Quote:
There are lots of not "propper" ducumented entries from after 7/2005. Are we gonna have the same discussions with them? Good Night, and Good Luck

Quote:
From the URL that is RHo's phpDVDP hosted by Doug.

Quote:
Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
I understand your logic, jgilligan but I must respectfully disagree. If it was entered out of compliance with the Rules and eranntly accepted that does not now make it correct and legal data. It makes it illegal and errant data which needs to be removed, should you or someone else wish to document it and resubmit, that is good. Or as one user did, provide some documentation for some of the people involved it then becomes an issue between him and the contributor.

Skip

There is some logic there, but...  It is in the database and got past all of the measures that are in place to protect us from bad data.  So, since it made it past all of those defenses, we have to assume that there was some merit to the data to begin with.

Contribution notes are great, and I do understand that they are required.  But, where will we draw the line on this?  Is it only illegal and errant data if NO comments are left?  What about if someone doesn't feel the contribution notes were complete enough?  Would that constitute illegal and errant data too?  In this case, when it was questioned and a mass removal of all uncredited cast was proposed, it didn't take long to find that many of these actors really were in the movie.  Why do we need to remove them all and resubmit it?  What does that solve?  All that does is give us a minimum of two more updates to the title.  One to remove the data, and at least one more to put it back with comments.  And all that really happens is that we end up right where we are already.

I think we were CLOSE to the right solution here already.  If there is questionable data on a title, and we can't find what we feel are appropriate contribution notes, discuss it online and see IF the data needs to be removed.  If we can do that, without all the name calling that happened, we can get to accurate information in the database with the least impact on everybody involved as well as the database.


My goal and hope is for complete and accurate information in our shared database.  The rules are there to help us manage the trek along that path.  Removing perfectly valid information because of a rule infraction helps nobody.  It only creates more work for all involved.  If we work toward that common goal of complete and accurate information, using the rules as our map, we'll get there.  But, if some are working toward a goal of complete compliance to the rules while sacrificing complete and accurate information, we will continue to have these arguments here.

Quote:
Quoting Rifter:

Quote:

Let me ask you a question.

In the world of crime, only something like 25% of murders are ever solved.  Or take any other crime if murder seems to hard.  If somebody commits a crime and gets away with it, does that mean it is no longer a crime?  To be sure, there is a statute of limitations on most crimes, but that has more to do with the fact that police can only solve so many crimes in a given period of time, which is why I used murder since it has no statute of limitations.

Just because data that was illegal slipped through the cracks and got into the database doesn't make it legal, and never will.  IF you follow the idea that only correct data should go into the database, then we should do everything we can to get rid of illegal data whenever we encounter it.

Honestly, how can you even conceive to compare this to capital murder?  We're talking about trying to catalog our DVD's.  We really need to keep this in the proper perspective.

I agree that the rules are important as well as the processes we have.  But, to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of an infraction of our rules seems like an absolute waste of our collective time.  The way many people here talk about the rules, you would think that the world would absolutely stop spinning if we don't follow them to the letter.  Our rules are in place to try and provide order and a method to get to our goal of complete and accurate data.  The rules are not the goal, data is the goal.

The ONLY infraction that has been proven so far is that there were originally little or no contribution notes.  Based on some research by several members, it appears that the original data may very well be completely accurate.  Why penalize the entire community by removing this data only to have someone resubmit it later?  How will that help us?  Often, when we argue about the rules, it is stated that they are there to keep the data from getting ping-ponged.  In this case, how can removing the data do anything other than to ensure a ping-pong?


And, to draw a more appropriate comparison, it's like disallowing sweepstakes entry because the envelope was sealed with tape as opposed to licking.  The form is complete and accurate, but it was delivered in an incorrect way.