Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Betty Logan (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
Eric, thank you for your note. Mistakes posting information by Movie Review Intelligence were made which resulted in the site being blacklisted. It will not happen again. If I knew how to request being white-listed, I would do so. Movie Review Intelligence is not looking to gain a foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry. I would ask that the editors take a minute to understand each site's methodology and results. If the goal of Wikipedia is to include the two most popular movie review sites, that goal appears to have been met. However, if the goal is to present a film's reception as measured objectively according to what the body of U.S. film critics are saying, not what the aggregator is saying, then I hope the editors will consider including Movie Review Intelligence. The list of critics and publications covered by each website, the grading scales, the weighting, the analysis -- each site is very different in its approach, yielding significantly different results. Movie Review Intelligence is dedicated to an objective analysis of film criticism. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia. David A. Gross [[User:Dagrossla|Dagrossla]] ([[User talk:Dagrossla|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Eric, thank you for your note. Mistakes posting information by Movie Review Intelligence were made which resulted in the site being blacklisted. It will not happen again. If I knew how to request being white-listed, I would do so. Movie Review Intelligence is not looking to gain a foothold by including links in Wikipedia's film articles. We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry. I would ask that the editors take a minute to understand each site's methodology and results. If the goal of Wikipedia is to include the two most popular movie review sites, that goal appears to have been met. However, if the goal is to present a film's reception as measured objectively according to what the body of U.S. film critics are saying, not what the aggregator is saying, then I hope the editors will consider including Movie Review Intelligence. The list of critics and publications covered by each website, the grading scales, the weighting, the analysis -- each site is very different in its approach, yielding significantly different results. Movie Review Intelligence is dedicated to an objective analysis of film criticism. I believe it has a place on Wikipedia. David A. Gross [[User:Dagrossla|Dagrossla]] ([[User talk:Dagrossla|talk]]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 22:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:When writing about a recent film's critical reception, one of the challenges is to reflect the consensus. This helps indicate the balance of opinions when we sample individual critics' opinions of the film. For older films, detailing the consensus is easier because publications report on it retrospectively. Movie review aggregators help reflect the consensus for contemporary films, but this does not necessarily mean they are permanent. For example, I would warrant that for a 2006 film we could find recent publications reporting retrospectively on critics' consensus of the film. The point is that the reception section is not intended to be a mashup of movie review aggregators' scores. A selection of scores serves as the lead-in for newer films. As time goes on, they are less necessary because it is more likely that retrospective reporting has taken place. We could discuss treating Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as transitional references (replacing them with more retrospective reports), but that is another discussion for another time. |
|||
:You said, "We are an established professional website relied on within the movie industry." People from [[Movie Review Query Engine]] and [[TopTenReviews]] probably would make the same claim. We have diminishing returns when reporting on multiple scores; how important is the third, fourth, or fifth movie review aggregator score? Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, prominent websites, were endorsed as a pairing of differently calculated scores for mainstream films to lead into sampling critics' reviews. I have no issue with the article [[Movie Review Intelligence]] existing nor having the main link provided in the article. Obviously, with the website on the blacklist, we don't know if the website would have been referenced in film articles by people other than the Movie Review Intelligence staff. If we compare the scales of the websites, though, I cannot expect Movie Review Intelligence to occupy the same ranks as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles. You will need to appeal for the removal of your website from the blacklist, and I do not know what criteria that entails. Regardless, you should avoid any kind of campaign for this website to be used in film articles; your main focus ought to be the appeal and to leave it at that. It is a conflict of interest to campaign for its use in addition to the freedom for it to be used. Erik ([[User talk:Erik|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Erik|contribs]]) 22:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Categorizations by decades and genres == |
== Categorizations by decades and genres == |
||