Wikipedia:Citing IMDb
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This proposal has failed to attain consensus within the Wikipedia community. A failed proposal is one for which a consensus to accept is not present after a reasonable amount of time, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of continuing discussion. |
 |
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. |
| Wikipedia guidelines |
|---|
| Content |
| Article Inclusion |
| Notability |
| Classification |
| Editing |
| Discussion |
| Behavior |
| Style |
| Manual of Style
See also policies |
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.
Contents |
[edit] 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.
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.
[edit] Objections
[edit] 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
[edit] Content
Subsequently, this results in objections to certain IMDb content, particularly:
- Trivia
- Biographies
- Unreleased films
[edit] Counter-arguments for utility
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 templates for external linking, guidelines for films requiring an IMDb external link, an infobox which had unanimous consensus to link to IMDb, guidelines for disambiguating multiple films with the same title, and endorsing the writing credits, since IMDb consults directly with the WGA regarding the matter.
Furthermore, the IMDb remains the most popular film information site online, ranking #38 (as of July 19, 2007) on the global list at 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.
[edit] What this means
On the whole, the IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR, but has a good track record in certain areas, as discussed below.
[edit] 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.
[edit] 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 film notability guidelines, articles about films should not be added until production is already underway, and even then, only if the film clearly meets existing notability guidelines.
