User:Paul_012/YouTube is not a source
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: It is critical to look at the publisher of YouTube videos, and the nature of the work, when evaluating their reliability. |
All too often, AfC reviewers and commentators at AfD are quick to dismiss citations containing links to YouTube as unreliable sources, without even looking at the citation text.
This is entirely inappropriate. YouTube is not a source; it is a video-publishing platform. It can be used by anyone, from the person next door for their personal videos to well-known news outlets for mirrors of their TV broadcasts. It is critical to look at the publisher of YouTube videos, and the nature of the work, when evaluating their reliability.
Is it an online mirror of a TV broadcast? Is it a web-only production by an established media company? Is it a self-published video by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications? These are but a few examples of what would constitute reliable sources, even if found on YouTube. So make sure you actually look at the video descriptions before dismissing them thinking that "YouTube = unreliable".
For editors citing videos hosted on YouTube, make sure you include the proper information in the citation text, especially the publisher and the nature of the video. Rather than the generic {{Cite web}}, consider using {{Cite AV media}} or {{Cite episode}}, which are better suited for video content.