I agree that the analogy in itself is valid regardless of the "crime".  Bad data is bad data no matter how you color it.

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.

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

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.

Quoting skipnet50:

Quote:
Scary isn't it, John.

Skip

Really.

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

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.

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.