Ryan Donowho. The mistakes were obvious to me because I see bands sponsored by that beer co.;I know a guy in Ryan's band; I've worked with the company that owns the rights to that movie--I have "editorial judgement" in those subjects--I know what the name of the copyright holder is; I know where to look to verify things, etc. If you know zip about a subject/don't and can't edit an article, you shouldn't be deleting anything from it--and certainly not a fast clip.) As for "license"--there's no established/agreed upon definition. Your own definition is recent; you don't inform editors at links where you delete of the definition, and I have seen you/the project not honor "permission." (But "license" is really beside the point--C does not require ELs to have licensing info.)-Cindery 08:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the value of the above request for {{shrubbery}}. Hipocrite - «Talk» 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ni. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 08:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"Resionable belife" vs "required licensing information", a comparison by example.

Here are two examples to consider...

• Case A - Photo student puts up a website of their photographs of a specific type of locomotive, some including her pointing out mechanisms and coming with commentaries and associated information that make it clear that the photographs were taken by her. However, she doesn't put up and licensing information for her site.
• Case B - Warez dude puts up a site with archive file for old video games, and puts up a fake but authentic looking licensing information that seems to grant him permission to do so.

Under "reasonable belief" the guidelines would suggest you could link to Case A, and could not link to Case B.

Under "required licensing information" the guidelines would suggest you could link to Case B, and could not link to Case A.

As counter intuitive as it seems, the "stricter" and more legalistic sounding requirement is easier to abuse than the "subjective" requirement. --Barberio 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright and YouTube

Something for the "project" to keep in mind:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/08/magazines/business2/youtube_piracy.biz2/index.htm Cindery 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good news indeed. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note also that it'sold news--last month. Copyright holders appear to appreciate the exposure provided by You Tube--which is why you aren't doing anyone any favors by deleting without complaints from copyright holders. In cases of what appear to be the most blatant infringement, you're not protecting copyright holders; you're depriving them of exposure. (And it makes the idea that there is cause for legal hysteria @ Wikipedia over YouTube appear as ridiculous as it is. No one is going to sue Wikipedia for You Tube links--they would sue You Tube. And people aren't suing You Tube: they're making deals with You Tube because they like the free publicity.) Cindery 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely not here to protect copyright holders. You continue to misrepresent any push to limit YouTube links as some kind of simplistic "legal hysteria". Here's a radical idea: I subscribe fully to the Wikimedia's vision, to create a free (as in speech, not beer) compendium of knowledge. "This is legal" or worse "We won't be sued for this" lines of arguments, without regard to addressing our project's missions, are not compelling. A major part of our goal is re-use and free content distribution. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

However, as repeatedly pointed out, the copyright policy indicates quite clearly that we don't restrict external links to free speech resources alone. Policy clearly states that the requirement of 'free as in speech' does not apply to external links. --Barberio 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That is very different from the remark I was responding to: "No one is going to sue Wikipedia for You Tube links--they would sue You Tube. And people aren't suing You Tube." Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that Japanese record companies do not really like YouTube, so remove them on sight if you work with those articles. Also, YouTube videos are hardly necessary for articles, and I have even seen people using them as references @_@ -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And you seem to ignore the need to address hysteria: "Because, in the end, I am not going to pay for the legal costs when we get sued for linking to a YouTube ripoff of someone's copyright content. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)" (See also Nick's comments on talkpage of Barrington Hall.) I might take you more seriously if you didn't say things like: "You continue to misrepresent any push to limit YouTube links as some kind of simplistic "legal hysteria"" directly after I point out that I have always been in favor not only of deleting blatant music vid copyvios, but of expediting the process by supporting a modification of C. Also, if you hadn't participated in an edit war to delete a You Tube link which was clearly not a copyvio (permission asserted in writing by copyright holder, etc). Your participation in the You Tube purge hasn't done anything to promote the mission of free content--it's done the opposite.-Cindery 04:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to second the comment that "free" isn't a relevant criteria for external links. Linked material doesn't have to be free, just hosted legally on the linked site. I'm not sure why the whole "free" issue would even be brought up in this discussion. And Rey, "necessary" isn't the criteria for including a link - if a YouTube link adds to the value of a WP article and meets the criteria in EL, it should be linked. If we used "necessary", wikipedia would have no external links. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• undent* Red Herring. Read a few copyright lawsuits. First they say, "Stop doing that". There are no Costs. If you stop. The costs start, if you don't stop. So all this is a tempest in a teapot. You don't get *sued* for copyright infringement. First you get a letter from their lawyer, saying "stop". If you stop, that's it. So can we move on from this silly argument that we're going to go to court for linking? We're not. Wjhonson 06:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has alwase had a higher standard then "wait for C&D letter". Have you followed the image fair use debates over time? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that Wjohnson can't address the legal facts, or that addressing them is not useful--"copyright law" has been repeatedly invoked--even in an edit summary used by Radiant in the recent edit war.-Cindery 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Words, lots of them.

Lots of heat and very little light. Please focus on substantive changes you want made to the guideline to reflect existing consensus that linking to copyvios is wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it was made abundantly clear in this conversation that the guideline already clearly prohibits linking to copyvios--and no argument has been made to justify the inclusion of redundancies:

Let's stop talking about edit warring, and instead focus on the problem. Is there any disagreement with the statement that "we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright?" From this we can move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC) As made clear above, I've no objection to that at all. --Barberio 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Excellent. How about: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Works for me. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Me too... except that the "creator" dosn't alwase own the copyright... but thats just splitting hairs :) "creators" -> "owners"/"holders" or some such. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC) How about if you believe that a site is carrying content that it does not have the rights to, you should not link to that content? --Spartaz 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC) What, specifically, about the first sentence of the consensus version--complete with a link to Copyright policy--is unclear/should be changed, and why?:" Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. " Cindery 19:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC) You guys do realize that "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work" is already in the article, right? And in Guy's version, it's in there twice (which makes me wonder why he keeps insisting he hasn't added redundant material). Guy, I'm also not sure what you mean by your kettle reference since Barberio's discussion of his edit is plain as day on this page and yours is...where is yours? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In following discussions, it was made abundantly clear that 1) "we will be sued!" 2) only content licensed by major media outlets is ok 3) external links must be "free," and that is a holy cause! are all silly arguments for the YT deletion project...and do not justify putting redundancies into the guideline, either. Cindery 15:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you ever make any argument without using strawmen? ---J.Scarecrow (T/C/WRE) 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

They're not strawmen; they're summaries, for the sake of brevity. (As this section is titled "Words. Lot's of them.")

Cindery 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Except none of your three points are accurate. Your in essence lying about my position. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

All three points are fair descriptions of positions taken by various people (you are not mentioned, nor "your position.") -Cindery 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't piss on me and tell me it's raining. I find it unlikely you are a true defender against redundancy in guidelines. Hipocrite - «Talk» 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, you would be wrong, my friend!: I keep my true defender against redundancy in guidelines merit badge under my pillow at all times! (They give you one when you graduate with honors from the highest rated English department in the US...along with $2.50 for a soy latte.)

Cindery 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously wikimarkup and indenting your signature wasn't part of the course. I'm surprised they didn't teach you how to have a discussion without disrupting it and how to avoid arguments. Maybe you missed that bit. Spartaz 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I did tutor some computer science majors in "remedial rhetoric," but I found that wit isn't really teachable.-Cindery 08:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly. BTW its not an ad hom if true & trying to assert some special status because youy went to a particular colleage is simply sad. --Spartaz 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, and just as wit is all too rare, so is a sense of humor (joke obviously went over your head...) Meanwhile, didn't you tell Radiant that you hadn't been helping these discussions because you were "too confrontational" :[13] (Not the words I would have chosen, but it was a start on your part...unless you were insincere/just recruting? --No, impossible, I say--not the Spartaz *I* know...)-Cindery 09:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me full stop. And yes, I was engaging in the dispute on a very emotional level and that was wrong. I'm handling this much more calmly now and not getting wound up. I just wish you would start being more constructive yourself but them that wouldn't be the Cindery that *I* know would it?Spartaz 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You abandoned the RfC because it was "stupid," while reasonable, constructive discussion was taking place.-Cindery 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

YouTube dispute

What is the dispute that led to the protection of this page, and how can we resolve it?? I would like it to be resolved peacefully. An explanation of the situation would be useful for me. --SunStar Net^talk 12:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Briefly -

• Potentially infringing links should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

vs

• Due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have no problem with taking 'due care', and summed that up as 'having a reasonable belief that the link is not a breach of copyright'. The opposing argument appears to be that we should require an unspecified high level of proof involving licences. --Barberio 13:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is, are YouTube links reliable sources themselves?? --SunStar Net^talk 13:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. External links do not have to be reliable sources. --Barberio 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

But per this very policy external links should be kept to a minimum so unless you are linking to a reliable source there should be no link at all. MartinDK 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, this conflict appears to be -

• The standard should be "only link when you have a reasonable belief that the site is not in breach of copyright" and suspect copyright issues should be reviewed on a case by case basis.

vs

• The standard should be "only link to sites that have provided full licencing information" and that links without this high level of proof should be removed automatically.

--Barberio 13:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

If you stopped hitting the strawman, your hay fever might go away. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to say what you mean to say without muddying the waters with incivility? From past discussion here, and attempted changes to the guideline, people *have* been calling for this 'licensing information' requirement to make the guideline 'stricter', so I don't understand what you mean by 'straw man'. Intrestingly you've never mentioned straw men when people accuse me of wanting to keep copyvio links, which I've been clear to say I don't.

If you can't take part in this discussion without resorting to uncivil ad hominem attacks, maybe you shouldn't take part in this discussion. This applies equally to everyone else involved no matter what they are arguing. --Barberio 14:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You are intentionally distorting the arguments of the people that don't agree with you to make their argument seem weaker - I have now read the entire worthless discussion, and saw not a peep from anyone regarding requirements that sites provide full licencing information before being appropriate to link to. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Instead of making strawmen accusations, whether they are valid or not, why don't you just provide what you feel to be the other side of the issue? This page seems to be mostly arguing and personal attacks at this point (and sadly, many of them from admins who should know better). What are the two proposed options for wording in EL? To be honest, the two statements listed above by Hipocrite seem to say largely the same thing, or at least not contradict each other. They could probably even be combined. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The clear dispute is regarding who the impetus is on to prove their claims. Group 1 appears to believe that, if reasonably challenged, external links should be removed until copyright compliance is verified, while group 2 appears to believe that external links should be kept until a copyright violation is proven. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you cut out all the nonsense, that's what the essence of the dispute boils down to. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that by request from the Board, our way of dealing with images pretty much matches group #1. >Radiant< 15:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a red herring. Copyright policy makes it quite clear we do not expect the same standards for linking as we do for text and images *included* into Wikipedia. Delete first for images we *host* is a good call, but unrelated to the issue of external links. --Barberio 16:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It speaks to the long-term philosophy of the project. Also, I'll add to it: Wikipedia has alwase strived to make very limited use of external links. To keep with that our practices need to be exclusionary and not inclusionary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Hipocrite has summed it up correctly. For myself, I fall into group 1, that if (and only if) challenged, potentially infringing links should be removed unless copyright compliance can be shown. This is consistent with all other aspects of adding content to articles, whether image or text, where the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, NOT with the person refuting it (per WP:V). Zunaid©® 15:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for mentioning reliable sources. I agree with Group 1's theory on this. --SunStar Net^talk 16:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the level of 'proof' demanded. Before this issue cropped up, the expectation in this guideline, inherited from the copyright policy, was not to 'Knowingly and intentionally' link to copyvio. "Not knowing and intentionally", rather than "Make efforts to assure". The movement here seems to be pushing for "Make efforts to assure", "due care" and "Copyright verification".

There are a number of problems with this kind of move -

1. Wikipedia has no resources to perform full copyright verification on all external links. True copyright verification is a difficult and expensive legal process. Professional media companies have their own 'rights departments' of copyright lawyers who are paid to do this, we do not. Any claim that we can sustain a higher level of copyright verification than "Not knowingly and intentionally linking to copyright breaches" is folly.
2. The phrase "Not knowingly and intentionally" is one that comes from our copyright policy. Changes to guidelines shouldn't contradict copyright policy. If the copyright policy is wrong, it should be changed before changing the guidline.
3. Use of legalistic sounding language such 'due care' and 'verification of copyright status' should be avoided. Such language has specific meanings in legal settings, and they could cause an increase of liability risk. The Wikimedia Foundation are the people who take care of potential legal issues, and it is the Foundation that should provide policy and language to avoid liability, not editors and admins. Again, the currently approved language on this is "Not knowingly and intentionally link to copyright breaches."

So far the proponents of change to these guidelines have not addressed any of these issues. --Barberio 16:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it raining? Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a couple concerns about the group1/group2 definitions. First, how is "reasonably challenged" defined? If it means that someone presents a viable argument why something is probably a violation, I'm fine with that. But if it can be interpreted as just someone saying they think it's a vio with no grounds, it just becomes a veto for any link you don't like. And both statements talk about "verifying" that a link is legal or not, which in most cases is simply impossible. I think what it really boils down to is that for each linked material, editors need to reach consensus on whether we think it's a copyright vio based on available evidence (which may be very little). Most cases seem like they would be fairly clear cut:

1. NBC content posted by NBC - no brainer legal
2. NBC content posted by random person - no brainer violation
3. "Homemade" content posted by someone claiming to have made it - if we assume AGF and have no evidence to the contrary, is there any reason to suspect violation?
4. Content claimed to be homemade, but someone points out that it's really from a copyrighted source - no brainer violation.

I'm not sure what sort of link would be that controversial, can someone provide an example? I'd also like to point out that WP:C doesn't really seem to support group1 as some have asserted. For text, it recommends investigating possible violations and removing the text if evidence is discovered. For images, it says "Untagged or incorrectly-tagged images will be deleted. It is currently unclear what should happen in cases where the same image has been uploaded more than once with different respective copyright statements." But I couldn't find anything about handling a dispute over the tagging of an image, is it covered anywhere? If I took a picture and uploaded it tagged as me being the copyright owner, and someone claimed I didn't take the picture (but offered no evidence), how is that handled? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Resonable is determined by reasonable people acting reasonably. The reqeust that we {{shrubbery}} how people act in good faith is rejected. If someone reasonably thinks something is a copyvio, it goes untill someone shows it is not a copyvio. How hard is that? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please try and stay on topic instead of resorting to gimicky templates. Let me ask you, if someone says they think something is a copyright vio, how do we determine if they're doing so "reasonably"? Do you feel any justification is required, or can I just say "I reasonably think this is a vio", and can delete the link unless proof is provided that it is not? --Milo H Minderbinder 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they being reasonable? If so, then it's reasonable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So how do you determine if they're being reasonable? If I were to request deletion of a link and say nothing more than "I think this is a copyright violation", do you consider that a reasonable challenge? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the link. Is it reasonable or not? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments here sound like you agree with the notion of judging links on a case by case basis. Is that accurate? --Milo H Minderbinder 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been ignored, here is the state of the discussion at the RfC. Note that it stopped at "licensing," after which Guy, Spartaz, etc chose not to respond or continue discusssion. (Instead Guy began editing the guideline): -Cindery 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC) I snipped a huge block of text that followed this. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(See diff for snipped text.) --Muchness 17:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo, your 1-4 is exactly how I operate. However I also apply a judgement call as to the apropriateness of the link to the article (per WP:NOT and other aspects of WP:EL). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Are there common similar situations that I've missed? Or provide an example of a link that has had controversy over the legality? I think there are many cases in which we should all be able to agree - it may help to specifically indentify what sorts of things are the borderline ones that get argued over. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

One thing that has come up a number of times are home videos with a copyvio aspect, (such as a music music track). Another case is when the link dosn't realy add any value to the article... I wish I remembered the article name, but there was a car article with two links to 15 second home movies of the car driving though rough terein. Wasn't copyvio, but it didn't realy add anything to the article. I don't remember if it got re-added or not, but I usualy leave the link if anyone wants to argue for it's inclusion.

I'd consider homemade videos with commercial music (or similar) to be clear-cut vios, music used in those is rarely if ever actually licensed. Whether a legal video is appropriate is obviously up to EL and the consensus of the editors of that article. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important to pay some attention to examples like Rheingold Beer--if you look at the You Tube link, there is no "licensing information" (except that implied by YT's Terms of Service). It was deleted. Two minutes of research showed that it was public domain. Deleting on unsubtantiated suspicion of YT ToS violation--"licensing information--is a problem.-Cindery 18:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What leads you to believe that it was public domain? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd second that question - an ad from the '50's would still be copyrighted, so unless there was a specific release of it into the public domain, there's no reason to believe it is. I would guess that the beer company doesn't mind having it redistributed, but that doesn't make it legal or linkable. If you did find evidence that it is public domain, you should put it on the talk page for that article. --Milo H Minderbinder 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The company went defunct and did not renew the copyright.-Cindery 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights do not require renewal. Who provided you this information? Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction - having spent more time assuaging my copyright paranoia, 1950's commercials would have require renewal in order for their copyright to extend to the 95 year term -> [14] ("A 1961 Copyright Office study found that fewer than 15% of all registered copyrights were renewed."). As such, I believe now that it is more likley than not that this ad is in the public domain. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Research into the specific link in question would also have shown you where the YT uploader got the link--the Prelinger Collection, which certifies both Public Doman and CC license. Another problem I see is the amount of energy wasted by deleting/combatting such an innocuous link: dancing beers in a beer commercial from the 50s...even supposing that it was under copyright, it's highly unlikely that the copyright holder would be unamenable to a request to license this--why not post a notice on talkpage, inquiring about copyright status? Where's the fire for auto-deletion without friendly, inviting explanation leaving door open to permission?-Cindery 19:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why did you fail to note this on the talk page of the article? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Amen to that, the "energy wasted" could have been completely avoided if you would have just posted the PD info you found on the talk page as soon as you found it. And I'd still like to see a link to the prelinger info that clears it all up. And if the video is actually available on a website that certifies copyright, why not link to it there instead of youtube? I also don't agree with characterizing a possible copyright vio as "innocuous" - if it's illegal, it doesn't matter what the content is or how old. Saying the copyright holder would probably allow it isn't good enough. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(undent) That's sort of a strange double standard: the deletion is done with no notice on talkpage, just an edit summary. But restoral with edit summary is insufficient. Deletion requires no evidence of copyvio on talkpage, but restoral requires proof on talkpage. Arg has alrady pointed out that the AWB deleters don't look at the talkpage when they delete (to see if discussion re link has already taken place. In fact--his request that they check talkpage before deleting a second time was rejected/ignored.) Since talkpages are not used or looked at by the project, the assumption is that the deleter has "done research" and that the restorer has "done research," and they communicate via edit summaries. I would be more than happy if there was formal agreement for Arg's suggestion that talkpage discussion is necessary (especially as that is what C policy suggests...) I find that deleters not checking research when a link is disputed, but edit warring and using edit summaries like this to be particularly unhelpful: edit summaries like these(cur) (last) 19:05, 12 January 2007 Spartaz (Talk | contribs) (How do you know that the company didn't renew their copyright? Do you know when they wenyt bust. Annoying discussing via edit summaries isn't it. Why not use the talk page?)-Cindery 19:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bygones. You lack the Delorian to solve the problems that have already happened. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think the talkpage issue is quite active and relevant: deleters should post notice, watch talkpage, and engage in discussion if it takes place (per their own request, and C policy.) I think it's also telling that the question "How do you know the company went defunct?" is answered...in the article. Which is a very brief article. (I.e., the deleters do not read the articles, contribute as editors, etc.)-Cindery 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You win. Are you happy now? Can we move on? Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, content from the 50's would be copyrighted, so in the absence of evidence otherwise taking the conservative approach is not a bad idea. I still don't understand why, if you found evidence that clears up the question, why wouldn't you just post it to the talk page? In this particular case, there did end up being discussion on the talk page (albeit belatedly), why you never responded there with the link, I don't know. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• As I have said above, it has been established that the deleters do not want talkpage notice or discussion--in contradiction to C procedure--to be standard for YT deletions, and they refused Arg's request to check talkpages before deleting a *second* time. I think it would be an excellent idea to establish that talkpage notice and discussion should be standard. Remember, Rheingold was an example--what if jane or john doe editor wants to discuss/contest a link deletion? How do they know what to do after an edit summary citing EL and C, with no talkpage notice?-Cindery 20:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you never posted to the talkpage in this case, I'm not sure what your point is. If you made a case on the talk page, and the people deleting it never responded, you'd have something to complain about. I see you haven't posted to the talk page at Talk:The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things either. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Milo, I think you misunderstand me: I'm in favor of--and have been in favor of all along--notice on talkpage, and discussion, and would like to see that become the agreed-upon standard. I communicated via edit summaries because communicating on talkpage is not the standard for the deletion project (they refused Arg's request to watch talkpages before or after deleting, so was not expecting them to see or pay attention to any talkpage discussion.) The point of establishing agreement for talkpage notice and discussion is not for this specific link, it's for regular editors who--unlike me--are not familiar with all the complications of the YT project, what to do to affirm a link, etc. Without notice and invitation to discussion, I think a lot of them get the impression that it's not possible.-Cindery 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite. I removed the link in good faith (and I have enough article edits thank you). The whole drama would have been avoided if you had simply posted your research. That would have been fine by me. Obviously you had other motives. --Spartaz 19:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You invited everyone to review your work, and let you know about mistakes, and stated that you had no problem with that. I do not review all of your work--in fact, I only looked at three of your deletions, because I knew something about those subjects. All three were mistakes; I reverted all three. I used Rheingold as an example because it shows the problem with verifying a link solely by looking for "licensing information" at You Tube, which is your standard. (I did not use The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things, but perhaps I should have mentioned that as well--you looked at the licensing information at You Tube and didn't recognize the name of the company which owns the rights to the film?) To repeat what Arg has said, barring reasonable suspicion that the YT uploader is violating YT's terms of use, links shouldn't be deleted. What was your reasonable doubt that YT's terms of service were being violated in those cases?-Cindery 20:11, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What I have a problem with is not youy reviewing my work - that's helpful. The way you went around it was unhelpful and designed to cause trouble. That's not helpful. You are a troll and I'm now going to do something I should have done some days ago, which is to totally ignore you. I'll soon be done reviewing links and then we can all move on. Won't that be nice? Spartaz 20:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Rheingold, generally corporate productions from the 50's would be copyrighted (and we have no way of knowing from youtube that it was PD). Until evidence otherwise was found, there was certainly reason for doubt. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it involves the definition of "license": all You Tube links have licenses, per YT ToS. Unless there's reason to suspect that the ToS is being violated--and hence the license is invalid--the link has a valid license and is not a copyvio. We've been over WP:BOLD--citing EL and C is "misquoting policy," and confuses editors: they think the link is not permitted, not that someone has made an editorial judgement that can be contested. Removing content without justification is basically vandalism. "EL and C" is not justification/substitute for the absence of reasonable suspiction of copyvio.-Cindery 20:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And in the case of the dancing beers, there was reason to believe that the YT TOS was being violated. There was definitely justification to remove the link, and calling that particular one vandalism is just empty rhetoric. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call any deletion in particular "vandalism"--I said removing content citing "EL and C" is "misquoting policy" and "basically vandalsim." If there's a particular reason to suspect ToS violation, that reason should be stated, not "EL and C"--eg,: "commercials from 50s under copyright. Uploader not copyright holder." This would imply some research into the subject, reasonable suspicion, etc. As I pointed out, very brief research established that the ToS wasn't being violated. Reading the very brief article gives reasonable belief that the copyright probably wasn't renewed--the company went defunct. I don't think that the deleter 1) read the article 2) did anything other than look at the You Tube frame and not see "ABC" or "CBS"--I think it's an example of licensing assumptions made hastily, and an example of why hasty licensing assumptions are problemmatic-Cindery 21:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The archive.org site lists the ad as 1948, assuming the copyright renewal was after 28 years (correct me if that's wrong), that would be in 1976, while the company was still in business. And even if they shut down, it's entirely possible that they sold their assets to another company (which could have included intelectual property like their ads). You should assume good faith, even reading the article and doing some basic google research wouldn't necessarily turn up conclusive proof that it was PD. I also don't agree that removing a link citing "EL and C" is vandalism, while it's better to go into more detail when necessary (and I'd argue that in many blatant cases, that's all that is needed), it's a bit ridiculous to call someone a vandal just because you thought their edit summary wasn't detailed enough. --Milo H Minderbinder 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call anyone a vandal. Meanwhile, the point is that citing "EL and C" instead of a reason makes editors think the deletions are being done by "Wiki authority" and cannot be contested--content is deleted; discussion is closed off.-Cindery 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Abandoned discussion

Guy has complained about the fork, so:

• Decision tree
• Here is what I believe should be the decision tree for determining whether or not a YouTube(ish) external link should be kept:
• Is the content linked to relevant to the article?
• No: Delete
• Yes: continue
• Is the content a reliable source? (Keep in mind that much video is a primary source.)
• No: Delete
• Yes: continue
• Is the content obviously public domain (U.S. Government, pre-1923, labeled "released into public domain", etc.)?
• No: continue
• Yes: Keep
• Is the content obviously hosted by its copyright holder? (ie a TV station website for news clips)
• No: continue
• Yes: Keep
• Is the content reasonably ovbiously copyright by a content creator well-known for defending its copyrights (ie major motion-picture studios, RIAA members, TV stations or networks, newspapers or press agencies, or book publishers)?
• No: continue
• Yes: Delete
• If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, is there a version of equal or better quality available at the copyright-holder's website?
• No: continue
• Yes: Replace link with "authorized version".
• If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with permission of the copyright holder?
• No: continue
• Yes: Keep
• Is there other reason (besides those checked above) to believe that the content is infringing?
• No: Keep
• Yes: Delete
• The standard for linking is that we not knowingly link to infringing material. A reasonable person should be expected to know that content produced by major content providers (like news media, movie studios, RIAA recording studios, and most book and magazine publishers) is copyright and requires permission directly from the copyright owner. So linking to a Metallica video or a TV clip of "The Play" (where Cal beat the Stanford football team and band) when hosted on YouTube is not ok. But if some unsigned band has made a video, the band may give permission to all and sundry to post the video everywhere so that they get more exposure; some amateur film-makers will release their work for republication for ideological reasons or to obtain exposure. Therefore, in the absence of information to the contrary, we do not know that the material is infringing, and we are therefore not liable for contributory infringement if we link to the material. Argyriou (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• External Links do not have to be reliable sources unless used as part of a citation. If it's reliable source or not is irrelevant if it's not being used as a citation. --Barberio 19:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I disagree, in part. The main exception to the "reliable source" standard I see for external links are links to official sites/publications of the subject of the article, where those might be unreliable for establishing facts otherwise. Argyriou (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I've edited this a little, and put it up as an essay at Wikipedia:External_links/Copyrights --Barberio 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'd suggest adding at least the statement regarding "knowingly linking" to your essay; perhaps an actual citation from the Lighthouse case would be better. I'm also not certain that's the best title for the page. Argyriou (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Up to "Is the content obviously hosted by its copyright holder? (ie a TV station website for news clips)" I'm with you, but after that you seem to assert that there is a qualitative difference between infirnging the copyrights of litigious versus non-litigious sources. This is a very bad distinction to draw. If the content is copyright, and not hosted by the copyright holder, then we need to check - always - that the uploader has rights to upload it, and if we can't prove that then we should not link. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree. The legal standard is knowingly linking to infringing material, which is different than pretty much all other copyright infringement standards, which only require proof of infringement, not intent nor knowlege. The distinction I make could be read as "litigious vs non-litigious", but it is intended to be a guide to those providers known to not license free distribution of their work, versus those not known to do so. Argyriou (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ah, but what's knowingly? If it's pointed out by another editor that the copyright status is problematic and you reinsert the link anyway, that could be seen as wilful and knowing. See the problem? Better to be sure and simply not link to material that infringes copyright - which is in any case the decent thing. Why would we want to link to material that we think might infringe copyright? Why would that be good, in any way? Guy (Help!) 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• It depends on why another editor believes the copyright status is problematic. If he has evidence that the link is copyvio, then the link ought to stay deleted. But if the only reason for believing the copyright status is problematic is because there's no evidence that it is acceptable, then reinserting the link is not "knowingly" linking to copyvio. I suppose that a video (or image) hosted on a site which doesn't have any copyright statements or Terms of Use at all would raise a greater suspicion, but both YouTube and Google Video require their members to only upload video which they have permission from the copyright owner to distribute. Failing a moderately good reason to believe that the user is in violation of the terms of use, it is reasonable to assume that the user is not violating the ToU, and that the link is not infringing. Argyriou (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Frankly the number of links where the status is unclear are such a small subset of the mostly straightforwqrd majority that I wonder why we persist in spending so much time trying to come up with a perfect solution that will please everyone? At the end of the day if an editor thinks in good faith its a copyvio than they can delete it. If someone disagrees they can research it and discuss it on talk pages and all things being equal a rough consensus based around each item will emerge. The world will continue to revolve whatever we do and I'm done with this dispute as well. I have some links to review so I can go back to editing articles - something this stupid issue has keep me away from doing for far too long. It would be interesting to plot a graph of how much this issue has drawn away from editing time for the participants - and very shameful. I invite anyone to review my deletions. If you don't agree with my decisions lets discuss them as long as you accept I'm doing my best I don't see any reason for a disagreement to occur. End of story. Ciao. Spartaz 19:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Precisely. And the problem was caused, I think, by people who were unwilling to assume sufficient good faith on the part of Nick to do the research it bit, until they were forced to - at which point, it seems, they discovered that if they'd done that in the first place, there would not have been a problem. We appear to be trying to legislate Clue. I go with Jjay's version at the top - Don't link to material that infringes copyright. Says more in seven words than most of this entire page. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Do not link to material that violates copyright." is still a bad oversimplification of the current policy on copyrights, which is "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

Guidelines should not conflict with or misrepresent policy. If you feel the policy on copyright relevent to linking is wrong, I suggest you take this issue to Wikipedia talk:Copyrights, however it does appear that the issue was discussed and no change came of it. In fact, some hefty evidence including citation to court case indicates that the current standard of 'Not knowingly and intentionally link to copyvio' may be more than is required by law. --Barberio 12:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whatever. The consensus is that you should not link to material you have good reason to suspect has been posted in breach of copyright. Whether that is right or wrong, meets a legal standard, is too restrictive in your view, whatever; it's what the editors here, over months of discussions on this and other copyright-related issues, have agreed to. The "policy" is simply a reflection of the consensus. The page you mention, Wikipedia:Copyrights, has this: "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Even if it was legal, it's not considered ethical here. Like most policies though, this has to be applied with common sense, not blindly. Grace Note 23:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• We're agreeing on the same things here really. The thing is, what's been proposed is that we require editors to get licensing information for every external link, and delete links where there is no explicit licensing information. This is a change from the 'good reason to suspect' standard. And it contradicts that in the copyright policy. This issue really needs to be brought up in the policy talk page first if we're going to change this standard.
• I don't think the standard should change, since it adds a new extra burden to editors, and introduces cases where we'd bar links to properly copyrighted material that just lacks an explicit declaration of licensing. --Barberio 00:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• No, it adds no additional burden to editors. The burden has always been on those seeking to include something, to ensure it meets policy. We do not need a guideline that endorses no looking too hard as a way of meeting our obligations. Guy (Help!) 10:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Copyright policy does not state that all links must have licensing information. "Licensing information" has only come up with regards to links, external or otherwise, in the YouTube discussion. Moreover, EL is a guideline, not a policy (Copyright policy would still take precedence, and it is confusing to have a guideline which contradicts a policy). Consensus at EL has consistently been not to invent specific new requirements--such as licensing info--for only one type of link. Again and again, this discussion has come to: can there be a blanket ban? (No.) And: what should happen if the copyright holder affirms permission to use the link? --the majority agree that the link should stay. A minority think that the link should be deleted anyway because it is a YouTube link, and the justification for this is "licensing information," (not copyright). The thing to do is go and try to change the copyright policy--there's no consensus (or rationale) for changing EL to contradict C for the purpose of deleting YouTube links which have copyright permission from the copyright holder. What Arg's "decision tree" illustrates is "editorial judgement," which has been posited all along as the only way to suss out the acceptability of a link for inclusion, and should remain as the means for sussing out whether a link is acceptable for inclusion, particularly 1) if the link is disputed 2) because there are other grounds for which editorial judgement is necessary. Guidelines exist to guide the editorial process, not to pre-determine or usurp it-- a good guideline makes for sharper editors, it doesn't replace editing. Cindery 20:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)-Cindery 17:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)-Cindery 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that giant block of text. I am certain that lots of people who care what you have to say have read it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

removed the spaces which made that ugly block-o-text--Hu12 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome--hopefully those who are interested in reasonable discussion about licensing and copyright verification will continue the ongoing discussion--rather than edit war to put unspecified licensing demands in the guideline, faslesly accuse everyone else of being in favor of copvios, etc.-Cindery 18:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• By "lots of" I'm assuming you mean "both"? Thought so. Guy (Help!) 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Shame

Websites like GoogleEarth, YouTube, general press sites and others are providing a valuable source of information. Wikipedia is ridiculously strict in their copyrightphobia, which is a choice made by Jimbo and others. Fine. Not my choice, but ok. To project our view on copyright on external partners is not our job as Wikipedia. It is not the idea of spreading our copyrightphobic gospel to the world. Their business is their business and as long as it helps your readers (the customer should come first, a main principle alas not broadly shared within Wikipedia) we should link to external sources of information as much as poissible. YouTube is just one of them, but a valuable source of information, the one and only thing we are creating this encyclopedia. Not to spread our impossibly strict ideas on coypright, but to provide as much information as possible to our audience. Rejecting YouTube as an external link source would thus be a great shame for Wikipedia and the idea of spreading information. Regards, Torero 09:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

---

---

See: Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube 2