User talk:Higginbothamtris

Using Youtube as a source

We typically do not use Youtube as a source, since there is little about it that qualifies as a reliable source. Now, if you find sources like newspapers or magazine articles or books that discuss the Youtube videos in question, that qualifies as a source that can be discussed. Citing Youtube videos - especially in BLPs (which can actively render Wikipedia vulnerable to litigation for libel) is a huge no-no. If you have questions about citations, check out WP:CITE and WP:Youtube. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes Sense. I am New so thanks for the help, but I would like to add that the section I had Edited also had a link to an article, which is why I was a little confused on why it was taken off. If you could clear this up for me, it would be greatly appreciated Higginbothamtris (talk) 19:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure. :)

The sorts of people who have BLP articles are those whose safety, fame and fortune can be significantly affected by substantial untruths being told about them. If they can prove them to be untrue, they can go after the person saying them for financial damages. Now, we have rules about Reliable Sources and Verifiability. These are two of the Five Pillars that guide all our viewpoints as editors.

First of all, we as Wikipedia editors cannot add our own opinions, since we are not reliable sources, being (largely) anonymous. We use references, or citations, to note where the information we add came from. Usually, the best sources are academics or established reporters/reviewers who have published their statements and have them verified through their own editorial staff for accuracy and that sort of thing, but that isn't always the case. Youtube video bloggers have no editorial oversight, and their identities aren't established. If Wikipedia publishes an article that has attributes an outright libel, Wikipedia could be sued if they willingly use a source they know isn't reliable. Therefore, we tend to use sources are deflective armor; if a reporter told a lie, it was the reporter that put forth the lie, not us. we would be responsible for removing the lie, but for none of the blame for the initial lie.

Does that make sense? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)