# Relaxing the prohibition of video links



## DonnyB

@mkellogg

Is there any real reason why we can't revisit our current policy on this?  There's been a blanket prohibition under Rule 4 for quite a number of years now: despite the proviso "prior moderator approval" I've yet to come across one which has been approved and almost all moderators currently operate a 'shoot-on sight' policy with regard to deleting or removing video links.  A number of people seem to have nothing better to do than to trawl through posts reporting every video link they come across, and the inordinate amount of work this generates seems to me to be out of all proportion to any benefit.  I'm 100% sure I'm not the only mod who will have to get rid of half a dozen or more _every single day _just because_ 'them's the rules' _and for no other reason_._

A recent thread in this very forum summarizes the potential problems associated with allowing video links but where they're simply additional background information to help answer a question, as opposed to forming the basis of asking one (in much the same way as a link to an article or piece of text is), is it really that much of a big deal?  I'm finding it increasingly difficult to justify refusing point blank to allow them.  We wouldn't need to watch every video to check that it was suitable any more than we routinely read every link which is posted (or at least I don't: I might _occasionally_ skim through an odd one).

I'd like to propose that we trial a policy of allowing them, to relieve the pressure on moderator time, and see what problems, if any, it throws up.


----------



## mkellogg

I missed that thread. I usually rely on email alerts to tell me about discussions, but since this was an old thread that was revived, I didn't see it. 

Anyway, I, personally, have never had a problem with videos. It was the moderators who felt that they would have to watch the video to decide if a thread was a good one and asked that they not be allowed.

If you can get the EO team to agree to test allowing videos, go ahead. If there is a concern about video quality, you might whitelist a number of video sites that have decent standards, such as youtube, etc.

If there is wide agreement, I would even be in favor of "temporarily" removing the rule site-wide to see what happens. We can always reinstate it if if becomes problematic.


----------



## Sowka

In this context, I mainly worry that allowing YouTube links might lead to a large number of threads of the type "What does she say at 2:30" -- something that helps just one person at one particular moment, but is of no use to dictionary users.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DonnyB said:


> they're simply additional background information


*IF* they simply provide additional information, mods can approve them even with the current rules. I have done it several times, when people had asked for *prior approval*.


Sowka said:


> In this context, I mainly worry that allowing YouTube links might lead to a large number of threads of the type "What does she say at 2:30" -- something that helps just one person at one particular moment, but is of no use to dictionary users.


Precisely.
We want threads to be *written discussions* about language topics, not a free transcription service.


----------



## DonnyB

Sowka said:


> In this context, I mainly worry that allowing YouTube links might lead to a large number of threads of the type "What does she say at 2:30" -- something that helps just one person at one particular moment, but is of no use to dictionary users.


I tend to agree with this: in fact I made this point myself in the discussion thread I linked to (post #7).  I don't think we would want to generally encourage people doing this.


Paulfromitaly said:


> *IF* they simply provide additional information, mods can approve them even with the current rules. I have done it several times, when people had asked for *prior approval*.


Well, like I said, I've never seen anyone do it.  The one and only time anyone asked me to approve one, I (reluctantly) turned them down.


----------



## Michelvar

The original discussion that led to the current rule is to be taken into account, though. After a harmless beginning, a video can hide child porn, gore, terrorist propaganda... We would have to watch the all video to be sure that it is legit, for each video.


----------



## Sowka

Michelvar said:


> The original discussion that led to the current rule is to be taken into account, though. After a harmless beginning, a video can hide child porn, gore, terrorist propaganda... We would have to watch the all video to be sure that it is legit, for each video.


I'm not sure if it's the same on YouTube, but on Twitter I have seen accounts change their contents *completely*. They started off with some cat videos and other soft stuff, and after gaining a lot of followers, they switched to content as described by you.


----------



## DonnyB

Michelvar said:


> The original discussion that led to the current rule is to be taken into account, though. After a harmless beginning, a video can hide child porn, gore, terrorist propaganda... We would have to watch the all video to be sure that it is legit, for each video.


I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be in practice.  _Any_ link can conceal something iffy, but only a tiny minority of them do. YouTube in my experience nowadays act pretty swiftly to remove any content which is flagged.

But we're looking at testing it in EO, which should give us a bit of an idea of how much of a problem that might turn out to be.


----------



## swift

DonnyB said:


> But we're looking at testing it in EO, which should give us a bit of an idea of how much of a problem that might turn out to be.


I applaud that initiative, but I’m afraid that’s not the right benchmark.  Sadly, the job that moderators do in that forum cannot be replicated.


----------



## Loob

DonnyB said:


> I'm not sure how much of a problem that would be in practice.  _Any_ link can conceal something iffy, but only a tiny minority of them do. YouTube in my experience nowadays act pretty swiftly to remove any content which is flagged.
> 
> But we're looking at testing it in EO, which should give us a bit of an idea of how much of a problem that might turn out to be.


A plea.

If you are going to run a trial in EO, can you find a way of announcing it, please?

I hate to think of all those people who


DonnyB said:


> seem to have nothing better to do than to trawl through posts reporting every video link they come across


continuing to waste their time.


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> A plea.
> 
> If you are going to run a trial in EO, can you find a way of announcing it, please?
> 
> I hate to think of all those people who
> 
> continuing to waste their time.


We haven't finalized the plans yet, but I think at the moment we're probably envisaging simply ceasing to enforce the prohibition stipulated in Rule 4 - in other words, just not automatically removing them.


----------



## Loob

That's a pity. Well, I'll leave my plea on the table.


----------



## velisarius

Perhaps they might be allowed, but with the exception of song lyrics. They are very often senseless, and usually even a native can't distinguish the words.


----------



## elroy

I think a good compromise would be to not require prior moderator approval, and to reserve the right to delete any videos deemed unacceptable at the moderators' discretion.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Michelvar said:


> The original discussion that led to the current rule is to be taken into account, though. After a harmless beginning, a video can hide child porn, gore, terrorist propaganda...


Since youtube has decided to demonetize channels that discuss some specific subjects, an increasing number of them have started hiding  promotional messages inside their videos, advertising merchandise or asking people to visit their website or Patreon page.
Since we have to watch all the videos anyway, I'd rather be asked *in advance* to watch say 2 videos a day (*as required by the current rule that already allows video link...*) than have to watch 20 of them because there aren't any more restrictions.
We are already seeing too many people who don't care to type out their questions and just attach a screenshot of their homework, a book or a webpage, forcing the mods to type the questions out for them since that's the only way to make threads searchable (text is searchable, images are not), "free vìdeos for all" would make it even worse.
Videos that provide *crucial context/information* can already be allowed - we don't need more than that in a *language forum*, in my opinion.


----------



## DonnyB

Paulfromitaly said:


> Since we have to watch all the videos anyway, I'd rather be asked *in advance* to watch say 2 videos a day (*as required by the current rule that already allows video link...*) than have to watch 20 of them because there aren't any more restrictions.
> 
> Videos that provide *crucial context/information* can already be allowed - we don't need more than that in a *language forum*, in my opinion.


I think we're some way off removing the restriction altogether: let's see how we get on testing it in EO first.  Personlly I'd be surprised if we were in the position of having to vet _twenty a day_, at least in the early days of this trial.


Paulfromitaly said:


> We are already seeing too many people who don't care to type out their questions and just attach a screenshot of their homework, a book or a webpage, forcing the mods to type the questions out for them since that's the only way to make threads searchable (text is searchable, images are not), "free vìdeos for all" would make it even worse.


Why should it?  Sorry, but that is a totally irrelevant issue to that of whether we allow video links or not, and it isn't even specified in the rules anyway.  As I said at the outset, I'm more concerned with the sheer amount of moderator time which is currently being wasted by dealing with members' attempts to post video links in contravention of the current rules.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

DonnyB said:


> I think we're some way off removing the restriction altogether: let's see how we get on testing it in EO first.


Testing what specifically? Removing the prior approval restriction?
Does that mean you're willing to watch every single video that is posted in EO from the beginning to the end and then decide whether to leave it or remove it?


DonnyB said:


> that is a totally irrelevant issue to that of whether we allow video links or not


It is not.
Posting a video can be an easy way to avoid typing out the question or the context just like posting screenshots is, and again the content of a video is not searchable.

As a forero (not a mod) I wouldn't be happy to be expected to watch a video instead of reading a short text. Some people might also have problems watching videos at work, in some specific geographical areas, on some devices or simply find it way easier to read a text on a screen than watch a video in a language they still don't master (reading comprehension is easier than listening comprehension, especially for hearing impaired people).
Linking videos or attaching screenshots should be the last resort in a language forum, when there is no other easy way to provide that piece of info. What I have experienced with screenshots is that more and more people use them simply to avoid typing and it's likely that most of the videos are going to be used for the same purpose.


----------



## DonnyB

Paulfromitaly said:


> Testing what specifically? Removing the prior approval restriction?
> Does that mean you're willing to watch every single video that is posted in EO from the beginning to the end and then decide whether to leave it or remove it?


No, it doesn't.  For starters there are four of us, and there haven't been any attempts to post one in EO yet since Mike gave his blessing to it (post #2).  It's a trial exclusive to EO: we're not asking any of the other mods to get involved in it at the moment. Let's give it a fair go, please, and see if there are any problems which need ironing out: we haven't even decided amongst ourselves yet exactly how we're going to run it.


Paulfromitaly said:


> As a forero (not a mod) I wouldn't be happy to be expected to watch a video instead of reading a short text. Some people might also have problems watching videos at work, in some specific geographical areas, on some devices or simply find it way easier to read a text on a screen than watch a video in a language they still don't master (reading comprehension is easier than listening comprehension, especially for hearing impaired people).
> Linking videos or attaching screenshots should be the last resort in a language forum, when there is no other easy way to provide that piece of info. What I have experienced with screenshots is that more and more people use them simply to avoid typing and it's likely that most of the videos are going to be used for the same purpose.


It would clearly be up to members whether they wanted to watch a video clip or not.  There are posts currently which clearly indicate that someone has done so before it was deleted, under the current régime.  In my original submission, I was advocating that we relax the prohibition on posting video links where they're used as support for an answer in the same way that a link to an article is: you don't (or shouldn't) have to read the whole article if you don't want to.  I fully accept that there are more problems inherent in allowing video links to be used to _ask_ a question, as has already been acknowledged (posts 3 & 5 and post 13).


----------



## Bevj

As far as I know, there is not a 'blanket prohibition' of video links. There is a prohibition of video links
*without prior approval*.
We don't get many videos posted in Sp/Eng and very few of the members who add links have bothered to ask first.  If they do ask first, the majority are disallowed because _the video adds nothing to the thread which can't be easily expressed in words._
If a poster wants to know how to translate a phrase from a song, we don't need a video of a performance of the song.
And if a poster explains where he has read or heard a phrase, we don't need two or three helpful links to similar examples of its use.
Very occasionally we do approve a video but admittedly this is the exception, not the rule.
We don't even see half a dozen video links a week in Sp/Eng, let alone a day.  EO is obviously a special case.


----------



## swift

Bevj said:


> EO is obviously a special case.


👍🏻🙏🏻


----------



## Loob

Thinking of why EO might be a special case, and reflecting on Donny's


DonnyB said:


> inordinate amount of work


could this be something to do with the fact that EO has a relatively small number of mods?


----------



## DonnyB

Loob said:


> Thinking of why EO might be a special case, and reflecting on Donny's
> 
> could this be something to do with the fact that EO has a relatively small number of mods?


It _may_ be something to do with our all being spread over different time zones, so "the" EO mod who's online normally aims to deal with whatever arises, but | would hesitate to attach any significance other than that.


----------



## Myridon

DonnyB said:


> No, it doesn't.  For starters there are four of us, and there haven't been any attempts to post one in EO yet since Mike gave his blessing to it (post #2).


It could be that no one has attempted it because no one (namely me) is aware that there has been any sort of rule change.

Is there any sentiment that embedding an hour long video is not compatible with the "quote only four lines" rule?


----------



## DonnyB

Myridon said:


> It could be that no one has attempted it because no one (namely me) is aware that there has been any sort of rule change.


As I indicated in reply to Loob (post #11) we don't envisage advertising this initiative as a rule change until we've got some sort of a 'feel' as to how easy or otherwise it's going to be to manage it.


Myridon said:


> Is there any sentiment that embedding an hour long video is not compatible with the "quote only four lines" rule?


No, because there's no limit on how long a link to a text file such as a newspaper article can be: you're not restricted to four lines unless you're reproducing a quote from it.


----------



## Myridon

DonnyB said:


> As I indicated in reply to Loob (post #11) we don't envisage advertising this initiative as a rule change until we've got some sort of a 'feel' as to how easy or otherwise it's going to be to manage it.


Long-timers seem to avoid even mentioning the word "YouTube".  If only people who don't know or disobey the rules are trying it, is that likely to be a representative sample?  Although, as people notice that they're not being removed, the floodgates may open pretty quickly.


DonnyB said:


> No, because there's no limit on how long a link to a text file such as a newspaper article can be: you're not restricted to four lines unless you're reproducing a quote from it.


I was just wondering. The thought came to my mind that if it's an embedded link you can watch the video as if it is part of this site.  The same would be true for an image of an entire page, etc.


----------



## swift

Myridon said:


> The same would be true for an image of an entire page, etc.


Oh, but there _are_ screenshots of full pages in many threads out there. I don’t think the copyright issue is being enforced systematically… not with the earnest the “unapproved” video links are removed!


----------



## DonnyB

swift said:


> Oh, but there _are_ screenshots of full pages in many threads out there. I don’t think the copyright issue is being enforced systematically… not with the earnest the “unapproved” video links are removed!


I didn't think screenshots counted as being restricted to four sentences: quite apart from anything else it's tricky to try and scan a piece of text so that it _only_ includes four sentences.  Because the result is an _image_ file it can't be picked up and indexed by search engines, so copyright issues are not likely to arise out of their use.



Myridon said:


> Long-timers seem to avoid even mentioning the word "YouTube".  If only people who don't know or disobey the rules are trying it, is that likely to be a representative sample?  Although, as people notice that they're not being removed, the floodgates may open pretty quickly.
> 
> I was just wondering. The thought came to my mind that if it's an embedded link (which what is being done in Language Lab) you can watch the video as if it is part of this site.  The same would be true for an image of an entire page, etc.


At one time , the prohibition on YouTube was even more restrictive than it is now, and members had posts edited or removed for so much as daring to mention the name "YouTube"! 

It depends on how the person who uploaded it has configured it: there's an option with YouTube clips to disable linking to external sites such as ours.  Whichever way they've done it, though, the copyright doesn't belong to WRF.


----------



## swift

I’m not sure that’s how copyright works, but 🤷🏻‍♂️.

The other aspect of the rule that needs to be factored in is that, unlike other rules, this one explicitly requires users to seek moderators’ approval. While it’s obviously not its intent to create friction between members and moderators, any infringement automatically challenges the moderators’ authority. And we all know how people with authority react when someone acts in contempt.


----------



## DonnyB

swift said:


> The other aspect of the rule that needs to be factored in is that, unlike other rules, this one explicitly requires users to seek moderators’ approval. While it’s obviously not its intent to create friction between members and moderators, any infringement automatically challenges the moderators’ authority. And we all know how people with authority react when someone acts in contempt.


The proposal I've put forward is that members would no longer need moderator approval to post video links.  As post #14 suggests, we would reserve the right at our discretion to disallow unsuitable material in exactly the same way as we currently do with any other type of material.


----------



## swift

Yeah, and I believe that approach will help reduce the unnecessary friction the current approach creates.


----------



## merquiades

Sometimes I come across an old thread where links to images or articles are no longer active because content has been removed. It's then hard to follow the rest of the thread as posts are based upon what is seen in these links  Seeing is believing as they say. As I am constantly reading old threads I know just how valuable they are. Is there a chance a large number of broken threads will undermine the value of future old threads. What could be done to prevent this?


----------



## DonnyB

merquiades said:


> Sometimes I come across an old thread where links to images or articles are no longer active because content has been removed. It's then hard to follow the rest of the thread as posts are based upon what is seen in these links  Seeing is believing as they say. As I am constantly reading old threads I know just how valuable they are. Is there a chance a large number of broken threads will undermine the value of future old threads. What could be done to prevent this?


This has historically always been a problem, and is partly why so-called 'bare' links are not permitted.  I can't readily think of a way of _preventing_ it as neither we nor the member who posted it have any way of controlling what happens to content hosted on an external site.

Members can help by reporting any broken links they come across, and then the mods can see what we can do by way of either repairing them or possibly replacing the missing content with something else.  Worst case scenario we would have to just delete the post/thread in question (or just live with it), but in a thread which is twelve or fifteen years old there's realistically not going to be much else we can do.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

merquiades said:


> What could be done to prevent this?


Ask users to provide written information instead of images or videos whenever it is possible (which is in the majority of cases).
If someone really needs to insert an actual image (and not a screenshot of written text) they should upload it on WR and attach it. Once the image is physically stored on our servers, it will be available forever.


----------

