# Links to audio and video



## LanguageUser1234

Any chance the restrictions on links to audio and video materials could be revisited? Sometimes they really are useful, and given the evolution of the Internet over the years since this restriction was established, drawing sharp distinctions between "text-only" and "multimedia" pages really doesn't mean much anymore.

Just a thought.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

There is already a procedure you can follow if you want to be allowed to post audio and video links: You can contact a moderator and ask for prior approval.



> *Respect intellectual property.*
> Always acknowledge the source.
> No plagiarized content is allowed.
> No copyrighted material may be inserted into posts except as indicated here:
> Minor fair use excerpts (one or two) from dictionaries are permitted.
> Quotes and translations of prose up to 4 sentences are permitted. No audio or video files or links may be inserted *without prior moderator approval.*
> Song lyrics and verse may be quoted and translated, up to a maximum of 4 lines.
> All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.


----------



## mkellogg

LangaugeUser, how would you recommend the rules be changed? What types of questions would you allow without prior approval?


----------



## LanguageUser1234

Well, one example would be this thread (which, by the way, is not mine). Seems to me it was a legitimate question, and the link to the audio was necessary. And it attracted some worthwhile answers. Still, the moderator deleted the link. Obviously I'm not privy to all the reasons behind your policies, but I'm not sure how that helped matters.

More generally, from what I can tell, the original policy was apparently based at least in part on the idea that multimedia links were likely to be less stable and less "permanent" than text-based links.

Also, with the proliferation of multimedia content, I don't really think it's even possible to draw a clear line any longer. After all, if I link to a Washington Post story (which is presumably allowed), the linked page may very well contain embedded audio and video.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Bear in mind that the forums are an adjunct to WR dictionaries and threads should concern written texts, not audio and video files to decipher or write out.


----------



## cherine

LanguageUser1234 said:


> More generally, from what I can tell, the original policy was apparently based at least in part on the idea that multimedia links were likely to be less stable and less "permanent" than text-based links.


True. If a post is based on an external link (text or multimedia) and then that link becomes obsolete for one reason or the other, the post -and any replies it may have received- becomes meaningless and quite frankly frustrating. I've been through a few such examples myself so I wouldn't like to see the rule changed.


----------



## Kelly B

If I remember correctly, one objection to such files was a concern about copyright violation, for example with unauthorized recordings of songs or television programs. That might still be the case...? It's easy for a moderator to shorten an unduly long citation from a text; that's not the case for audio and video recordings.


----------



## cherine

Yes, Kelly. I think that was the main reason for the rule. But after I experienced a couple of frustrating links/posts, I believe that even material out of copyrights should not be allowed (at least not as the base of a thread or a post).


----------



## Panfrom2020

Hi, Masters at Wordreference, 

I realize that Wordreference doesn't allow sharings of audio files. I am wondering if the rule could change a little bit to allow audio files that are shorter than a certain amount of time, eg. 30 seconds; or files that are smaller than some size, eg. 800K 

That small change will go along way toward helping out numerous learners of all languages, as listening is in all languages as important as anything. 

Here's an on-going case to illustrate my point. 
Intrigue: Also an Intransitive?

Thank you very much. 

Pan.


----------



## DonnyB

Panfrom2020 said:


> I realize that Wordreference doesn't allow sharings of audio files. I am wondering if the rule could change a little bit to allow audio files that are shorter than a certain amount of time, eg. 30 seconds; or files that are smaller than some size, eg. 800K
> 
> That small change will go along way toward helping out numerous learners of all languages, as listening is in all languages as important as anything.


I'm afraid the main problem I see with it is that it violates the principle that questions should, as far as is reasonably practicable, be answerable from the information given in the post itself.  Once you start allowing questions which entail listening to audio clips or watching videos, not only do you decrease the potential number of members willing to do that but you also introduce the complication that should a link fail at any point now or in the future, the question would almost certainly then become unanswerable.

While I agree that listening is an important part of learning a language, WRF's core purpose is building a _dictionary_, and the forums are seen as an adjunct to that. The majority of questions which we can accept and answer in our forums are of a type which could where necessary be framed so as to rely on transcripts.


----------



## swift

Panfrom2020 said:


> Here's an on-going case to illustrate my point.
> Intrigue: Also an Intransitive?


It looks like the question has been addressed entirely without a need for an audio clip.


----------



## Panfrom2020

DonnyB said:


> I'm afraid the main problem I see with it is that it violates the principle that questions should, as far as is reasonably practicable, be answerable from the information given in the post itself.  Once you start allowing questions which entail listening to audio clips or watching videos, not only do you decrease the potential number of members willing to do that but you also introduce the complication that should a link fail at any point now or in the future, the question would almost certainly then become unanswerable.
> 
> While I agree that listening is an important part of learning a language, WRF's core purpose is building a _dictionary_, and the forums are seen as an adjunct to that. The majority of questions which we can accept and answer in our forums are of a type which could where necessary be framed so as to rely on transcripts.



Thank you for taking the time to explain. I respect the decision of Wordreference. 

Pan.



swift said:


> It looks like the question has been addressed entirely without a need for an audio clip.



Yes, thanks to the kind friends of Wordreference. 

I mentioned the audio file because chances are I might have gotten it wrong in the first place (I didn't do the dictation right; that's not what really was being said). In cases like these an audio file might be of great assistance.  

But that's a moot point now, I suppose. 

Thank you all the same. 

Pan.


----------

