[WikiEN-l] Are TV screencaps reputable sources?

[jayjg]

On 8/13/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> jayjg wrote:
>
> >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.
> >
> See (****) above.  If that was somebody else, I apologize for any
> implicitly wrong attribution.

Someone else.

>
> >>>>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.
> >
> Of course, and it's not enough just to say that it's wrong.  Saying so
> requires evidence, and a specific reference to the episode or novel
> would be evidence.  As long as the episode is available it's verifiable.

Sigh. Original research.

>
> >>>>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?
> >
> Made public.

Made public and being published are not synonyms.


> >>>>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?
> >
> Tit for tat.  Why did you say "That's right." in relation to the author
> of the book when I was clearly referring to the writer of the novel or
> episode?  The actual writing of the work of fiction (or any book for
> that matter) is not research at all; the research preceeds the writing.
> Certainly the novellist had to do some original research so that the
> novel could make some sense.  That encyclopedia is a secondary source,
> and not original research.

I have no idea what you're talking about any more. Novelists write
novels. An encyclopedia is a secondary source, filled with original
research.

Jay.