Wikipedia:Citing IMDb: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
reviving the discussion; see talk page; the subject of citing IMDb comes up often enough that a guideline ought to exist |
a new start |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{{Guideline list}} |
{{Guideline list}} |
||
=='''Citing [[IMDb]]''' suitable for WP== |
|||
'''Citing [[IMDb]]''' can be a controversial topic with regard to adherence to [[WP:RS]], but is also regarded by most users as a fundamental database and perhaps the most well-recognized film information site on the Internet. The following policy is an attempt to address valid concerns about 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. |
|||
*1. 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. |
|||
==IMDb structure== |
|||
The Internet Movie Database was originally conceived as a specialized and inclusive list project on Usenet groups. Eventually it grew into a fully fledged database of names and credits, and post 1993, it began adding supplementary materials such as trivia, release dates, and technical information. The fundamental structure of the database consists of three classes – titles, individuals, and companies – the latter two of which generate their credits from inclusion within a title. Each of these three classes contain sub-pages for the housing of supplemental data. |
|||
*2. sections 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. |
|||
Data is added through an editor-mediated user submission process, starting with the creation of a title. If the title is approved, then names and companies can be added to the database as necessary to fill in the credits. Names and companies are rarely created ''ex nihil'' - they emerge as needed elements for a title's credit list and not vice versa. When an entry on a given subject is already in existence, users may submit data, request data deletion, or request alteration of the data on the entry or its sub-pages. The editors will then try to evaluate the data and make amendments as they see fit. |
|||
==Objections== |
|||
===Process=== |
|||
The common objections to this process are as follows: |
|||
*Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one) |
|||
*Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions |
|||
*The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear |
|||
=='''Citing [[IMDb]]''' Not suitable for WP== |
|||
===Content=== |
|||
Subsequently, this results in objections to certain IMDb content, particularly: |
|||
*Trivia |
|||
*Biographies |
|||
*Unreleased films |
|||
*1. Any contentious material about [[WP:Biographies_of_living_persons|living persons]] |
|||
==Counter-arguments for utility== |
|||
*2. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable. |
|||
Despite the above, many users find the IMDb useful as a basic tool for gleaning basic information and facts about films. Wikipedia has endorsed the IMDb to a limited extent in guidelines and style templates – with [[WP:IMDb|templates for external linking]], guidelines for films [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#External_links|requiring an IMDb external link]], [[Template:Infobox_Film|an infobox]] which had [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Archive_6#VOTE|unanimous consensus to link to IMDb]], [[Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28films%29#Between_films_of_the_same_name|guidelines for disambiguating multiple films with the same title]], and [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources|endorsing the writing credits]], since IMDb consults directly with the [[Writers Guild of America|WGA]] regarding the matter. |
|||
*3. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either. |
|||
*4. sections that are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at [4]), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control). |
|||
Furthermore, the IMDb remains the most popular film information site online, ranking #38 (as of July 19, 2007) on the global list at [[Alexa Internet|Alexa]]. This makes it the most common port of call for online film reference, with an wider breadth of films that that found in Wikipedia, although generally inferior in depth. |
|||
*5. Newsgroup reviews that are archived Usenet postings. |
|||
*6. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions. |
|||
==What this means== |
|||
*7 The recommendations |
|||
On the whole, '''the IMDb should be regarded as a [[tertiary source]]''', and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it [[Wp:nor#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|borderline acceptable]] with regard to [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:NOR]], but has a good track record in certain areas, as discussed below. |
|||
===Acceptable usage=== |
|||
The IMDb tends to be strong with regards to hard facts about films which have been released and remain in good circulation – this is probably a function of the non-controversial objective facts combined with the large number of users watching the site and the popularity of such films. Therefore, the IMDb can be considered an acceptable source for things such as release dates, technical specs, credits, and anything else of this nature. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets [[WP:V]] (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb. The IMDb is frequently used as a quick and convenient way to source many of these facts, such as a brief credits list or filmography, and its use for these cases should not be discouraged. |
|||
===Unacceptable usage=== |
|||
The IMDb tends to be weak, or the least, more open for abuse or mis-attribution when discussing less objective matters such as anecdotes and trivia, as well as films which have not yet been released to the general public. Any trivia which was submitted to the film's IMDb entry should presumably have an origin in either secondary sources – interviews or press reports – or primary sources such as DVD extras and commentaries. These are better sources by [[WP:V]]'s standards and should be used directly in the article if trivia is to be included. |
|||
Historically, the IMDb has a bad track record for information about unreleased films, with poor accuracy and timeliness of updates. Any information about unreleased films needs to be sourced from primary or secondary sources, as there is otherwise no way to verify even basic data. As per the [[WP:NF|film notability guidelines]], articles about films should not be added [[Wikipedia:Notability_%28films%29#Future_films.2C_incomplete_films.2C_and_undistributed_films|until production is already underway]], and even then, only if the film clearly meets existing notability guidelines. |
|||
Revision as of 08:08, 29 November 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. |
 | 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 IMDb suitable for WP
- 1. 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.
- 2. sections 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.
Citing IMDb Not suitable for WP
- 1. Any contentious material about living persons
- 2. The message boards are just message boards which are inherently not reliable.
- 3. The user comments for each title are also pure user-generated content, and they are not reliable either.
- 4. sections that are wiki-style with minimal editorial control. Those would be the FAQs for particular titles (not the database FAQ at [4]), the parents guides, and the plot synopses (not to be confused with the plot outlines or plot summaries, which are subject to editorial control).
- 5. Newsgroup reviews that are archived Usenet postings.
- 6. The trivia and goofs sections that are based on user submissions.
- 7 The recommendations