Wikipedia:Video links

While this essay is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement WP:Citing sources and WP:External links. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.

Shortcut: WP:VIDEOLINK WP:VIDEOSHARE WP:VIDEOREF

This page in a nutshell: Videos on YouTube and other user-submitted sites can sometimes be used as references or external links, but copyright infringement and unreliability will rule out the use of many of these videos

There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites through external links or when citing sources. However, such links must abide by various guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Copyright is of particular concern and reliability must always be established. Editors should attempt to make sure that the video has not been edited to present the information out of context or inaccurately.

Links should be carefully evaluated for inclusion on a case-by-case basis. If there is a question to its validity, alternatives to using a YouTube video include the {{cite episode}} or {{cite video}} templates without links.

Contents 1 Use 1.1 References 1.2 External links 2 See also

[edit] Use

Videos of newscasts, television shows, films, etc. should be considered to be copyright violations if not verifiably uploaded by the copyright holder. Editors should not link to these violations. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. Along with potential contributory copyright infringement concerns, it also may be difficult to determine if video hosted by sites such as YouTube are modified from the original. Linking to videos on these sites can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. The {{uw-copyright-link}} template can be used to notify editors of this.

Links to online videos should identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content.

[edit] References

The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content so editors need to watch out for the potential unreliability of the user uploading the video. There are channels for videos uploaded by agencies and organizations generally considered reliable such as that of the Associated Press on YouTube.

Anyone can create a website or video and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For this reason self-published media as seen on YouTube are often not acceptable sources. Self-published videos may be used as sources of information about their creator if they meet the requirements seen at restrictions on using self-published sources. The community has previously accepted videos from the official YouTube channels of subjects, but this is not a guarantee with issues such as the content being unduly self-serving being a concern. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. This prevents editors from engaging in original research. A primary source may only be used to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. Editors should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.

Editors can use the {{cite episode}} template to cite specific television programs. The {{cite video}} template can be used for movies and other visual media. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a link is not necessary since there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. Including the minutes you are referring to in a long video will make the source easier to verify by your fellow editors and the reader. You can find most other relevant details in the credits, any packaging, or through the Internet. Provide as much information as possible to increase the likelihood of the source being accepted as reliable by the community. Primary sources, such as an episode of your favorite television program, can easily be used incorrectly to create trivia sections. This should be avoided. Such sources should also not be used to create articles that include only the plot of television shows or movies without additional details found in secondary sources. Although concise plot summaries are usually appropriate, failing to provide secondary coverage puts notability into question and does not provide encyclopedic content.

In the case that you are attempting to cite a YouTube video that includes content not previously produced elsewhere or discussed in reliable secondary coverage, it may simply not be necessary to include the information on Wikipedia.

[edit] External links

Links to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites must abide by Wikipedia's External links guidelines (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections. The templates {{YouTube}}, {{YouTube user}}, and {{google video}} can be used if appropriate.

Adding links to online free videos that promote a site or product may be considered spam. Inclusion of such a link is only acceptable if it refers to the official site associated with the Wikipedia article.

[edit] See also

• Wikipedia:Videos, about video on Wikipedia

v • d • e Essays on building Wikipedia Philosophy Conceptualization • Explanationism • Articles must be written • Cohesion • Concept cloud • Paradoxes • Be a reliable source • Concede lost arguments • Avoid nonce introductions Inclusion Alternative outlets • Articles with a single source • Avoid template creep • Bare notability • Bombardment • But it's true! • Citation overkill • Clones • Coatrack • Discriminate vs indiscriminate information • Existence ≠ Notability • Explanationism • Google searches and numbers • Inclusion is not an indicator of notability • Independent sources • Inherent notability • Insignificant • Masking the lack of notability • Make stubs • No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability • No one cares about your garage band • No one really cares • Notability/Historical/Arguments • Notability is not a matter of opinion • Notability means impact • Obscurity ≠ Lack of notability • Offline sources • Notability sub-pages • One sentence does not an article make • Other stuff exists • Pokémon test • Run-of-the-mill • Third-party sources • Video links • What notability is not • Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause Construction A navbox on every page • AfD is not a war zone • Alternatives to the "Expand" template • Amnesia test • An unfinished house is a real problem • Avoid mission statements • Beef up that first revision • Don't demolish the house while it's still being built • Don't hope the house will build itself • Don't leave giant breaks between sections  • Don't panic • Editors are not mindreaders • Featured articles may have problems  • Give an article a chance • Inaccuracies in Wikipedia Namespace • Link rot • Not everything needs a navbox • Nothing is in stone • Over explained • Permastub • Potential, not just current state • Put a little effort into it • Pruning article revisions • Restoring part of a reverted edit  • Robotic editing • Temporary versions of articles • The world will not end tomorrow • There is no deadline • Use citation templates  • Wikipedia is a volunteer service • Wikipedia is a work in progress • Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion • Write the article first Deletion Adjectives in your votes  • Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions • Arguments to make in deletion discussions • Avoid repeated arguments • Before commenting in a deletion discussion • Content removal • Delete the junk • Does deletion help • Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument • Follow the leader • How to save an article proposed for deletion • I just don't like it • Immunity • Liar Liar Pants on Fire • Nothing • Overzealous deletion  • Quote your own essay • Relisting can be abusive • The value of essays • Why was my page deleted?