[WikiEN-l] Are TV screencaps reputable sources?

[maru dubshinki]

On 8/13/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/13/06, Matt Brown <morven at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 8/13/06, jayjg <jayjg99 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The accuracy of a quote in a book can easily be verified by going to a
> > > library and looking it up; often the quotes can even be found online.
> > > How does one verify the accuracy of a screencap?
> >
> > Presumably by obtaining the movie in VHS or DVD form. Many libraries
> > have collections of movies for loan, and there are commercial
> > providers as well (cf Blockbuster, etc)
> >
> > Once there, one can look for the scene.
>
> 24 frames per second, times 2 hours? That works out to over 170,000
> frames. Is the fact-checker supposed to skip through a frame at a
> time? And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been
> altered in some subtle way? And then one must actually describe what
> one sees in the screencap, which, of course, is open to many different
> interpretations (i.e. original research).
>
> With a quotation, it's quite simple - get the book, open up to the
> page number listed, and read a couple of hundred words. Do the words
> in the article match what's in the book? Verified.
...
>
> Jay.

Not really. Which book, what edition? Consider the Bible - there are
dozens and dozens of possible original source manuscripts, and then
even more possible ways to edit their errors and ambiguities into a
generally acceptable text, and then one must decide on punctuation
(most of the languages concerned having none), and then one must
consider what books will be ruled canon, and then the actual
translation could be one of hundreds. How does one verify a Bible
quotation? And the Tripitaka is even worse in this regard. (The Koran
isn't such a textual problem, but that's because all the variant
versions were burned early on and the designated edition religiously
maintained until the relatively short time to the invention of the
printing press, IMO).

Or the Origin of Species - which of the six editions by Darwin
(varying substantially) would one be quoting from? Would a section
from the 1st overrule one from the 6th? Or would one split the
difference and go with #3?

Matter of fact, it's probably easier to 'verify' an image since most
films and such are released in one way, unlike texts which are
endlessly malleable. (No, Star Wars is not a good counterexample here,
and arguments that citing frame number FOO is a hopelessly brittle
solution apply with equal force to books where pages and layout can be
altered willy-nilly between editions).

~maru