Category talk:License reviewed by YouTubeReviewBot

To be checked

@Eatcha: The category:To be checked might be not the best maintenance metacat, but no category at all (apart from hidden) was just wrong. On File:Cute without you.webm the bot clearly expects human intervention by a licence reviewer, not only patrol: If you are a license reviewer, you can review this file by manually appending |reviewer=~~~~ to this template. Nobody likes rollback without edit summary for edits that are no vandalism (and I also got that wrong once), but your fix works for me. –84.46.53.30 18:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for using rollback -- Eatcha (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Still a technical issue, in April 2019 there were over 9,000 videos expecting LR, now there are over 12,000 videos in this new category expecting LR (incl. failed cases), is this really a job for LR? –84.46.53.30 18:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is not really compulsory to Pass LR for files in this category. The bot archives the source URL on way back machine. The humans (if they wish) can substitute the required parameters to state that "The video can is in accordance to Wikimedia commons policy" -- Eatcha (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The bot message says LR, that's a rare species here, even rarer than admins. I never had one of these rights on Wikimedia projects, "patrol" here would be the best I could do if I login—as I did for the Blackery video in April 2019, because I didn't know that enwiki offers FFU "files for upload" for IPs unwilling to login—but even "patrol" won't be good enough to add a reviewer=~~~~ on the video.
If that's in essence your text, maybe replace LR by "human". Unless the similar flickr bot also wants LR, and you are just following common practice. I can certainly see the attack vector, alleged CC-BY-SA YouTube source in fact is CC-BY-SA, but unrelated to the uploaded video, and FFmpeg MD5 fingerprinting to check this would be hard (for a bot).
My ISP decided that I need a new IP after installing the last Windows 7 update for ordinary "humans". –84.46.53.255 21:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

FFmpeg MD5 fingerprinting is impossible, without knowing the quality selected by the up-loader. YouTube keeps video and audio separated. Video2commons (a tool on Wikimedia commons) selects the best possible format, there is no way I could ever know what combination of video and audio were selected. Only way to check if two YouTube videos are same is computer-based-finger-printing-of-visual-and-audio-data. This technology is super rare in the market, YouTube/shazam use it for identifying music in videos. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, ignoring simple cases where folks try youtube-dl (or "savedeo" etc.) webm best (VP9 or AV1) + "weba" best (opus) as they should, while YouTube didn't change their idea of "best" before the review. –84.46.53.255 18:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)