[WikiEN-l] Are TV screencaps reputable sources?

[Bryan Derksen]

jayjg wrote:
 > 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?

Back when I first created the {{cite episode}} template I included a
field for indicating how many minutes into the TV episode the moment
being cited was. Skipping to the right minute on a DVD and then watching
the show for one minute to spot the moment in question doesn't seem like
an onerous task to me.

The template has since been rejiggered to match a formal citation style
that doesn't include the minutes field. I think I was the only one who
noticed the omission and the only one who had ever used the minutes
field so it's probably not a big issue for the vast majority of people,
but if you like you can re-add it and I'll help out.

> And even then how can one assure that the screencap hasn't been
> altered in some subtle way?

You look at the screencap, and then you look at the freeze-framed
original. If there are differences between the two, you notice them
using pattern-recognition and -comparison wetware installed in your brain.

It's similar to how one would check to see if a quotation was altered in
some subtle way. Read the quote, then read the source.

> 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).

Not if it's simply a factual description, for example noting down the
name written on the side of a starship. An actual example of this sort
of thing that happened in Wikipedia can be found at the article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_materials_in_the_Stargate_universe#Naqahdah
where there was some discussion about how the fictional metal's name was
spelled and a screencap was found showing a computer screen with the
word clearly displayed on it. There's no room for subjective
interpretation in this case.

Not saying that _all_ statements that can be made about a screencap have
no room for interpretation, just that the converse is not universally true.

>> A corollary of this is that screencaps of movies or TV programs not
>> available in purchaseable/rentable/loanable form should not be used as
>> source material, since they are effectively unverifiable.
> 
> In my view *all* screencaps are effectively unverifiable.

I've got the DVD box set of the second season of Stargate sitting on the
shelf right next to me. I can verify that Naqahdah spelling with almost
trivial ease at any time.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 250 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060813/4d166ea9/attachment.pgp