Wikipedia:Citing IMDb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:32, 3 December 2008

The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.

Shortcut

WP:CIMDB

This page in a nutshell: Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films.

Citing the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) on Wikipedia addresses questions with regard to adherence to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The following guideline addresses the usage of the IMDb as a reference source, where its weaknesses and strengths lie with regard to content and policy, and the subsequent role that it can play in Wikipedia's articles.

IMDb content suitable for Wikipedia

Released films only: The writing credits marked with "WGA" that are supplied directly by the Writers Guild of America (where applicable). Similarly, the MPAA ratings reasons, where they appear, supplied directly by the Motion Picture Association of America.
Released films only: Sections such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications.

IMDb content not suitable for Wikipedia

Any potentially contentious material about living persons
The IMDb message boards which are inherently not reliable.
The user comments for each title that are pure user-generated content.
Sections written in wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
Newsgroup reviews that are archived Usenet postings.
The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
The recommendations.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 #The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
 #The recommendations.
-==Third-party assessments of IMDb content==
-From the ''Cataloging & Classification Quarterly'' journal (September 2005):<ref>{{cite journal | last=Naun | first=Chew Chiat | title=Cataloguing, Lies, and Videotape: Comparing the IMDb and the Library Catalogue | journal=Cataloging & Classification Quarterly | month=2005 | volume=41 | issue=1 | pages=23-43 | doi=10.1300/J104v41n01_03 }}</ref>
-:One fundamental respect in which the IMDb differs from most library catalogues is that it is the product not of a specialized profession, but of the combined efforts of members of the motion picture industry, IMDb staff, and the IMDb user community. It seems clear that once a film is submitted for inclusion in the IMDb, something like a conventional cataloguing procedure is carried out. The IMDb information pages explain that the cataloguing information is taken mainly from on-screen credits (formally prescribed as a chief source of information in AACR2 cataloguing) and various kinds of promotional material. Presumably, trained staff would be required to enter this information into the database in an appropriate form, e.g., using preferred forms of actors’ names. Most films are initially catalogued during pre-production and their IMDb records are updated throughout the production and release period. IMDb users are invited to submit additions or corrections, which are reviewed by IMDb staff.
-:But this core, as it were, of hard bibliographic data is surrounded by a large penumbra of “value-added” data contributed by a variety of sources. Actor biographies, for example, often appear to be contributed by members of the user community. The disadvantage of having contributed data is that its accuracy cannot always be verified and that–as we have seen with plot keywords–consistent practices cannot be enforced; but this seems a small price to pay for the wealth of information that the IMDb has to offer.  Like cooperative cataloguing itself, the IMDb is a collaborative enterprise, but it is one in which the diversity of its community of stakeholders is clearly a strength.
-[[Roger Ebert]] on his blog (October 2008):<ref>{{cite web| url=http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/definitely_read_me_second.html#more| title=Definitely read me second| work=Roger Ebert's Journal| publisher=[[Chicago Sun-Times]]| last=Ebert| first=Roger| authorlink=Roger Ebert| date=2008-10-21| accessdate=2008-12-02}}</ref>
-:I often consult IMDb, and considering that it indexes virtually every film, it is correct as ''[sic]'' astonishing amount of the time. IMDb cannot maintain a staff large enough to compile the cast, credits, technical specs, etc., of those countless films. It is usually a film's publicist, distributor or even director or producer who supplies them. When an error appears, there is a mechanism for IMDb users to correct it. These corrections are vetted by IMDb. It is usually safe to trust.
-==References==
-{{reflist}}