Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegenerateThis (talk | contribs) at 19:21, 28 June 2008 (→Username). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IMDb reliability?

I'm puzzled. In your comment on the entry for the movie "Aftershock: Earthquake in New York", you state that IMDb is an unreliable source. If that's so, why does just about every film or TV-related Misplaced Pages entry have a link to IMDb on it? Surely, if it's that unreliable a source, then shouldn't all of those links be removed? And shouldn't the same apply to the use of all sites which rely on user contributions, such as TV.com, and even Misplaced Pages itself? I know of a lot of other user-supported sites where they refuse to accept Misplaced Pages as a valid source because they say the information is unreliable and not subject to proper fact-checking!

Also, what's the current general POV regarding offline sources, such as books or magazines, where there's no web link available? In any academic publication, they would be accepted as valid, because anyone wanting to check the information could go and look it up in the same publication, but what about on Misplaced Pages? Are people accepting them as valid sources? I'm asking because I've got quite a bit of information for various entries which is contained in hard-copy publications and which I can't find anywhere online to allow me to insert a clickable link as a reference. As a result, all I can do is give a conventional "old style" reference to the publication and hope people accept it as academics have done so for decades.

Sorry, probably rambled a bit there - it's late and I'm tired!!! Emma white20 (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right that there is an inconsistency. It only really emerges as a problem when there is seriously problematic content on imdb, which is rare.

On sourcing, a reliable source which also happens to be a printed book is generally more reliable because we can say with confidence that the book is unlikely to crumble to dust in the near future whereas the lifetime of some links to web-based sources, which may be otherwise reliable, can be measured in weeks. For instance I'd have no hesitation in recommending that anyone interested in serious research get a library card for a good university or national library. There are some older books that haven't been transcribed to electronic form; some of them may never be. This doesn't mean they're not reliable. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

As you may be aware, Lawrence Cohen retired from Misplaced Pages today. His parting request was for the RFC that had been in his user space since March to be moved into Misplaced Pages namespace and brought live. The underlying work had been in preparation for several months.

It was partly at my request that the RFC didn't go live long before today. Also at my request, it went live about two hours later than it otherwise would have. I offered to do the move myself in the hope of giving it an appropriate tone: by setting aside any personal grievance and focusing on process level matters, I aimed to set an example that would discourage others from exploiting the page as a soapbox to rehear their own cases or to settle scores.

If it had been entirely my discretion I would not have opened RFC today, although I probably would have supported it soon. Lawrence's request was going to be honored; the only question was how. When ArbCom was established in early 2004 Misplaced Pages was a much smaller site. Things are very different now and the Committee faces challenges that could not have been anticipated when its mandate was originally created. The strains of those changes have been showing for months. Now we have an opportunity to reassess the Committee's role, and to clarify and improve the situation. I ask that we move forward in a collaborative spirit toward improving a situation that has been stressful for a lot of the site's most dedicated editors. Respectfully, Durova 05:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Username

Have you thought about shortening your username a bit? Or maybe using some kind of an acronym or a shortened version for your signature? The problem with a long username like yours is that it is kind of hard to decide for other users how to address you when responding to your comments or discussing them. Some sort of a short-hand is useful in such situations and it is better if your provide it rather than to have others improvise on a case-by-case basis. Just a suggestion... Nsk92 (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this for a bit and I do think it might be time for another change of username. My main problem with the long name is that it fills edit summaries. I think I'll give it a go after Doctor Who (which starts in about five minutes). --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Lucky stiff, gettin' to watch Doctor Who when it comes out as opposed to when the Sci-Fi channel feels like running it. Now I'll be agonizing over whether your new username is a spoiler or not. Dr. eXtreme 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it helps to know that I'm a long-term Doctor Who fan and this is my second "regeneration". No spoilers there. --Jenny 19:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)