[WikiEN-l] Are TV screencaps reputable sources?

[jayjg]

On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
>
> >On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Joe Anderson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Cool Cat recently created an article called Starfleet
> >>>>Uniforms<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfleet_Uniforms>,
> >>>>and it was nominated for deletion as cruft and OR.
> >>>>
> >>>>The screencaps/promo photos in the article, IMO, acted as a reputable
> >>>>source. I mean, how else (canonically) are you going to know about the
> >>>>uniform switch between TOS and TNG? Using a book is not canonical, and
> >>>>therefore is surely not [[WP:V]].
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>There are such things as Star Trek encyclopediae, which report canon and
> >>>real life (and probably not fanfic/other non-canon).
> >>>
> >>>While the TV shows are canonical (as are the movies (except where
> >>>continuity fails, cf. /Enterprise/)), using a screencap is close to
> >>>original research and on dangerous ground wrt. using "fair use" as an
> >>>excuse for copyright infringement.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>So using a picture from the secondary source would be somehow more free
> >>than using a screen capture?
> >>
> >>
> >No, the secondary source would describe the uniform switch from TOS to TNG.
> >
> So would sample screen captures from episode of the two programs.  You
> would be able to see the difference without explanation.  This doesn't
> explain your gratuitous red herring about copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement? I don't know what you're talking about, I
never mentioned copyright infringement.

>
> >>If one draws from a Star Trek Encyclopedia, comparing what is said there
> >>with the original source is still important.  How else are you going to
> >>know whether the Encyclopedia information is accurate?
> >>
> >>
> >"Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability,
> >not truth. That is, we report what other reliable sources have
> >published, whether or not we regard the material as accurate. In order
> >to avoid doing original research, and in order to help improve the
> >quality of Wikipedia articles, it is essential that any primary-source
> >material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis,
> >interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been
> >published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not
> >self-published) that is available to readers either from a website
> >(other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. It is very
> >important to cite sources appropriately, so that readers can find your
> >source and can satisfy themselves that Wikipedia has used the source
> >correctly." WP:NOR
> >
> I see.  So you believe that slavish adherence to the ravings of policy
> wonks is more important than accuracy.  By your analysis above, if the
> material in a Star Trek Encyclopedia is just plain dead fucking wrong we
> would not be allowed to point that out because you consider it to be
> original research.  When it gets that far it strikes me as though the
> lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Um, you might not be aware of just how many crackpots there are that
insist that the facts printed in books are wrong.

>
> >>I seriously question the notion that using material from the original
> >>movie or book is original research.
> >>
> >>
> >I don't see how you possibly could question it; it's clear as day (see
> >above). Where have the screencaps in question been published?
> >
> It's clear as day that they were published when the movie was released.

Published in what sense?

>
> >>The original research was done by
> >>the author of the book.
> >>
> >>
> >That's right, and he's allowed to. Scientists, researchers, authors,
> >newspaper reporters - they all do original research.  We don't, we use
> >the material the have published in reliable sources instead.
> >
> Then I'm glad that you agree that since the author of the Star Trek
> novel or movie script did the original research our use of that material
> is not original research.

Huh? Writing a work of fiction is not "original research". Writing
*about* a work of fiction *is* original research. When the authors of
the Star Trek encyclopedia write about the series, they are engaging
in original research.

Ray, how could putting words in my mouth that you clearly know I don't
mean help further a discussion?

Jay.