Forum:Youtube channel

I was thinking today, and I remembered my old ROTC unit had an idea of creating their own Youtube channel. I thought we could create one for the wiki. The videos would be created by us and would serve as guides, walkthroughs, etc. and could be posted on the wiki where needed. This isn't something that has to be done right now, but rather in the near future. The only thing we need are the PC players and the guys with capture-cards.

Support - As nominator Chief z 02:11, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think it's a great idea. Imrlybord7 17:45, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Excellent idea, I don't think any wiki has there own Youtube channel.

Support - Sounds good to me. 17:57, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support Awesome idea. WouldYouKindly 18:07, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support Sounds cool with me. My own Youtube is called "Pwnz3rProductions".   Maj.Gage   Talk . 20:21, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support Yes yes yes. Did I mention yes? It could serve as a wiki-wide place to upload videos, and not only can we use it for level walkthroughs, we can also use it to demonstrate various weapons that are found on the level. Cpl. Wilding 20:44, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Support I like alot. I would say how much I like but I've injured my left index finger and it's hard o type. Demon Magnetism :D (talk to me) 21:38, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Question - who would the account be under, or would it be under the combined ownership of the admins, or? Just a thought, because it would not make much sense for only one person to be able to have access to the account, but having multiple people have access might bring a security risk, etc. Attack Rhino 23:31, November 10, 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer - I thought we could make an account under the username "CallOfDutyWiki". Then Darkman, Joey, Chia, WYK, or Callofduty4 could give the most trusted users the password. Knife_4.png   Maj.Gage   Talk

. 01:19, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yeah, that is what I was thinking, and hoping that would happen. I just think it is really important that a few people have access to the account, so as the access is not too limited, but at the same time there being a small enough amount of trusted people that the security and credibility of the account is still attained. Attack Rhino 04:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Support - per all, as long as the ownership of the account is under control.


 * Comment - Remember to sign your posts Aky. Attack Rhino 02:57, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - When it comes to account ownership, only a select few would be allowed to gain access. It would be hell if only one person managed the thing. Only the admins and some of the more trusted users will be able to upload videos. The thing we have to work out is file sharing. I'm looking into some sites that offer that, but if you guys have any suggestions I'm all ears. This is a big endeavor, too big for just one person. Chief z 12:50, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Support I think it's a great idea. The only problem would be editing ability as some users might add bad videos.--Poketape 05:11, November 15, 2009 (UTC)
 * As per the above discussion, only admins and possibly some other users would be allowed access to the channel.

Support Sounds good as long as its under control. J-money 02:38, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support Great idea, I don't have it for my PC but I could always update the channel for whatever reason. Dolten 23:31, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Question Who would be able to edit the channel? I think most people don't want random users on there. Dolten 23:31, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Answer As said above, only admins and other selected user. Cpl. Wilding 23:33, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Support Its a great idea and I have a youtube channel too so we can be friends. User:Thatguy699 4:50, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

oppose - not just to be different, but it would create a group of people who would be seen as superior to others on the wikia. e.g "yes i have the password for the wiki youtube account because i am a better user". i would support if admins and admins only could access it.   Critchell   Sniper  21:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious if you guys have thought through to how things would be run if this channel were to be started. Yes, we'd all apparently like to have a channel so others can put up videos, but what if there are no others who are willing or able to do that? Who here has a capture card? Anyone? And who here is a PC user who knows how to do screen recording? Now, that will probably apply to a few people at least.

Now here's the tough realization: you have to be logged into the account to upload a video. To log in, you have to have the password. That would limit any people who have videos to upload to just the few who have the password.

The RuneScape Wiki tried this whole idea several months back. Since RuneScape is a browser-based computer game, screen recording is easy. If there was a community event or a party among Wikians, someone who had access to the channel might record a segment of the gathering to put it up on the channel. Not even nine videos were put up after a while if I remember correctly, and- to be frank -most of them weren't much.

One day, someone posted "Fuck you" on a video about (a)theism. That caused a whole scandal, and the channel was shut down soon after. Think about it—if one person makes one comment while logged in, it would look as if that's what how whole site feels.

Also something to think about: YouTube's strict copyrighted material policies. If there's a song used that's owned by UMG or WMG, all of the video's audio gets taken down without question. If Activision wants the video down for any reason, it goes down. Three videos down by copyright claim with the video and the account is permanently banned without question or appeal.

Though, however, if we were to still have the channel and not have copyrighted materials and have other types of videos (perhaps audio clips explaining things about the Wiki to either Wikians or potential Wikians), then I don't see how any large problem could arise. 06:28, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- You make some good points Chia; I've been thinking about this as well, and I think I might have a couple solutions to that. As stated before, only admins and extremely trusted users would know the password to the YouTube account, so that'll likely crack down on irresponsible use of the channel. And as for letting people upload videos, we could have a page on here where people can post links to their own videos (either on their own YouTube account, or maybe FileFront or someplace similar) for review on whether or not it gets added to the wiki's youtube channel. These videos wouldn't be something like machinima either, it'd be stuff like guide videos like the ones people post to YouTube every day. Stuff like the best way to beat Mile High Club on veteran, strategies for multiplayer modes and maps, etc. As long as access to the account was only made available to responsible users and content going to the account was put under extensive review before making it there, there shouldn't be any trouble--WouldYouKindly 19:21, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- Like WYK said, good points. I didn't know that about the Runescape wiki. But concerning the amount of videos, I think Call of Duty lends itself more to guide videos than Runescape does; sure you can record a video about an instance, but they aren't easily replicable since most require multiple people. With CoD, it's mostly one player and the only thing that really matters is your trigger finger. WYK pretty much laid out my thoughts about the channel. It's supposed to help people, not boast to people (Flawless matches, montages, etc.). If there's no educational value, then it shouldn't be on the channel (sorry if I sound like a politician). Take Hutch for example (search "hutchisyodaddy" on Youtube for you guys who don't know what I'm talking about); yeah he records videos of his matches, but he also provides commentary about tips and tricks. I know I've become a better sniper thanks to him. That's why I said this isn't something that has to be done right now; it requires a lot of planning. We're not in a rush to get this thing up and running. That's what's great about this wiki being user ran: there's no deadlines. I'm drafting some policies for the channel, and I'll post it to be overlooked as soon as I'm done with them. Chief z 13:22, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I thought somewhere along the way we could make a promo video.   Maj.Gage   Talk . 16:44, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I can see from Chia that, yeah, just because a channel is up, doesn't mean it's going to be a veritable beehive. But, yeah, maybe we can do other things (like Gage said, a promo maybe?), and just wait it out, I'm sure it'll be successful. But, yes, we'd have to keep a close eye on the account, because we'll unfortunately give out the password to whoever wanted it. But, I'm sure things will go well. 04:57, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Good idea. Doc.Richtofen 18:49, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Yeah pretty good idea... some of the videos we have havent got the best quality or whatever. But some we'd need to keep like the "I have the luck of the Irish" Stinger death.

Support - I great idea. I'm a big youtube user myself, and i think this is really good. 7th Body 22:23, January 19, 2010 (UTC)7th Body

Oppose - Chiafriend played the devil's advocate well, so I'm going to be bold and disagree with the idea. The proposal sounds like a good idea to me. However, I think there are some inherent problems. The most important is this: why do we need a whole wikia to produce video guides for a Youtube channel?

As a moderately experienced writer of guides and FAQs, I know from experience that it's far easier to do an individual walkthrough rather than trying to work as a group -- especially for games like Call of Duty. It's not the most difficult of games and you don't require a committee-level consultation process to get guides made. At most, there might be discussion on the most efficient methods of going through the game, but it comes down to one person playing through the game. At most, I can see people creating commentaries while playing the game, but it's still something I'd see a small group of close-knit users attempting rather than a wiki.

In short: if a wiki user has the time and the technology to create a video walkthrough, why make things complex by creating a Youtube channel for every CoDwikian to use when they can do it themselves? One person has to record the walkthrough. Why do we need everyone else? Perhaps if we have segments for users to work at individually or in small groups (such as multiplayer map commentaries), this idea would work -- but I'm still reluctant to do it as a wiki. --Scottie theNerd 18:10, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Great idea but i think only the admins should have the password and people who want to add a video must go through the admins. ViperJono08 19:29, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

'Support - For one, only at least 2-4 users should have the password and specific tasks. Second, didn't the Borderlands wiki have its own YT channel? Mmm, Crispy... 19:34, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Really great idea. Only the top admins get the passwords and people send them the links