Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb

message: In the section on disputed uses, the meaning of "released films only" is unclear. Does it mean that it's okay to cite IMDb as a source for those sections for released films? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: I am confused. I think the main context and reason to cite IMDB is to identify a film, by linking to its title page. Is this essay arguing against such use?
IMDB serves as the largest publicly available database of films. Sure, it has user generated content, possibly messy, but still adding some more bits to help decide what is what. It would be silly and arrogant from a generalist, completely user generated encyclopedia to fully disregard a specialist one with its core content created/supervised by editors just because there are also unreliable pieces of information there. Providus (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Citing what?

message: Since December 2022, IMDb allows individuals to "claim" IMDb name pages about them and "self-submit/verify their age/year of birth, birthname, alternate names, and other demographic information", including "gender/gender identity, race/ethnicity, disabilities, and sexual orientation" (example). This seems like a resource that could be used on BLPs as regards WP:DOB and MOS:GENDERID, comparable to WP:ABOUTSELF sources like verified social media profiles.
According to a help page, a paid IMDbPro member can request to claim a page and "should receive an email notice within 24 hours" before the request is "reviewed and verified". A free member must specify the page to claim and provide a payment method when signing up. It's not clear how long it takes for a free membership request to be processed.
So should we consider self-verified information on IMDb to be an acceptable ABOUTSELF source? Or is the verification process too opaque? On the one hand, IMDb claims to review the user contributions too and it's our collective experiences that have found the process so porous it's not an RS. On the other, one would think they keep a better eye on IMDbPro given it's their cash cow and there was a whole legal battle that eventually led to this self-verification system, and verified social media profiles turning out to be impersonation is not unheard-of so doubts regarding authenticity may be hashed out on each article's talk page just like any other platform. Nardog (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My $0.02 would be "no" – this is not a "good enough" "source" to get around things like WP:BLPPRIVACY. If a subject really wants to make info like this available publicly, they generally have social media accounts, which do pass WP:ABOUTSELF (provided they are "verified" accounts). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it should be given precedence over other social media profiles when they are available, I'm suggesting we consider it an option when they are not. WP:BLPPRIVACY says a verified social media account "may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it". I'm asking if there is. You seem to think yes; care to elaborate on why? (What are you referring to with those quotes around "good enough" and "source"?) Nardog (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

text: It sounds like opening a can of words here. I would put the verification on a lower spot than the usual social profiles. (Twitter would also be lower.) It just seems like IMDB would be a last measure for making a case if information is correct about someone, perhaps better as a case-by-case basis. Even the help page suggests an account can be owned by a talent manager or someone other than the actual person. – The Grid (talk)  16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  And why is that?  Isn't that the case for most social media? Nardog (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "Self-verified on IMDbPro" to appropriate uses?