[WikiEN-l] Are TV screencaps reputable sources?

[Mark Gallagher]

G'day Ray,

> jayjg wrote:
> 
>>On 8/12/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
>>
>>>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.

I can confirm that non-canon but official publications have been known 
to get things wrong from time-to-time.  It's been a while since I hung 
out on the geekier side of USENET and listened to more financially 
well-off (i.e. able to afford such publications and all the eps on video 
etc.) Trekkies whinge, but I'm sure there's plenty of examples out there 
(maybe Trekkies on this list who can call up a few examples of their own?)

Also, I'm not too sure how a Paramount-commissioned book becomes a 
"secondary source".  When it describes stuff that doesn't actually 
appear in the episodes --- the standard non-canon starship specs, 
explanations for plot holes, etc. --- it's not a secondary source, as 
such, is it?  It's a primary source.  And when it describes stuff that's 
already appeared in the episodes, how is it more a secondary source than 
another episode?

Let's say Captain Picard is captured by the Borg and forced to become 
their Official Spokesdroid to the Federation (far-fetched, I know, but 
it could happen).  We'll call that episode "BOBW1".  In a later episode, 
let's call it "BOBW2", Deanna Troi mentions that the Spokesdroid "sounds 
kinda stressed; probably that's Picard's mind suffering under the 
transformation the Borg subjected him to in BOBW1".  A year later, the 
"/Star Trek: The Next Generation/ Yearbook" is released, and it 
describes, going into a LOT of non-canon detail, exactly what happened 
to Picard.

Let's play "spot the source-related buzzword".  Now, BOBW1 is a primary 
source, right?  So basing an article on sitting down in front of the 
telly with some popcorns and a few mates who happen to love MST3k counts 
as "original research".  However, reading through the Yearbook is *not* 
original research, since that's a "secondary source".  Now, at what 
point does the Yearbook stop being a primary and become a secondary 
source?  Is it the point where it starts regurgitating information 
already available by simply watching the episodes?  If so, why is BOBW2 
not a secondary source?  What does this mean for programmes like 
/Babylon 5/, which (mostly) eschew standalone episodes?

>>>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.

Not clear as day *as such*.  A common misconception, and one that causes 
many copyright issues, is that screencaps are completely separate from 
the films from which they were taken.  How often do we see film 
screencaps uploaded to Wikipedia with the uploader feeling justified in 
saying "self-made work, I release it under CC-BY-SA" because he went to 
all the trouble of pressing PrtScr on his keyboard?

In such an environment, I wouldn't be getting too snarky at someone who 
got the idea that screencaps had to be separately published before we 
could refer to them.  We're so oriented towards text and still pictures, 
it's hard to remember that screen caps are just us taking part of an 
existing, published and copyrighted film (much like copying and pasting 
text from a book, or cropping a photograph).  It's a prefectly natural 
mistake.

>>>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.

Err, not sure I'd go that far.  My approach, which will surely have 
certain list members (if anyone bothers to scroll down this far) 
groaning and clutching at their foreheads, is: fuck policy.  Or, to put 
it another way, "adopt a purposive and commonsense-oriented approach 
designed to increase flexibility and allow in-depth tailoring of 
resources towards specific project needs" (but I prefer "fuck policy", 
because it's shorter).

The original research policy can be summarised as: "don't make shit up". 
  Since a small but significant proportion of the editors who fall afoul 
of this policy don't tend to think of their activities as "making shit 
up"[0], we had to craft a new stick with a nail in it (sorry, "policy") 
and write "WP:NOR" on the side[1].  NOR exists to deal with physics 
crackpots and the like; however, in our enthusiasm to follow policy, 
however poorly-written, to the letter, we trip over ourselves to explain 
that articles on TV programmes must be deleted, Jimbo Wales can't 
advertise his own birthday, diagrams must be copied from textbooks, and 
high-quality GFDL pictures from amateur photographer Wikipedians cannot 
be accepted.

I haven't read the /Star Trek/ uniforms article, but I can see several 
ways such an article could be written in a way that *isn't* in 
contravention of the spirit of the principle whilst still falling afoul 
of the letter of the policy.  And in such cases, frankly: fuck policy.


[0] Who can forget the LaRouchite's failed (but entertaining, in a
     teeth-grinding sort of way) attempts to argue that Chip Berlet's
     contributions were "original research" because he's also an
     investigative journalist (or something of that kidney)?

[1] A similar procedure with "don't be a dick" led to WP:NPA and
     WP:CIVIL.

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"What?  I can't hear you, I've got a banana on my head!"
- Danger Mouse