Wikipedia talk:External links/YouTube

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: YouTube 1

message: As per discussions in WP:ANI:
#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).
#Many videos on YouTube are of questionable copyright legitimacy, which should not be linked from Wikipedia
# 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)
replies: text: 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 , 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 . 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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:
# Imelda Marcos--a short fair use clip of a political documentary
# Barrington Hall--a 1988 8mm film digitized and uploaded to YT for accessibility/storage--only known film of no-longer existing murals
# Joshua Clover--YT video of the poet reading at the Bowery Poetry Club
# International Fair Trade Association--short fair use clips of a nonprofit org
# 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)

text: 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)

text: ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: We are in violent agreement, then. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I haven't noticed any violence. Stubborn agreement maybe. --JJay 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  YouTube 2 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Legal jeopardy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Youtube clarification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Withdrawing from participation in this RFC. 

message: 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 ? JJay - just because it's proposed doesn't mean it'd get accepted. >Radiant< 09:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Guy and Radiant edit warring

message: 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)
replies: text: You knowingly edited the guideline against consensus, after discussion. You stopped contributing to discussion at the You Tube RfC,  and did not discuss your proposed changes on talk. You refused to discuss on talk after you you were asked, both on your talkpage  and in edit summaries: you were edit warring.
Cindery 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 -  which appears transparently obvious to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Barberio: WP:KETTLE.  Guy (Help!) 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Barbiero and Cindery edit warring 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Resionable belife" vs "required licensing information", a comparison by example. 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Copyright and YouTube

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Abandoned discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: Shame