Video recording of lecture: neither item type has all needed fields

I'm trying to cite the video of a lecture. The item itself is a video, bit if I make that the item type, none of the available creator types really fit the lecturer's role. "Cast member" and "scriptwriter" come closest and are technically true, but neither one will be in the citation. Using the item type Presentation allows me to label them correctly as a presenter and be included in the citation, as well as giving better options for the venue and so on, but that leaves nowhere to record the attributes of the video. Either way I have to add a lot of information to the citation manually.

Given the enormous numbers of videos now on YouTube that are written and presented by a single person--everything from video blogs to academic lectures--it's long past time to add "presenter" as a creator types, and to make it possible for creator types other than "director" to appear in the citations.

In the meantime, what have users found to be the most efficient workaround?
  • I guess the main question you need to answer is how you would want to cite this, and how your intended citation style handles the item type you're using. Because there is no point in having a complete set fields if the CSL style is just going to overlook some of them. Do you really need to record (and cite) all the attributes of the video, or would it make most sense to just cite it as a lecture that happens to have been video-recorded (where perhaps a URL would point to that recording)?
  • I'm convinced by the point about creator types, though. The video recording fields creator types indeed don't seem particularly useful to me, especially because "film" (to which they mostly apply) is a separate item type (and director technically carries a label in CSL, for example, whereas the standard YouTube video should be cited without).

    Wondering if "presenter" is too narrow, though. I don't think most YouTubers would refer to themselves as presenters. "creator" would be the natural label I think -- "content creator" I think is commonly used by people on social media -- but clashes with Zotero's generic description for all items.

  • "content creator" I think is commonly used by people on social media -- but clashes with Zotero's generic description for all items
    I think that's OK.
  • Oh, sorry, you were suggesting "Creator", though, not "Content Creator". Yeah, that's more of a problem.
  • But maybe "Creator" is still OK? If you squint, it's sort of just like using a base field (e.g., Publisher) as opposed to a type-specific field (e.g., Label).
  • I could see either content creator or creator working, but I like the flexibility of the latter a bit better.
    I'm a bit worried that "content creator" is more likely to get dated and it's also a more awkward fit with the OP's example of, say, an instructor publishing their lecture on YouTube.

    Either option (mapped to CSL author I think) would be an improvement over the status quo.
  • Yeah, I agree.
  • "Creator" is already the label for the field, for all item types. What we need are more useful defined values ("creator types") for use in some item types. In the meantime I've just discovered the possibility of using role labels
    and (, which I'm going to explore further, in conjunction with @mark's reminder to think about how important it is to record all the video attributes anyway.

    Thanks, all.
  • I think you can assume dstillman and I are aware of Zotero's data model...

    The discussion above is whether the label creator could also be used as a creator type, which it probably can without causing too much confusion.
  • I like Creator here. If we ever adopted Uploader as a variable, it would match well.
  • Thanks for the correction, @adamsmith. As long as new creator types are defined when they become well established and widely used, it would be useful to have a generic "creator" available for those times when none of the defined ones are a good fit. I suppose it's a bit like a "miscellaneous" or "other" category in a filing system. Most systems need one to catch the few things that don't fit anywhere else; the trick is to keep an eye on what's in there and move things out into a new category when it emerges.
Sign In or Register to comment.