With respect to sources for Star Trek episodes: how did the contributing editors have access to those episodes?
I've said before and still feel that if the episodes are available on commercially purchasable videos, they have been "published" in a way that is comparable to a print book.
So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which the line of dialog or event occurs.
Citations (with page numbers for print sources, or timings for video) serve two related purposes. First, if you do not actually plan to verify the citation, the fact that a timing is supplied is evidence (assuming good faith) that the contributing editor consulted the source rather than relying on memory. Second, if you do wish to verify the citation, it means that once you have obtained a copy of the source you can verify the citation with a reasonable amount of work.
A typical print book that is in print can be purchased for a modest but not negligible sum and can be acquired in days to weeks. In or out of print, depending on its obscurity, it may be available in a few hours at a local public library, available in days through interlibrary loan, or available only in big research libraries.
In most cases the amount of money and time required to access a DVD is comparable.
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006 06:04:37 -0500, "Daniel P. B. Smith" wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which the line of dialog or event occurs.
Citations (with page numbers for print sources, or timings for video) serve two related purposes. First, if you do not actually plan to verify the citation, the fact that a timing is supplied is evidence (assuming good faith) that the contributing editor consulted the source rather than relying on memory. Second, if you do wish to verify the citation, it means that once you have obtained a copy of the source you can verify the citation with a reasonable amount of work.
One of the better points to be put thus far, IMO.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which the line of dialog or event occurs.
This is an excellent idea. Do we have a standard way of citing things in this manner? It would be of particular use in citing things from DVD commentaries, I think.
Abigail Brady wrote:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which the line of dialog or event occurs.
This is an excellent idea. Do we have a standard way of citing things in this manner? It would be of particular use in citing things from DVD commentaries, I think.
Way back when I first created the {{cite episode}} template I included a "minutes into the episode" field, but another editor came along and converted the format to match some particular style guide's preferences and the field was removed. Should be straightforward to put it back.
With respect to sources for Star Trek episodes: how did the contributing editors have access to those episodes?
I've said before and still feel that if the episodes are available on commercially purchasable videos, they have been "published" in a way that is comparable to a print book.
I've never understood why people have suggested otherwise.
So I believe that movie and TV episodes should be referenced to published DVDs, _with proper identification_ (ASIN number or publisher and catalog number) and _the time, to the minute_ at which the line of dialog or event occurs.
When we cite books, we usually specify publisher and edition, so doing the same for DVDs etc seems reasonable. I'm not sure if we require page numbers for book sources, if we don't we shouldn't require timestamps for DVDs (although they would be good).
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
There is certainly an issue with things that have been broadcast but not released on DVD or equivalent. If we reject broadcast sources (as impossible to verify, which they are), then we have to delete all episode summaries and other articles relating to episodes that haven't been released on DVD, which can often take a long time. There's a limit to how much you can write just using secondary sources (for example, can we cite Memory Alpha in a Star Trek article?). If it weren't for copyright law, we could just link to a torrent...
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
When we cite books, we usually specify publisher and edition, so doing the same for DVDs etc seems reasonable. I'm not sure if we require page numbers for book sources, if we don't we shouldn't require timestamps for DVDs (although they would be good).
It's a lot easier to skim a book or even look in its index, than it is to listen through an unindexed movie-length commentary!
It's a lot easier to skim a book or even look in its index, than it is to listen through an unindexed movie-length commentary!
Non-fiction books, maybe. The equivalent of a TV episode on DVD is a novel, though, and novels generally don't have indices.
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing before any subsequent showings.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing before any subsequent showings.
You've just answered your own question.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You've just answered your own question.
Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
Define "promptly," then? Because I nkow a few articles I recently finished that use materials only available in one library across the country from me. Will verification of those sources not be prompt enough for someone in, say, Chicago?
-Jeff
Define "promptly," then? Because I nkow a few articles I recently finished that use materials only available in one library across the country from me. Will verification of those sources not be prompt enough for someone in, say, Chicago?
It doesn't need to be promptly verifiable by everyone. A TV show that can't be seen legally is not verifiable by anyone. We shouldn't be relying on illegal copies and fansite summaries for our sources.
I wish I could think of a way to make it work - I'm very active in WikiProject Stargate and we use episodes as sources all the time - but a source no-one can access is not verifiable.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Define "promptly," then? Because I nkow a few articles I recently finished that use materials only available in one library across the country from me. Will verification of those sources not be prompt
enough
for someone in, say, Chicago?
It doesn't need to be promptly verifiable by everyone. A TV show that can't be seen legally is not verifiable by anyone.
How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a show illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.
See Betamax v. Universalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios .
We shouldn't be
relying on illegal copies and fansite summaries for our sources.
Again, what "illegal copies"?
I wish I could think of a way to make it work - I'm very active in
WikiProject Stargate and we use episodes as sources all the time - but a source no-one can access is not verifiable.
Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition of "no-one".
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a show illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.
See Betamax v. Universalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios
You can make copies for personal use, showing them to anyone else would be illegal. We can't rely on people having seen the show or recorded it themselves when it was originally aired.
Again, what "illegal copies"?
I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are illegal.
Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition of "no-one".
Yes, they accessed them once when it was shown on TV. Saying that people having seen in on TV counts as verifying it would be like saying you can cite "People seeing him outside the supermarket" as the source of the fact that a certain celebrity shops there on the grounds that anyone that was at the supermarket on that day can verify it.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
How does that follow? And the goalposts are moving -- just because there aren't commercially available copies doesn't make watching a copy of a
show
illegal, much as the recording industry would like it to be so.
See Betamax v. Universal<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios%3E
You can make copies for personal use, showing them to anyone else would be illegal.
That's not true.
We can't rely on people having seen the show or
recorded it themselves when it was originally aired.
Again, what "illegal copies"?
I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are illegal.
That is not true.
Obviously someone is accessing the sources. You have a strange definition of
"no-one".
Yes, they accessed them once when it was shown on TV. Saying that people having seen in on TV counts as verifying it would be like saying you can cite "People seeing him outside the supermarket" as the source of the fact that a certain celebrity shops there on the grounds that anyone that was at the supermarket on that day can verify it.
Again, people do record shows. Perfectly legally.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV shows, then?
If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal.
My friend has a bunch at his home.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV shows, then?
If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Oh cripes.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My friend has a bunch at his home.
That means your friend, and maybe a few people that know him can verify it. That's not enough - it needs to be verifiable by a large number of people, otherwise it could be a simple hoax. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It also means anyone else who happened to tape it. If my friend claimed to have a copy of an episode which noone else in the world had ever seen, that would be one thing.
What you're talking about is a bit far on the paranoid axis.
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
My friend has a bunch at his home.
That means your friend, and maybe a few people that know him can verify it. That's not enough - it needs to be verifiable by a large number of people, otherwise it could be a simple hoax. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Could you point me in the direction of a legal copy of some recent TV shows, then?
If someone recorded it, they might be able to show it to a few friends in the privacy of their own home, but much more than that and it's distributing a copyrighted work, and that's illegal.
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it. Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
Stan
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it. Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can find an existing copy - probably in the library.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it. Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can find an existing copy - probably in the library.
"Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more. Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is available.
Stan
OMG Why should I trust a book in your library?
On 12/8/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because
I
can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If
you
don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow
it.
Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can find an existing copy - probably in the library.
"Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more. Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is available.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Bwahahaha, I've even used whiteout in them to subtly change what the pages seem to say. Don't believe any source that hasn't been to the forensic lab first!!
The Cunctator wrote:
OMG Why should I trust a book in your library?
On 12/8/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because
I
can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If
you
don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow
it.
Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
You don't need to make a copy of a book in order to read it, you can find an existing copy - probably in the library.
"Find an existing copy" is not always as easy as you seem to think. Many books are quite scarce - my personal library includes volumes that are probably the sole copies to be found within 500 miles, maybe more. Wikipedians inside that radius are going to have to get to know me well enough that I'll allow them to borrow, or hope that interlibrary loan is available.
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Stan Shebs wrote:
That's like saying a published book is not a verifiable source because I
can't make more copies and pass those around to wouldbe checkers. If you don't have a copy of the book I used, you're going to have to borrow it. Some of the more addicted Wikipedians have even been known to *buy* books in order to use them as references!
That's when the wikiholism gets serious. :-)
Ec
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton stated for the record:
I'm not sure I understand the question... The only copies you can get hold of after a show airs and before it is released on DVD are illegal.
The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary -- perfectly legal.
My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].
- -- Sean Barrett | A day without sunshine is like night. sean@epoptic.com |
The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary -- perfectly legal.
Sure, that's legal.
My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].
That probably isn't. Distributing a copyrighted work is illegal - that's pretty much the entire point of copyright law.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thomas Dalton stated for the record:
The copies stored on my TiVo are -- MPAA's wish list to the contrary -- perfectly legal.
Sure, that's legal.
My TiVo is attached to a very large [[storage area network]].
That probably isn't. Distributing a copyrighted work is illegal - that's pretty much the entire point of copyright law.
Who said anything about distributing? Not I.
- -- Sean Barrett | A day without sunshine is like night. sean@epoptic.com |
Then call it something other than "verifiable".
On 12/8/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
You've just answered your own question.
Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it can't be verified promptly then we have a problem. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You've just answered your own question.
Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
That's silly. Is verification not going to be prompt enough if I have to wait for the library's copy of a book to be returned, or horror of horrors, have to wait for interlibrary loan? Anyway, in these days of TV fan websites, one is hard-pressed to find a show that doesn't have a set of devotees that have complete collections of episodes that they'd be willing to pass along, strictly unofficially for scholarly purposes, of course. :-)
If the wouldbe verifier can't figure out how to follow the trail of bread crumbs that is a document's references, that person is not really competent to be doing the checking part.
Stan
Thomas Dalton wrote:
You've just answered your own question.
Getting lucky is hardly a good method of verifying something... If it can't be verified promptly then we have a problem.
You mean, drive through verification? Instant gratification? I'm sorry, how prompt would you consider acceptable?
You mean, drive through verification? Instant gratification? I'm sorry, how prompt would you consider acceptable?
Something where you have some control over the timescale. Waiting for some TV scheduler to decide to show it again is completely out of your control. Maybe prompt is the wrong choice of word - you should be able to actively verify it, rather than waiting for it to be verified for you.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
But how can you verify it? You would have to be lucky and find it being shown on TV, and it's often a long time after the first showing before any subsequent showings.
Nobody is saying that verifying has to be easy.
Ec
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
Absolutely. The person citing the episode may have taped it when it was broadcast. That's certainly legal when someone is time shifting. If the episode has not yet been made commercially available, I'm sure that the producers still have the episode in their archives somewhere.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
Absolutely. The person citing the episode may have taped it when it was broadcast. That's certainly legal when someone is time shifting. If the episode has not yet been made commercially available, I'm sure that the producers still have the episode in their archives somewhere.
You haven't read the lede of [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] then.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
The Cunctator wrote:
On 12/8/06, Daniel P. B. Smith wikipedia2006@dpbsmith.com wrote:
If the episode has _not_ been published on commercial videos, then IMHO it is not verifiable. Of course, published print sources that describe the episode are fine.
Of course it's verifiable. Verifiable means "able to be verified", not "commercially available."
Absolutely. The person citing the episode may have taped it when it was broadcast. That's certainly legal when someone is time shifting. If the episode has not yet been made commercially available, I'm sure that the producers still have the episode in their archives somewhere.
You haven't read the lede of [[Doctor Who missing episodes]] then.
Clearly the BBC was once run by Daleks who did not want the public to know about their nefarious plots. Rampant extermination was their solution.
The sentence, "Unlike other series, however, Doctor Who is fortunate enough to have all of its missing episodes surviving in audio form, recorded off-air by fans at home, and to have every 1970s episode existing in some form." becomes a strong argument in favour of pirate recordings.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the notion that broadcasters are the sole authority over verifying whether something did or did not happen, even in a fictional context. There is always a risk that the [[Fourth Estate]] will itself become what it sought to cure.
I must stop this because I feel a rant coming on about the effects of proprietary protections on massive archives. ;-)
Ec