Talk:Me at the zoo

reliable sources

any reliable sources? Floker (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06FOB-medium-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I don't know the process, but this article is utter crap, not worthy of being on here. I think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.252.51.13 (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the process for deletion involves a lot more than just thinking that something is "utter crap." You'll need to be a lot more specific than that. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's deletion policy. –BMRR (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted, as it doesn't really fit the notability guidelines. A page describing an 18 second internet video with little encyclopedic information doesn't really belong on Wikipedia. I can't really prove this by the terms of the notability guidelines page, however, as there are no guidelines for internet videos. Rectar2 (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As the first video uploaded to youtube, its notable. Its the the subject of copious press coverage.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That, and it's hard to imagine how any video with over 15 million views could be considered 'unnotable'. I agree, there's nothing particularly interesting about the video. But you would need more than "I don't like it" to prove the subject doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -Jmgariepy (talk) 06:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the first youtube video

I saw a Salad Fingers video that was uploaded in 2004.--ReggieScott (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? YouTube was established in February 2005, making it highly unlikely that something was uploaded to it in 2004. –BMRR (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll try to find the video.--ReggieScott (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3iOROuTuMA --ReggieScott (talk) 04:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The video was released in 2004. It was uploaded in 2007. The upload date is visible if you expand the description section of the page — it says "Added: May 09, 2007." That is the date that the video was uploaded to YouTube. "Released" probably refers to the date that it was originally released to the general public, which is unrelated to the date that it was uploaded to YouTube. I can see how this would be confusing. –BMRR (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image

Please note that this article can be illustrated with a frame grabbed from the video and uploaded to Wikipedia under a Fair Use Rationale. The last version of the image was deleted from Commons as fair use cannot apply there. Fæ (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The article has nothing in it which requires illustration IAW the NFCC. — Fourthords | =/\= | 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion such a frame grab would meet all the criteria of NFCC and I would be happy to oppose deletion on this basis. Thanks Fæ (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

What, pray tell, in the article needs particular illustration to increase its understanding? I myself find all 719 bytes to be crystal clear without requiring any copyrighted imagery to better understand it. — Fourthords | =/\= | 08:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't need to tell you, the NFCC criteria are clear and all 10 are met in this situation. Fæ (talk) 07:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the quality (of lack there of) of the video. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

This page does not meet general notibility guidelines. Hence i will redirect it to jawed karim. Pass a Method talk 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This needs to be discussed first. The article contains multiple independent sources offering at least semi-significant coverage, and the previous debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo was closed with no consensus to delete. I don't blame you for being WP:BOLD, but in this case, given the number of people involved in that debate and the reasonable claims that it does meet WP:GNG, more discussion is necessary. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the subsequent listing at DRV stated clearly "merge/redirect can be done following a consensus on the talk page". A discussion (as has now been initiated) was very much called for. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

The majority of the keep votes in the last AfD also wanted a merge (See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Me at the zoo). Therefore i propose this be merged with Jawed Karim or History of YouTube. I Have no strong opinions on this matter Pass a Method talk 14:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no clear rationale for a merge and looking at the AfD there was no majority of keep !votes that supported a merge, not that this would be a reason to ignore the AfD conclusion and merge anyway. --Fæ (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support I support a merge with Jawed Karim Pass a Method talk 15:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. OK, so there isn't much content here, but there are enough reliable sources covering this in detail that it would appear to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of a stricter guideline, I'm not seeing a reason why this shouldn't have a separate article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose a merge to Jawed Karim as it has no special significance to the individual. No opinion on a merge to history of YouTube; the article has seven reliable secondary sources, but might not have much potential to grow much larger than it stands. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I would prefer a broader discussion than this, and a clearer manadate than that achieved (or not) at the first AfD. Therefore, per my comment at the DRV, I would favour that this be relisted at AfD. I accept that this is not somewhere to propose a merge, so any such nomination would best come from someone who actually favours deletion, and the discussion can continue from there. RichardOSmith (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest YouTube comment... ever...

Should there be any information about the oldest YouTube comment (posted by COBALTGRUV) on here? Colabcalub (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so, if it can be reliably sourced. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=jNQXAC9IVRw&page=114 go down to the bottom of page, the first comment ever got like 18k thumbs up and it's marked as spam. 87.205.77.95 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this would qualify as original research since we don't know if any comments were deleted or lost since being allowed. — fourthords | =Λ= | 10:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The oldest comment on the Me at the Zoo video is not necessarily the oldest comment on YouTube. Comments were first enabled at a time when there were already many videos on YouTube. Jawed (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.157.138 (talk) 12:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Stub

I'm not sure this article is a stub. Stub means article that's way shorter than it could have been. It doesn't mean very short article. This article is a minor detail of YouTube, which has a much longer article. I can't think of any more information about it that's probably notable except for possibly why it was uploaded and its effect on raising awareness of the ability to upload videos and whether or not the person who uploaded it was somebody working for YouTube. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I don't know if really short articles that are unable to be very much longer whose topic is breifly mentioned in another much longer article in general or meant to be merged into that article, such as this article getting merrged into YouTube. Blackbombchu (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Amnesty International reveals the exact upload time down to the second

So Amnesty International has a web page which reveals the exact upload time down to the second in UTC.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/citizenevidence/

It says the video was uploaded at 3:27'12 UTC. Tri400 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"JNQXAC9IVRw" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect JNQXAC9IVRw. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

18 or 19 seconds

The article says in the intro that the video is 18 seconds long, before contradicting itself in the infobox saying that it is 19 seconds long. Any ideas? Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Oddly Youtube makes it somewhat difficult to see the duration of a video (it flashes "19" briefly when browsing to the page, but if autoplay is turned off and the video plays through, it displays 18, which I've updated the infobox to say. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

timing second (the video with cursor starting the play at the left of the line), to second (to a clock which I held to compare) the video appears to be 19 seconds Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Willbb234: didn't see your request there, Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Release date

Why does the infobox say the release date of the video is April 25? Wasn't it uploaded on April 23? 77.98.148.182 (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Timestamp fix

The upload timestamp says 8 pm Pacific Time on April 23, 2005, and then says 2 am UTC, also on April 23, 2005. The UTC date should be corrected to April 24, 2005. SeanCrain01 (talk) 05:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, the source provided gives a different upload time to this article when you enter the video's URL, so that should probably be changed too. 2A02:908:E5A:5E60:BC23:C4C:8309:FBDF (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.187.111.192 (talk) 14:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't the first youtube video (again)

I saw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EurHP1DCJg that com-test is the first video on YouTube (but now deleted), not me at the zoo. My last edit was failed. Why? Chuanchauau (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Your source for that (a self-published Youtube video by "TheTekkitRealm") does not meet our reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

This video is also entirely faked by the way, sources are reddit screenshots from accounts that don't exist. The screenshots themselves depict images contradictory to what Tekkit describes. Ayy23 (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding a note on the current description

Would it be appropriate for the article to state that the description has been later changed to "contain a rickroll link, disguised as a link to a new video"? KevTYD (wake up) 03:17, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No; per WP:TRIVIA we don't need to document every bit of minutiae around the video. The significance is that it was the first Youtube video, not the comments, etc. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020

Me at the zoo isn't the first video ever uploaded to YouTube, it is the oldest video that is still available for viewing.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EurHP1DCJg User:milkmankarlson (Talk) 02:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

See above – Thjarkur (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

serendipity

video at the cursor view is nicely harmonized to the video still image by colour Autonomous agent 5 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

"TheTekkitRealm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect TheTekkitRealm and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#TheTekkitRealm until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Add transcript?

Should I add a transcript of the video? Kosburrat (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

No; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a lyric or transcripts site. General Ization ^Talk 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

New oldest video discovered

"Welcome to YouTube!!!", a video which was just recently discovered, appears to have been posted before "Me at the zoo" (April 6 2005). This may warrant the creation of a new article, or at least changes to this one.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=4jowDfvbGIA – PurpleMonk72 (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This has turned out to be a hoax -- the video was uploaded using an exploit with video premiers which can result in a video being uploaded with a custom upload date (there have been videos that say they were uploaded on 1/1/1970 for example). 480p video quality and video premiers were both unavailable features in April of 2005. Bentokage (talk) 17:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@PurpleMonk72 it's a hoax. 2A02:8084:513E:C980:5787:439B:EEB1:4C6B (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for clearing that up! – PurpleMonk72 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

List of oldest YouTube videos

Could a list of oldest YouTube videos be created as well? Χιονάκι (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Com-test

In a YouTube video ([1]) it states that the first video was not Me at the zoo, but the Com-test. Is it true or is it a hoax? Χιονάκι (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Χιονάκι, this is a hoax that has been debunked. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 12:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

So it's a hoax. "Me at the zoo" then is the actual oldest video on YouTube, right? Χιονάκι (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Χιονάκι, yes. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 13:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Me at the zoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs) 16:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

"...The cool thing about these guys is that- is that they have really, really, really long, um, trunks, and, that's- that's cool..." TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

It's almost 15 to 9 (8:45 PM) here, gonna go to sleep. Just ping me when you finish making your comments, I'll check my notis tmrw. Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 00:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Davest3r08: I have finished your review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Please ping me if you are done implementing my comments. I have to be somewhere. Thank you. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 17:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Whoops. I forgot I still had this review up. Anyway, passing... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The article reads smoothly. I corrected a minor typo, but that was the only mistake I found. Technical terms have been clarified.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Little words in the article that are on the WTW list are present. Fiction and list incorporation policies do not apply.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Article has a reference section with no bare URLs. Citations are formatted correctly.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Most sources used are reliable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is text-source integrity and therefore no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The top result, according to the Earwig report, is a mirror website. Quotes could use some trimming, though.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The reception section is quite sparse for a video I consider significant to YouTube's history. Content was misplaced. Criterion passed.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is focused and stays on topic without going into unnecessary detail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. No biases spotted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	I'm not sure how the video is listed under a CC-BY license (or where that even is), but the Wikimedia Commons page has an appropriate license, so I'm going to AGF and pass this criterion.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The full video is enough to provide visual context to the reader (obviously).
	7. Overall assessment.	"...and that's pretty much all there is to say."

Initial comments

• The reception section feels quite... empty. For the very first video on YouTube, I'm sure it has received more attention.
• Bit curious today: Who's the voice that goes "bloop-bleep" at the start of the video? (you don't have to answer this)
• Source #4 (Fox29 story; Weaver 2024) doesn't really add anything other than when the youtube.com domain was activated (IMO that isn't relevant to this specific article. That should belong in the history section for the Wikipedia article about YouTube.)
• Not sure how source #8 (University of Delaware messenger) is reliable
• What makes Digital Trends and Tubefilter reliable?
• Dug these up for ya: [2], [3], [4] (you could use the last source to cite info on Lapitsky instead of the university page)
• Well done! Most of the sources here are reliable. :D
• Is the PDT time relevant?

Copyvio check

• Everything seems to be in order. Earwig states that the top result is at a 44.1% similarity; however, the link is a mirror website.

Lead

• "Me at the zoo" is the first video uploaded to YouTube, on April 23, 2005, 8:31:52 p.m. PDT, or April 24, 2005, at 03:31:52 UTC. -> "'Me at the zoo' is a YouTube video uploaded on April 23, 2005, at 3:31:52 UTC. It is the first video to be uploaded to the platform."
• Using Karim's camera, it was recorded by his high school friend -> It was recorded on Karim's camera by his high school friend...
• a University of Delaware Ph.D. student at the time, who was in San Diego to deliver his research to the American Chemical Society -> "...who was a University of Delaware Ph.D. (unlink Ph.D.) in San Diego delivering his research to the American Chemical Society."
• Why is mentioning the view count important?
• Reception should be briefly mentioned in lead

Background

• I'd recommend linking "former employees at PayPal" together to PayPal Mafia  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Paypal: Chad Hurley...  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Unlink "design"  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Add comma between "Pennsylvania" and "and"  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Unlink "computer science"  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Surprised Justin Timberlake isn't linked here  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Not sure why the alternate name for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy is needed here  Removed Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Link San Diego Zoo  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• Link University of Delaware  Removed Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• Hm... Los Angeles Times quote could use some shortening...
• "as the first video uploaded to YouTube, it played a pivotal role in fundamentally altering how people consumed media and helped usher in a golden era of the 60-second video" -> "Me at the zoo" "played a pivotal role" on how videos were watched. (IDK it's 10:27, and I want to go to sleep :c)
• I tried to paraphrase part of the Digital Trends quote (tell me what you think)

Legacy

• was not simply about
• Good use of quotes, and this paragraph is really well-written!
• "Paved the way for" is a little informal. Try using "led"?
• Might want to introduce Greg Jarboe (what publication is he from?)
• Same thing for Aaron Duplantier
• original amateur content - Not sure what this phrase means. Does it mean content produced by random people who have no experience in filmmaking?
• In addition to being the first video on YouTube, it has been described as the first YouTube vlog clip. -> "Being the first video on YouTube, it has also been described as the first YouTube vlog clip." - Follow-up question: What's a vlog clip?
• ranked it as
• "It is representative of YouTube—it doesn't need to be this fancy production; it can be approachable. The first YouTube video is something anyone could create on their own." - Two things. One: This could be trimmed down (see my next point). Two: This sounds like it could belong in the reception section, not legacy.
• Trim quote (direct quotes in boldface): "...it was representative, being an example of home-made (I don't know what word to use there. I just need a word that means "naturally made" or "without extra work".) user-generated content."  Done Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
• "the thing is practically a historical artifact" -> ...it was "practically a historical artifact".
• Shouldn't the importance ratings go in the reception section?
• Not sure if the technical term for a description is "description feed" (usually I call it the "description")
• "more detailed" -> "longer"
• Link Artificial intelligence art to "AI-generated"?

Spotchecking

Note: Reference numbers are of this revision. I will check ten references at random.

• Y #1
• N #2 - Does not say about Karim's inspiration for creating YouTube
• Y #4 - Not sure if adding the exact date would suffice, but source checks out.
• Y #6
• Y #9
• Y #11 - Since I can't access the book itself, I'm gonna AGF and hope that the text is verifiable.
• Y #12
• Y #15
• Y #16
• Y #18
• N #20 (bonus because why not) - Doesn't say the elephants are AI-generated

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Me at the zoo

• ... that YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim has updated the description of his "Me at the zoo" video (pictured) on multiple occasions to criticize the website's business decisions? Source: https://venturebeat.com/2013/11/08/youtube-cofounders-first-public-comment-in-8-years-why-the-f-do-i-need-a-google-account-to-comment-on-a-video/
  https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/17/22787080/youtube-dislikes-criticism-cofounder-jawed-karim-first-video-description-zoo
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dora and the Fantastical Creatures and Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike

Improved to Good Article status by Davest3r08 (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 01:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Davest3r08: Everything checks out here. Just waiting on the one QPQ. Nice work! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 16:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• Good to go! 🐱FatCat96🐱 Chat with Cat 01:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)