Q: Aren't there claims online of a video that was uploaded before "Me at the zoo"?
A: These are most likely hoaxes that should not be believed. If you bring up such claims to the talk page, make sure you have
reliable sources to back them up. Posts/videos on social media platforms such as Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube itself are not considered reliable due to their
self-published nature. An exception to this rule is if
the original poster is proven to be an expert in their relevant field.
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject San Diego, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
San Diego and
San Diego County on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.San DiegoWikipedia:WikiProject San DiegoTemplate:WikiProject San DiegoSan Diego articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I'll try to find the video.--
ReggieScott (
talk) 04:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
The article has nothing in it which requires illustration IAW the
NFCC. — Fourthords |=/\= | 22:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
A screenshot would be helpful in demonstrating the quality (of lack there of) of the video. --
Pmsyyz (
talk) 15:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)reply
Redirect
This page does not meet general notibility guidelines. Hence i will redirect it to jawed karim.
Pass a Methodtalk 13:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
reliablesecondary sources, but might not have much potential to grow much larger than it stands. — Fourthords|=Λ=| 16:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
I suppose so, if it can be reliably sourced. — fourthords|=Λ=| 21:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
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?
Willbb234Talk (please {{
ping}} me in replies) 22:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 12:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Your source for that (a self-published Youtube video by "TheTekkitRealm") does not meet our
reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. OhNoitsJamieTalk 03:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2020
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Me at the zoo isn't the first video ever uploaded to YouTube, it is the oldest video that is still available for viewing.
Should I add a transcript of the video?
Kosburrat (
talk) 04:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
No; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a lyric or transcripts site. General IzationTalk 04:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
That makes sense, thanks for clearing that up! –
PurpleMonk72 (
talk) 22:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
List of oldest YouTube videos
Could a list of oldest YouTube videos be created as well?
Χιονάκι (
talk) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
"...The cool thing about these guys is that- is that they have really, really, really long, um, trunks, and, that's- that's cool..."
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 22:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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)reply
Please ping me if you are done implementing my comments. I have to be somewhere. Thank you.
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 17:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Whoops. I forgot I still had this review up. Anyway, passing...
TWOrantulaTM (
enter the web) 21:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
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).
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.
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."
Not sure why the alternate name for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime controversy is needed here RemovedDavest3r08>:3(
talk) 16:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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." DoneDavest3r08>:3(
talk) 16:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)reply
"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")
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.