Wikipedia talk:Videos as references

Merged to wp:Video links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:CE7F:E270:5456:2939:9AB9:38F1 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the Village Pump discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_76#Videos_as_references

All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable published source. YouTube is not a reliable source, for the reasons above, so you need to be able to source this video back to someone who is (such as, presumably, its original publishers and distributors). That information goes into the citation template. The bit about "in practice not everything" refers to non-controversial statements not always needing a citation; see WP:QUOTE for policy stating that quotations are always controversial statements and must always be sourced. As a matter of practicality, in a controversial article like the JFK assassination one, you should in any case treat most everything as potentially controversial and cite everything you can. Having sourced the video appropriately, it MAY then be acceptable to leave the YouTube link for convenience, but the source must cite someone reliable, not YouTube. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, now that I've seen the diffs, see, that's what I was trying to say in my first response: you should be citing as publisher et al whomever produced/distributed/aired the video in the first place, and not YouTube. Note what Template:Cite video asks for. In an encyclopedia, the purpose of citing is not merely to facilitate surfing and further reading and viewing on the subject, but to allow readers to verify and assess the original source in its own context and as support for a particular statement in our article. Abrazame (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

posted by Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ghostofnemo, for quoting me! Can I suggest that the text of this proposal be amended for clarification, so that after the words "You should be fairly certain that the content in the YouTube video is indeed actually from the source you are citing. Please take care to verify this", we add the text, "Also, it is not only possible but common for YouTube clips to be edited or doctored by their uploaders, for benign reasons or otherwise, so as to not accurately represent the source they are drawn from. It is important for editors who wish to use a YouTube clip to satisfy themselves that the clip is a true and fair extract of its source material by personally comparing the clip to the original source." - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need location info

If you cite a book, you need to provide the page(s). "Reading" a video or an audio source can be as time-consuming, and something that specifies the time to within a minutes should be required. --Philcha (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This line appears in the lead-in. Does it need to be stronger? "Citing the point in a video source where the sourced content appears greatly improves verifiability." This may not always be readily available, as it is with page numbers in a book. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree entirely and suggest this is added to the project page. gonads³ 08:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite video}} does. It's very helpful. Have a look. gonads³ 10:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest location should be mandatory, as page(s) is for a book. For example, a GA review should be able to go straight to the location. Even then some videos are difficult to use, as conversations may have poor sound, partcipants interrupting each other, fragmented phrases, etc. --Philcha (talk) 10:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to agree, but how would that work when referencing the whole video or audio source? gonads³ 16:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

implying recorded speeches by known academics that are only available on youtube are unreliable sources. old media paper sources are not the future unfortunately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.2.159.215 (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verified channels?

Hi! I was looking for a reference for a fact that I just added to a draft that I am working on. I found a video on YouTube that was posted by the official channel of the Olympic Games. It sufficiently backs up the fact in the draft. Since the video is posted by a channel that is verified by YouTube and is the official channel of the Olympic Games could it be considered reliable? Could I use it as a reference? The video is located here and the channel's page is located here. If I can use the video as a reference how do I cite it? Thanks, Jith12 (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to Video links

Same article. One may get attention or not the other; too confusing for the reader. Merged.2601:601:CE7F:E270:5456:2939:9AB9:38F1 (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]