Talk:Baháʼí Faith/YouTube

message: Ok, the consensus seems to be going against Roddy, who persistently continues to push his notions.  While I personally agree with the general view that Youtube pages are not appropriate source materials, but I do feel that occasional Youtube (or other) videos might be useful as illustration of a point.  There are subtleties here.
That said, the tone and tenor is getting increasingly frustrated and harsh, and while people have the "right" to be as  "harsh as they want", it's hardly necessary or productive.  So I call a vote.  Please put your id under the appropriate heading and a single summary sentence or two of your feelings on the matter, if the heading doesn't fully express your view. Any other thoughts can go into the "other comments" section.  Once we've tallied this up, if there's no clear winner, we can run-off, but after this, I'd like us all to take a short break from this.  Obviously this is only a suggestion, but I feel a lot of noise has been generated, with little real value for the article.  Let's wrap this up, at least for a timeout.
===Include Youtube index links as "external links"===
===Include specific Youtube videos as references only===
* I think video is helpful to illustrate, but only specific video should be used to illustrate specific points, and Youtube in general isn't an appropriate source.  Same applies to Google video or any other multimedia source.  Preference should be given to uploading video to the Commons. Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reference maybe, but usually a better secondary source can be found, and the best reference should be used. -- Jeff3000 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear God, it was my contribution that was deleted and rvt and minimised to an point that removed any trace of it. It was not I who was doing the baiting, berating or belittling of any other persons contribution on the main page of wikipedia. Here is what Jimmy Wales says This content can be considered proceedings from a conferrence, published, notable etc and from Jimmy Wales of wikipedia fame himself. Audio visual clips are different from a personal text based web page in that it is not primarily from a persons mind. Photo and audio material are representations of an independant reality that others can view and come to independant conclusions on. Why I like pod casting (better term to use generally as youtube is just a brand name of pod casting) is that it challenges wikipedia to mature. The reason the Baha'i faith page has attracted this attention around pod casting is that Baha'i spans a time frame in progressive revelations terms that maps recorded human written history. It is hard for this page to have a time scale of 100's of years and then have a web2.0 application come along and want equal space and relevance on the page when podcasting is only 18 months old. Kick out new information until it is time tested is the conservative approach. Podcasting is web2.0. Here are some charges against wikipedia culture that editors must answer Some youtube material on truth about wikipedia ps MARusse I have not read any of your wikipedia work as yet, all I have done is respond to your charges against me and my arguments. I hope you have broadband and flash to watch youtube so you can give an informed and thoughtful reply. RoddyYoung 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any of such comment cannot be included in Wikipedia as it would be original research. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I haven't seen anything on YouTube vis. Baha'i that raises it to the level of consideration on Wikipedia. With about 100 Baha'i entries out of 200,000 plus total, the Baha'is are about as irrelevant to that site as it is to this subject. Please, can't this discussion be taken off-line if it can't die a natural death? MARussellPESE 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff how is referring to someone else's content on Youtube, any different than referring to someone else's content in a book?  I see no difference.  It certainly is not OR. Wjhonson 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a difference.  A book is a published source and is acceptable in Wikipedia.  YouTube is like a personal website, self-published.  From WP:RS, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- Jeff3000 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: … making YouTube inappropriate as a blog, not WP:OR. MARussellPESE 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification.  Yes I can agree that YouTube should be treated the same as a personal website.  "Generally" not acceptable.  A month or so ago, we had quite a long discussion about when self-published sources could be used, and how.  I believe there were a few spin-off pages related to that somewhere in the reliable sources archives.  I can't quite recall. Wjhonson 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is equivalent to a personal website, not OR, besides the relevancy issues. Cuñado  - Talk 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should take that discussion to the Wikipedia policy pages, and not here.  Until there are any changes, we abide by Wikipedia policy.  Let's end this discussion now.  It's not for us to decide to change Wikipedia policy.  If you feel strongly, take it to those pages. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've found resonance in those policies. Some are sited often here. Other's aren't. I like this quote: "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people." Clearly this hasn't been followed. On the otherhand, there is this official policy too: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.(emphasis repeated.)--Smkolins 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned below, only after RoddyYoung failed to agree with consensus, did the tone of the edits get worse.  So the first quote above which requires seeking consensus first fails.  Secondly, note that almost all disagree that YouTube edits on this page maintain Wikipedia's quality.  Actually, almost agree they reduce the quality of the page. Thus those quotes should be viewed within WP:Consensus.  Again, if you disagree with these statements, open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also note the very specific things that are the origin of this dispute/discussion which has somehow got lost after Roddy went on his repeated statements that YouTube is revolutionizing the world  (1) A section about Baha'i YouTube downloads on this page (completely non-notable, (2) a link to a generic search of Baha'i content on YouTube, linkspam. The observation that YouTube is revolutionizing the world is completely orthogonal to anything about the Baha'i Faith, and his additions which were reverted. -- Jeff3000 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Youtube: I call a halt to the hostilities and a vote

message: * I think video is helpful to illustrate, but only specific video should be used to illustrate specific points, and Youtube in general isn't an appropriate source.  Same applies to Google video or any other multimedia source.  Preference should be given to uploading video to the Commons. Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a reference maybe, but usually a better secondary source can be found, and the best reference should be used. -- Jeff3000 01:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Include specific Youtube videos as references only

message: *No YouTube content on Wikipedia.  They are equivalent to personal websites which don't pass muster. -- Jeff3000 16:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No Youtube content on Baha'i articles on Wikipedia

message: Please limit comments here to specific additional thoughts that haven't been already hashed to death above. --Christian Edward Gruber 16:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear God, it was my contribution that was deleted and rvt and minimised to an point that removed any trace of it. It was not I who was doing the baiting, berating or belittling of any other persons contribution on the main page of wikipedia. Here is what Jimmy Wales says This content can be considered proceedings from a conferrence, published, notable etc and from Jimmy Wales of wikipedia fame himself. Audio visual clips are different from a personal text based web page in that it is not primarily from a persons mind. Photo and audio material are representations of an independant reality that others can view and come to independant conclusions on. Why I like pod casting (better term to use generally as youtube is just a brand name of pod casting) is that it challenges wikipedia to mature. The reason the Baha'i faith page has attracted this attention around pod casting is that Baha'i spans a time frame in progressive revelations terms that maps recorded human written history. It is hard for this page to have a time scale of 100's of years and then have a web2.0 application come along and want equal space and relevance on the page when podcasting is only 18 months old. Kick out new information until it is time tested is the conservative approach. Podcasting is web2.0. Here are some charges against wikipedia culture that editors must answer Some youtube material on truth about wikipedia ps MARusse I have not read any of your wikipedia work as yet, all I have done is respond to your charges against me and my arguments. I hope you have broadband and flash to watch youtube so you can give an informed and thoughtful reply. RoddyYoung 12:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Any of such comment cannot be included in Wikipedia as it would be original research. -- Jeff3000 01:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Respectfully, I haven't seen anything on YouTube vis. Baha'i that raises it to the level of consideration on Wikipedia. With about 100 Baha'i entries out of 200,000 plus total, the Baha'is are about as irrelevant to that site as it is to this subject. Please, can't this discussion be taken off-line if it can't die a natural death? MARussellPESE 14:35, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Jeff how is referring to someone else's content on Youtube, any different than referring to someone else's content in a book?  I see no difference.  It certainly is not OR. Wjhonson 15:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is quite a difference.  A book is a published source and is acceptable in Wikipedia.  YouTube is like a personal website, self-published.  From WP:RS, "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." -- Jeff3000 15:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: … making YouTube inappropriate as a blog, not WP:OR. MARussellPESE 16:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for that clarification.  Yes I can agree that YouTube should be treated the same as a personal website.  "Generally" not acceptable.  A month or so ago, we had quite a long discussion about when self-published sources could be used, and how.  I believe there were a few spin-off pages related to that somewhere in the reliable sources archives.  I can't quite recall. Wjhonson 16:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it is equivalent to a personal website, not OR, besides the relevancy issues. Cuñado  - Talk 20:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

text: You should take that discussion to the Wikipedia policy pages, and not here.  Until there are any changes, we abide by Wikipedia policy.  Let's end this discussion now.  It's not for us to decide to change Wikipedia policy.  If you feel strongly, take it to those pages. -- Jeff3000 03:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've found resonance in those policies. Some are sited often here. Other's aren't. I like this quote: "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment. Wikipedia greatly appreciates additions that help all people." Clearly this hasn't been followed. On the otherhand, there is this official policy too: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.(emphasis repeated.)--Smkolins 03:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned below, only after RoddyYoung failed to agree with consensus, did the tone of the edits get worse.  So the first quote above which requires seeking consensus first fails.  Secondly, note that almost all disagree that YouTube edits on this page maintain Wikipedia's quality.  Actually, almost agree they reduce the quality of the page. Thus those quotes should be viewed within WP:Consensus.  Again, if you disagree with these statements, open a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Also note the very specific things that are the origin of this dispute/discussion which has somehow got lost after Roddy went on his repeated statements that YouTube is revolutionizing the world  (1) A section about Baha'i YouTube downloads on this page (completely non-notable, (2) a link to a generic search of Baha'i content on YouTube, linkspam. The observation that YouTube is revolutionizing the world is completely orthogonal to anything about the Baha'i Faith, and his additions which were reverted. -- Jeff3000 03:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: For God's sake, everyone, stop it!  Roddy, Jeff, everyone.  The point of the poll was to view consensus, then take a break.  PLEASE TAKE A BREAK!   I'm getting sick to death of the whole argument.  For the time being, based on consensus and policy, Youtube will not be used as a source on the Baha'i pages.  Now let's take a break.  Roddy, regardless of what's been going on here, please look at this from the perspective of Baha'i Consultation, and consider the will of the majority your own, at least for a time.  Take a pause, think about it for a few weeks, and try, honestly try to understand where people are coming from.  Even if you feel the unfairly unheard.  If, after such a break and contemplation, you can offer new insights that might sway people, then do so in a courteous manner.  
Everyone else please stop reacting to long e-mails that have already been re-hashed.  And everyone, please stop making smart-assed quick-witted sarcastic commentary.  It's unbecoming.  Please.  I can't force people to stop, but I can beg everyone, for the love of all that's holy, to move on.  This is the last I'll be contributing to this thread, and I'll warn the entire group that the whole thing is starting to break down on a "Wikipedia is not a chat room" policy level. --Christian Edward Gruber 00:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop

message: Ok invite me to make a contribution on the main page that addresses the growth of Youtube Audio Visual material and the Baha'i content that is appearing on Youtube. Help me referrence it correctly and then help me add a correct external link. All these requests I have learned to ask from following this discussion. I respect that it is polight to wait for a green light from talk before going ahead. I will request that I be given two weeks to have the youtube content on the site and if after two weeks you still feel strongly that it is not to your liking I will agree to have it off and I want first option to take it off myself. Why? That is the mature way to conduct ourselfs. Let us see if youtube can be successfully included and meet all the wikipedia rules. Are we ready to try a little experiment with this? Roddy Young 219.89.174.103 08:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Consensus says no. -- Jeff3000 13:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Go

message: Like the picture disscussion ect. Zazaban 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break all this youtube stuff into a special archive.