Author |
Message |
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | I agree that the analogy in itself is valid regardless of the "crime". Bad data is bad data no matter how you color it. |
|
Registered: May 29, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,475 |
| Posted: | | | | Please clarify exactly what makes data illegal.
It is my understanding that data copied from a third party source is not allowed but that is not the case with this contribution.
I checked the voting on this movie and 2/3 of the votes are "no". It seems that the majority feel the previous contribution is in fact correct.
It seems obvious that further clarification is needed for changes in contributions . | | | Last edited: by Kathy |
|
Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,917 |
| Posted: | | | | I think the point being made is that it's a close match to a 3rd party database such as IMDb and there is no documentation. From what Ken has stated earlier in this thread, that allows for uncredited people to be removed from a profile. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 2,372 |
| Posted: | | | | The only thing I have to add is this:
richierich has already sourced at least 4 of the uncredited actors yet the submitter hasn't re-submitted the profile using the sources handed to him. If accuracy were truly the goal the profile would have been revised and re-submitted keeping at least those 4 people. Since this hasn't happened it sure looks as though removal isn't simply because they entries are unsourced. Correct or not he just wants them removed.
Fortunately, as Kathy points out, most of the voters have voted no. Hopefully the screeners will agree with the voters. | | | Last edited: by lyonsden5 |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | And hopefully Ken will ignore the majority and REMOVE data which was NEVER properly sourced and accepted erroneously. The data was illegal when accepted and remains illegal today. Some users however, seem to believe that IF you can manage to skirt the system then it is OK and I could not disagree with that stupidity more. It is not richies job as a voter to go running around trying to salvage data he wants to save, the data was entered ILLEGALLY, the user did the right thing in removing the data, IF he wishes to accept richie's verification fine, but that is between the Contributor and richie. Richie's ONLY other option is once the ill;egal data has been removed,he can resubmit HIMSELF with the documentation and I am sure we then ALL vote to accept the data. The majority is dead WRONG, and so are you Rick but that is not a surprise.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 5,459 |
| Posted: | | | | You're advocating removing data just so someone else can resubmit it? I've never heard anything as daft as that before! Data submitted without sufficient notes does NOT make it illegal data. Only the fact that it's wrong makes it illegal data. If the contributor can show that it shouldn't be there, then fine, remove it. But don't go and remove data just because you don't know how it was verified. What about all the profiles that only have "New contribution" as their notes - do we have to remove all these profiles until we can prove the data is correct? | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote: You're advocating removing data just so someone else can resubmit it? I've never heard anything as daft as that before! Data submitted without sufficient notes does NOT make it illegal data. Only the fact that it's wrong makes it illegal data. If the contributor can show that it shouldn't be there, then fine, remove it. But don't go and remove data just because you don't know how it was verified. What about all the profiles that only have "New contribution" as their notes - do we have to remove all these profiles until we can prove the data is correct? Illegal data is data that is submitted without proper documentation. Period. Whether its good or bad data is of no consequence. If you profess to follow the rules, then you HAVE to follow them all the way. Or, are you going to make allowances? Whoever entered those lines did not follow the rules by providing documentation, and the screeners missed that fact and let it into the database. That's TWO errors. It isn't a matter of knowing how it was verified either. Since there IS no documentation, you can't prove it was verified, therefore we must proceed on the assumption that it is false. If you're so sure its correct, submit a change to restore it, provide proper documentation and be done with it. What's so bloody hard about that? As far as new contributions go, we still have to provide proper documentation, you just don't get to vote on it. Is is up to the screeners to make sure that the rules are followed in any case. If they blow it and let something slip by, then it is OUR job to correct such errors when and if we find them. That's the way the process is set up to work, like it or not. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! | | | Last edited: by Rifter |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Scary isn't it, John. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 2,694 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote: Scary isn't it, John.
Skip Really. | | | John
"Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice!" Senator Barry Goldwater, 1964 Make America Great Again! |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 105 |
| Posted: | | | | I agree with Skip and Rifter, depressing even. I have been following this more or less from the moment that eaglejd added his corrections to the profile. I was kind of fascinated since most pending stuff is about CoOs, common names, yobs. Or scans that are more or less the same as the former ones. I used my disc to check his data and found them to be as they should be since the DVD was released in 2006. As is observed several times (one time ought to be enough): it is not allowed to add Cast without documentation according to the rules etc. His data matched the data on disc. But not end of story.
The guy who entered all this stuff (Intervocative seems to point to *asok*), just dumped it. It must be a great mind who is capable to add all these actors from screen (no Audio Commentary available). I'm not interested to prove whatever. A simple look at this profile is sufficient: it's trash.
Go to 796019-787390 (another 'Derailed') where instead of all these NO voters there are people who voted positive: 6-0. Go and mess it up if you like. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | Whispering: I haven't investigated this that closely, but to give the devil his due. It is possible that this undocumented data sliped by wothout getting voted on, don't forget we don't get to vote on New Titles. OTOH we have users who have said that some data is better than no data, even if that some data is incorrect or violates the Rules. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Posts: 445 |
| Posted: | | | | 5 names have already been proven to be in the film...the contributor has not provided 1 uncredited name that is not in the film....I'm sorry but this removal of all this data would be getting a 'No' vote from me. When you remove data you gotta prove it's wrong....stating crap like it wasn't documented before or it should never have been accepted is a bunch of BS. |
|
Registered: August 22, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 1,807 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote: And hopefully Ken will ignore the majority and REMOVE data which was NEVER properly sourced and accepted erroneously. According to what Ken wrote in this thread, my understanding is that he will remove uncredited cast members only if they are a close match with any 3rd party Db, and there is no contributed documentation. Quoting Ken: Quote: Uncredited should only be removed where they are a match with a third party database. Note that they do not have to be an exact match. If they are a close match with any third party database, and there is no listed justification, it's safe to remove them. | | | -- Enry | | | Last edited: by White Pongo, Jr. |
|
Registered: March 15, 2007 | Posts: 445 |
| Posted: | | | | And since the contributor has not provided one iota of evidence that this came from some 3rd party database and has not given any evidence showing the data to be incorrect, it will most likely be declined. |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation: | Posts: 3,480 |
| Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote: You're advocating removing data just so someone else can resubmit it? I've never heard anything as daft as that before! Data submitted without sufficient notes does NOT make it illegal data. Only the fact that it's wrong makes it illegal data. If the contributor can show that it shouldn't be there, then fine, remove it. But don't go and remove data just because you don't know how it was verified. What about all the profiles that only have "New contribution" as their notes - do we have to remove all these profiles until we can prove the data is correct? Also, in the beginning of Invelos, we were not able to provide documentation on the initial contribution. The "New contribution" notes were not entered by the user, but rather by the contribution system itself; therefore, everything was undocumented...all data, from the top down. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|
Registered: March 13, 2007 | Posts: 21,610 |
| Posted: | | | | He doesn't HAVE to Bodi, the data was illegal to begin with, not properly documented, that is all he needs. It should NEVER have been accepted, but for whatever reason it slippedpast the screeners, that does not magically confer upon the data legallity. It still remains unsupported and undocumented correctly, therefore it must be removed. Clearly there are two camps here as i knew there would be and as I noted in in my vote Notes, the call is up to Ken & Gerri.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!! CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it. Outta here
Billy Video |
|