Talk:IMDb/Archive 2

message: I searched Google Groups to find the message referenced as the first script to search the posted files (on rec.arts.movies). The only 'hit' shows up on October 7 1990 22:05, GMT, a Unix shell script to search the files . I added this as the external reference. The article and other resources mentions the date October 17 1990. Which is the correct? No scripts relevant to IMDb turns up on Usenet on Oct 17 as far as I can tell. Colin Needham on Usenet in October 1990:  . Pym98 21:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of IMDb 

message: Internet Movie Database moved to The Internet Movie Database since the site always uses "The". Is this OK? I have sorted out several redirects and there hopefully shouldn't be any double redirects. -- Thorpe talk 21:32, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 

message: I removed the comment that said that IMDB may not have a copyright, because the Feist case ruled that compilations of facts cannot be copyrighted.
That's a very inaccurate description of the Feist case.  Feist held that, in order to be copyrighted, a compilation of facts must have some modicum of originality in either its selection, arrangement or coordination.  There's no serious question that the IMDB meets this criterion, and the Feist case does not apply.
In the Feist case, the compilation was a telephone directory.  There was no originality in arrangement (alphabetical order), selection (the company was required by law to publish all numbers other than those of subscribers who had asked for unlisted numbers) or coordination (a subscriber's name corresponded with its phone number).
In contrast, the has a significant amount of arrangement (orderable by any of a number of characteristics), selection (in what types of attributes it chooses to track), and coordination (via all the hyperlinking).  No one familiar with US copyright law and the Feist case could seriously read the case as calling into question the IMDB's copyright.
: I've read Feist v Rural, front to back.  IANAL, but I don't believe the case is as clear-cut as you suggest here.  I think a motion for directed verdict would be denied, and the case would go to trial.  And I *sign* my talk-page posts.  :-)  --Baylink 02:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Feist reference 

message: Can someone add a little more information regarding IMDbPro, a fairly recent addition to IMDb. - Matthew238 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IMDbPro

message: I removed the phrase:
"Furthermore, the ratings apply only to films of the English speaking world, the IMDb being edited exclusively in English, while films are shown - dubbed, subtitled or otherwise - all over the planet, or not in the English-speaking world at all.  "
As a matter of fact, quite a few non-English language films figure on the Top-250 list. For instance several films of Kurosawa, 8 1/2 (Fellini), Raise the Red Lantern, Amélie Poulain, and others.
Lignomontanus 07:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed phrase

message: I think it important to note that IMDb is a proprietary and closed-copyrighted database of info, and not under a free license as the oft-used term "Open" would lead people to believe. Why exactly WP integrates so much with IMDb I dunno. -Ste|vertigo 03:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proprietary, not Open 

message: How NPOV are sections of this article like the Criticisms and the comments about the Amazon buy-out? SteveCrook 08:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I put on these tags, because the entire "Criticism" section contains claims with no citations.  We should only be repeating criticisms from notable published opinion makes.  We should also supply any counter-response by imdb.  --Rob 09:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information on the message boards is of course mainly from users of the IMDb, not from the IMDb as an organisation. The point remains that the entire "Criticism" section contains claims with no citations. We should also supply (or allow) any counter-response by imdb. Or the entire section should be removed as not meeting the NPOV rules for Wikipedia. SteveCrook 09:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that user criticism of IMDb has no value or legitimacy? I think it would be more POV to ignore their criticisms, since they are the ones who have the most experience with the site. That would go especially for the Contributors Board, where criticism as well as positives come from the data contributors, many of whom seem to have impressive resumes in film data and databasing and are not just trolls. Otherwise, you are just left with the positive user comments, which seem to dominate the article elsewhere, especially the "depth" discussion of such trivial accessories as the voting lists or boards; and the organisation's official statements, which of course will be POV. I'm not aware of that many external reviews of IMDb, other than a few fan articles, which seem more impressed with the size of IMDb than examining the quality of its contents either positively or negatively. 12.73.198.143 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm saying that there should be an indication in the main article that these are comments by some users of the IMDb and to include citations. They are personal opinions and are valid as that but should be identified as such. Anonymous opinions with no indication as to how many people (what percentage of the users of / contributors to the IMDb) agree with them carry little real weight. BTW I always sign things with my name and I'm a contributor to the IMDb and have been for a long time. If you're a contributor you've probably seen me on the contributors board there. Do I know you? SteveCrook 01:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with SCs comments. The general tenor of the section means that it does not read as though written from a NPOV. There are insufficient details and qualificaitons of the sort SC has pointed to. Holon 07:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Firstly on verifiability, neither of the sources can be used to verify anything. Specific points should have specific sources: e.g. 'Only 17 staff members are actively involved ...' --according to what source of information? While I understand the difficulty in citing criticims voiced on message boards, the points made by SC above remain and citing a board which changes daily does not even begin to address these problems. On NPOV, I think the tag should remain. The use of the 'woefully' scarcely fits with NPOV, particularly given lack of verification of the point. Holon 03:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then there are the comments like "it is impossible to get a demonstrably untrue piece of information removed". That statement itself is demonstrably untrue. It happens all the time. Admittedly they aren't keen to just remove something, they prefer it to be replaced with a correct version. But if you can demonstrate that something is untrue it will be removed. I think there should be a place for criticism of the IMDb, it's not perfect. But these do seem to be more like comments by someone with a particular grievance. SteveCrook 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sometimes — for example, when the article treats an uncontroversial or simple topic, and draws on a few, widely accepted general sources — it is sufficient to provide a "References" section at the end of the article, containing an alphabetized list of general references and authoritative overviews of a subject (such as textbooks and review articles). In other cases this is not enough, and in addition you should use in-line citations such as the Harvard references or footnotes described below. Wikipedia:Cite_sources   
Given the ongoing discussion, the criticisms are clearly not uncontroversial and so in-line citations for specific criticisms are required. For example, the reference: Adams, Les, "Gunfight at the Internet Corral", in "Western Clippings" (magazine), 2005-2006 (part 1, Nov/Dec '05; part 2, Jan/Feb '06) was included. This is great, but it needs to be clear which specific criticisms were made or reported in that source. If all criticsims are covered, then this should be clear. Citing a message board does not meet verification criteria. Holon 05:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "message board" cited (and inappropriately removed) *is* valid for verification criteria, as it in fact is a record of discussions between data contributors and staff representatives about what works and doesn't work at IMDb. This is the only board which does not "lemming" after a period of months: it is a permanent record. And specific citations of a critical nature by the film experts who both use the IMDb for more than casual amusement and send in the data should have, if anything, more value than articles by people removed from the daily work of the site (although, in the case of Les Adams, he is one of the expert contributors as well; he has simply taken his unaddressed complaints to a wider audience). 12.73.195.229 02:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference was just to the Contributors Help board as a whole. Someone trying to use that as a reference would still have to search through all the message board entries to find what it was being referenced. That's particularly difficult since they removed the Search facility, not that I ever had much joy with that. And the IMDb message boards aren't indexed by Google or any other search engine that follows the Robots Exclusion standard. A reference to a particular thread on the Contributors Help board might be of some use. But, as Holon said, each reference should be by each specific point in the "Criticism" section. SteveCrook 04:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources  (from Wikipedia -- Reliable sources). I understand the reasons you feel this is verification, but the problems with using such sources are outlined in the Wiki guidelines (and are consistent with Steve C's comments above). Please take the time to get a feel for the guidelines if your have not already done so; they really help everyone to find better ways to state alternate points of view in these sorts of situations. Regards, Holon 04:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV and verification problem 

message: Regarding this:   
<<IMDb is a free site, which requires only registration to access its complete range of data and activities. Any person with an e-mail account and a web browser that accepts cookies can set up an account with IMDb, then research covered product, submit information and engage in other site activities. >>   
   
This reads a bit too much like a promo and might lead one to believe that it is necessary to provide personal information or to accept cookies from IMDb.com. To simply search the db it is NOT necessary to register. If one reads the privacy policy at imdb.com, after they state that they do not _sell_ your info to other parties, then then list several ways in which they _share_ your info. (See http://imdb.com/privacy for more detail if you're interested.)   
   
I've added the parenthetical sentence:   
<<(Site visitors not wishing to provide registration information can, however, search and view the database.)>>   
after the above 2 sentences.   
   
I really wanted to say "Site visitors concerned with privacy issues need not register" but that perhaps reflects my own personal distaste for their privacy policy...???   
Ilyse Kazar 13:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMDb registration is optional; IMDb's privacy policy 

message: An IP address recently copied the contents of this page to Internet Movie Database since those users cannot move. This destroyed the page history. It has now been restored to a redirect and the page history is back. Please do not move this as this is the right title (The Internet Movie Database). To stop further moves I have protected the redirect. --Thorpe | talk 13:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent move 

message: I would like to add the fact that IMDb allows users to vote an unlimited amount of times on movies as a criticism, as it allows people to "vote-bomb" movies they don't like with multiple bad ratings or push up movies they do like with multiple good ratings. Any objections? -Fearfulsymmetry 1:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that you can keep submitting different votes does not imply that each vote is counted. What I understand to happen is that if a new vote is given, it replaces the user's previous vote in the database rather than adding another vote. Admittedly it is not made clear, but this is strongly implied by the (little) information that is given on filtering to avoid 'vote stuffing' and by the way weightings are described on IMDb. Holon 07:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting Criticism