![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
WP:RS
tertiary sources.←I think some of us are approaching this from the wrong angle. For me, I've largely stayed out of this because whether reliable or not, I see no real need to cite the IMDb in a genuinely encyclopedic article. It lacks sufficient context in its entries to provide the supporting information that's required. For example, I could have sourced the cast list at Changeling using IMDb, but in doing so I'd simply be left with a list of names and characters. There'd be no point. Instead, I've used articles from newspapers and magazines such as Variety to add the names as and when interesting casting information has come up. Similarly with the crew; the significant members (DP, production designer) each have sections devoted to their art. For most films I'd imagine that if a cast or crew member is relevant enough to be mentioned, they will be in sources that will provide more information than the IMDb is able to. And again, should some technical detail be relevant (type of camera or film), that too will be covered in detail beyond that which a mere list will provide. I can see circumstances in which it would be very useful to cite the IMDb, but these are most likely to be for films that are still in production, where there is an absence of in-depth coverage, and therefore not covered by this proposed guideline. Other occasions where the IMDb coverage may trump that in the usual sources might be for more obscure films, such as foreign or older ones. With that lack of published information, can we really be sure that the IMDb's staff is able to vet these as well as it might for more mainstream productions? What access to sources for these films do they have that we do not? Steve T • C 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Saw my name, had to comment. Didn't read the entire mishmash of comments up there for tldr reasons. This is my take: if we can find out exactly what kind of fact-checking IMBD does to ensure accurate information, then it can be used. If there are certain facts that are checked, then we should use those only. If none of IMBD can be proved to be fully reliable, then we shouldn't use it all, whether for stubs or Featured Articles. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) OK, did some more reading. Seems to me that the only info that can be proved wholly accurate without a doubt is the WGA and MPAA info. Everything else is either iffy or out of the question. Any information that is iffy or out of the question should not be used. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Naun, Chew Chiat. "Cataloguing, Lies, and Videotape: Comparing the IMDb and the Library Catalogue". Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 41 (1): 23–43.
doi:
10.1300/J104v41n01_03. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
One fundamental respect in which the IMDb differs from most library catalogues is that it is the product not of a specialized profession, but of the combined efforts of members of the motion picture industry, IMDb staff, and the IMDb user community. It seems clear that once a film is submitted for inclusion in the IMDb, something like a conventional cataloguing procedure is carried out. The IMDb information pages explain that the cataloguing information is taken mainly from on-screen credits (formally prescribed as a chief source of information in AACR2 cataloguing) and various kinds of promotional material. Presumably, trained staff would be required to enter this information into the database in an appropriate form, e.g., using preferred forms of actors’ names. Most films are initially catalogued during pre-production and their IMDb records are updated throughout the production and release period. IMDb users are invited to submit additions or corrections, which are reviewed by IMDb staff.
But this core, as it were, of hard bibliographic data is surrounded by a large penumbra of “value-added” data contributed by a variety of sources. Actor biographies, for example, often appear to be contributed by members of the user community. The disadvantage of having contributed data is that its accuracy cannot always be verified and that–as we have seen with plot keywords–consistent practices cannot be enforced; but this seems a small price to pay for the wealth of information that the IMDb has to offer. Like cooperative cataloguing itself, the IMDb is a collaborative enterprise, but it is one in which the diversity of its community of stakeholders is clearly a strength.
What stands out is the sentence I've bolded. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Like the social networking sites that are now so popular in media, IMDb has found that much of its success is built on the participation of site visitors. Last year, Mr. Needham said, its users submitted information to the database 16 million times, adding minutiae like what commercials Hollywood actors have performed in abroad, or what video games they have done voice-overs for.
When its users are not adding information, they are perusing -- or debating and challenging -- material related to the 787,000 film, television and video game titles detailed on the site. One can learn, for example, that while Jennifer Grey played Jeanie in the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986), Jennifer Aniston played Jeanie in the TV series "Ferris Bueller" (1990).
Those submissions are then monitored -- vetted is too strong a word -- by a team of editors who take their entertainment geekdom seriously. Any factual mistakes they may not find on their own are usually brought to their attention by users, who also make frequent accusations that some Hollywood wannabes who submit their biographies to the site are padding their resumes.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Today, it's rare that a movie question can't be answered with a visit to IMDb.com. Yes, mistakes do pop up occasionally, and because so many people consult the site, erroneous information can spread quickly. "We are not infallible," says Keith Simanton, IMDb's managing editor. "With almost 2 million people listed on the site, it's very possible to get things wrong." But when mistakes are pointed out, officials of the site take pains to correct them.
The IMDb's value as a reference source for popular movies is second to none. If there's a criticism of the site, it's that more esoteric films, along with older films and lesser-known filmmakers, are sometimes given short shrift.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Now IMDB isn't perfect. They fact-check, but on occasion, somebody who's nobody ends up with a listing. I personally had more than one production listed and a few--Surprise!--crew members that I didn't realize were on the payroll. Hey, here's a little tip for my friends in Tinseltown: If you're going to say you worked in a certain capacity on a production, make sure that position actually existed. Note to guy claiming to have directed the seventh episode of the short-lived TV series "Platinum": There were only six episodes.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The way the IMDb collectsdata hasn't changed much under Amazon, either, although the process has been upgraded and streamlined. Tens of thousands of users still submit cast lists of movies, celebrity bios, and other information. Not all of it gets published, however. "There's a misconception in the Industry," says Dorfman. "Anybody can submit information to the IMDb. That doesn't mean it's going to be posted."
All new information first undergoes automated checks to filter out obvious mistakes: No matter how vehemently someone insists that John Huston will direct the next Star Wars installment, the information will be disregarded. Submitters are also graded according to their track record of accuracy "Based on other information you've submitted to us, you either move up or down a trust scale," says Dorfman.
The material then goes to an editor for additional verification. If it's an actor's birth date, for example, the editor might check social security or DMV records. As the IMDb has evolved, it has forged ties with official sources of information such as the Writers Guild of America, which helps ensure that all members' screenwriting credits are listed accurately Studios are also providing information about past and upcoming movies more readily than they once did.
Still, questionable information occasionally does elude the safeguards. Only Hollywood insiders would catch some of the mistakes: Matt Damon's agent is listed as PMK, which is a publicity company, not a talent agency Other submissions are even more dubious. According to the IMDb, most of the dialogue in Alien was ad-libbed, Charlton Heston rehearsed his role in Airport 1975 by flying a 747, Darth Vader never said, "Luke, I am your father," and Mel Gibson stands free foot eleven. Users also like to point out that Michael Douglas is older than Catherine Zeta-Jones and that Steven Spielberg uses music in his movies.
Every week, Dorfman says, the company is contacted by someone--usually an actor, director, or producer--who wants to change something in his or her credits. Often the request is to delete a title, not add one. "Sometimes we can't figure out why they don't want to be associated with a project. Your mind is probably going to adult films and things like that," says Dorfman. When one actress claimed a soft-core title was in her filmography by mistake, an editor obtained a copy of the film and watched it. There she was, clearly recognizable and listed in the credits.
The IMDb has been threatened with lawsuits, Dorfman says, but company policy forbids changes unless a mistake can be proved. That can be a problem for many publicists, for whom policing the IMDb on behalf of clients has become a basic obligation. One says her client's filmography included a movie in which the actor hadn't appeared, but when the publicist tried to get a correction she was met with silence. It wasn't the first time. "If you try and contact them to update a r[]sum[], add a photo, it just never happens," she says. Others in Hollywood complain that the site lacks enough head shots of actors (if you're not well known, there's a $35 fee for posting one), or that it has insufficient information on projects in development.
Please contribute 3rd party assessments of IMDb content to the section I just restored. It needs a wider range of opinion represented. Thanks. 67.100.126.67 ( talk) 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC).
I changed the tag from {{proposed}} to {{essay}} stating that this has been a proposed guideline since July 2007.
The creator of this page, User:Girolamo Savonarola marked this page as {{rejected}}
Since that time, the rejected tag has been reverted back to {{proposed}} twice.
Surprisingly, on this Kafkaesque bureaucratic webpage, I can't find any guidelines on how long before a rejected template should be added. Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance has a long argument about the process, but no definitive rules (yet).
Maybe Template:Historical or Template:Essay would be a good compromise. travb ( talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind saying "No guideline is needed, an essay will do." There's already an essay which specifically names IMDB as a reliable source in some situations, and not in others. If that isn't sufficient to convince you, presumably because an essay doesn't have the weight of a guideline, then why would another essay change anything? arimareiji ( talk) 15:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Without having read *every* line in this discussion, I nonetheless feel that there is a major problem in the lack of context for analyzing IMDb. That is to say, what film-related sources *would* be considered reliable, especially by those critical of IMDb? I think it is a go-nowhere endeavor to try to reach a conclusion about IMDb simply by comparing it to itself... 12.73.194.188 ( talk) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems the current version in the form of an essay adequately addressed the questions. There is no reason IMDB shouldn't be used as a source or reference like it is spelled out by the essay. And in case FA article reviewers insist, they should be free to replace any use of IMDB on Wikipedia film articles with alternative sources. Not that it would make a difference in my opinion, if an alternative source says the exact thing as IMDB. But for now, it seems we can put this question to rest. The bottom line there is IMDb content suitable for Wikipedia and in case anybody in the FA process likes to get the IMDB replaced with alternative sources, they should be free to do so as they please.-- Termer ( talk) 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No. This version's "Suitable content", part 2, is still fundamentally flawed. Editors may often use stuff from there to start an article here, "such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications", but if there is any controversy, the site should be viewed with skepticism and not considered a reliable source. It's too easy for questionable, unverifiable info to appear on IMDb for such info to be simply deemed "suitable". For instance, the awards section for Like Mike lists an award from the 2003 Austin Fantastic Fest. I think that's somewhat suspicious, given that the first Fest was in 2005. Info supplied directly by the WGA and MPAA is fine, of course, but grouping any other info in the same "suitable" category is a very bad idea. Gimmetrow 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the proposal slightly and removed the "rejected" tag. It is unclear to me why some editors want to reject this proposal rather than come up with something better. I have lowered the status of a major category of data in hopes of building a consensus.
If you believe that everything on IMDb is junk and it should never be cited in Wikipedia, I disagree with that, but I would rather see someone propose that and get a consensus in its favor rather than to leave the citability of IMDb in permanent limbo. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[10] This version isn't really bad, but it also doesn't say much of anything. As far as I know, most editors working on films know that WGA-identified credits from IMDb are reliable. (Old versions of WP:RS actually said so, even.) MPAA-identified ratings are also OK, but relatively few film articles have that content (for various reasons). In practice, the cast and character lists of released films often get used to fill out a cast list, but the cast and characters can also be verified from the film itself, and where they disagree, the film takes precedence (except in unusual circumstances, such as multiple release cuts). The other film editors I interact with would probably not use IMDb for anything else except as a sanity check (ie, a claim of a release year that doesn't match IMDb would be a flag for further investigation). So I'm a little unclear - what do the authors intend this guideline to tell us? Gimmetrow 05:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know how biographies on IMDb are to be considered.
Debresser ( talk) 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to explain me with down to earth examples what is (and what is not) considered "potentially contentious material". It seems that in the past I might have misunderstood some things here, so please explain this to me carefully. Thank you. Debresser ( talk) 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note this excerpt [11] from Wikipedia policy WP:PG :
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bob K31416 failed proposal? the latest Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb#Reviving_the_proposal There are currently 4 supporters and 1 who remains sceptical but doesn't object the proposal either. So is it just me or has something gone wrong with the math here? There has always been controversy surrounding the use of IMDB on Wikipedia and this WP:Citing IMDb is definitely better than nothing.-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen ( talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 25#IMDB as a source? AusTerrapin ( talk) 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some hatnotes to link to more essays and project info for IMDb. Widefox; talk 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Would it be ok to use IMDB as a source to prove the existence of a movie? Arved ( talk) 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Where exactly was consensus to mark this as a guideline determined? It looks to me as if the only such proposal failed. DES (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Should we add a section explaining that even when content on IMDb qualifies as a reliable source, it can be used only for establishing verifiability and not notability? It would give something to point to when explaining to a contributor that IMDb disinterestedly lists the credits for every film and TV program it encounters and that inclusion of a person on these lists is trivial. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I cannot believe that this article about citing the IMDb doesn't mention the movie ratings. That's pretty much the #1 thing people visit the IMDb for, and you'd think that after the 6+ years this article has been around it would mention whether citing the IMDb movie ratings is appropriate, disputed or inappropriate. Even if it's disputed, then why isn't it listed in the disputed section. -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I cite IMDB as the source for a wikipedia article subject's birth date? 24.97.201.230 ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it considered appropriate to use IMDb to cite someone's date of death? I know it is inappropriate to cite IMDb regarding BLPs, but is it okay to cite them to give someone's date of death? 130.113.202.161 ( talk) 20:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we do something about making this essay useful? There are areas on IMDb where the resource cannot be reasonably be considered self-sourced, such as the All Events section for film festivals and the awards sections for historical information that some awarding bodies do not maintain archive of, or only provide the information on the winners and not nominees. Film festivals are notorious for only keeping the prior year's results, and redesigning their websites every couple of years.
Additionally, an artist's or film's award page is obviously database driven, there is no reason to believe that this data, [12] is user generated. If we could use the IMDb record, which is usually the most complete, we could have one or two references in a filmography tables' title line rather than wasting column space on a dozen or two sources. Sandra Bullock filmography#Film
Another problem I have with the Wikipedia prejudice for IMDb is that we can't reference a 10 year old film article that denotes the subject played a part in it. Sometimes the film is an important milestone in a career and the only other place to get a citation is from the credit roll, and if it's television it is even more likely that IMDB will be the only source. I seems to me, that in the case of an otherwise notable subject, that a simple inline to the cast section of a film should fall under WP:SELFSOURCE, but nobody dares try it because some editor will lose a spoke when they see IMDb in the reference section.
Of course a biography article should not use the actor's main page as a cite, nor should a film article cite from their listing, but IMDb is becoming the most complete record and a I have an anecdotal experience that their editorial control may have improved over the past 25 years.
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT: I am a part time paid editor, generally biographies in film and music. The work is mostly clean up of existing articles/subjects or nurturing failed AfCs. 009o9 ( talk) 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
IMDb states on their Conditions of Use] page in a section entitled "Copyright" that "All content included on this site ... is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws."
If we're going to have an essay about Citing IMDb then we really need to call this out in the essay, and say something about how much stuff from IMDb it's appropriate to include in an article. From the nature of the data IMDb contains, "paraphrase" isn't usually an option for much except the bio. For example: if an actor has 25 films they've worked on and the WP page lists all or most of them, I think that is going way beyond fair use and is probably in violation of copyright. Imho, instead of listing them all, an article should probably list a few major hits, perhaps, and just link to the site for the rest.
Similarly for an article about a movie; it should probably list just the major stars, and not a long list of cast and crew. Mathglot ( talk) 01:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The essay currently specifies that citing cast lists of pending productions is inappropriate. I would change that to all cast lists, which are available, after all, from official sources. This is particularly important with cast members listed as "uncredited," which I often think means that editor A is sure he/she saw actor B in a cameo as a bus driver (or something like that).-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Can casting announcements made on IMDb's Twitter account be used as reliable sources? For example, IMDb tweeted that Letitia Wright was cast in Avengers: Infinity War, and she later confirmed it herself. Richiekim ( talk) 14:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
IMDb is housing photos of the actors on various sets. Does anyone from IMDB know how photos are added there? Are they user-submitted or submitted by production companies? Can they be used as references to show the actor is in a film? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films. |
The above nutshell from the essay does not jibe with the content of the essay.
Nowhere in the essay does the essay state that portions of an IMDb can only be used as a tertiary source (a source that collates primary and secondary sources).
Furthermore, hard data is defined as data in the form of numbers or graphs, as opposed to qualitative information. Neither of the two " appropriate uses" listed for IMDb are numbers or graphs, so per the definition, they are not hard data. Another more factual phrase needs to be substituted for hard data.
The IMDb vets the Db portion of their site, so it should be acceptable as a secondary source.
Only reviews, comments, and forum posts are user submitted and unvetted. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
17:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Was just wondering if IMDbPro is any more reliable and therefore better for citations than IMDb, or if it should be treated the same way as the standard version. Pro is a paid for service and contains more information than the standard version but I don't know if this is any more reliable. For example is the Pro version only written by IMDb staff and by the people whom the pages concern? Does information on Pro require better sourcing before adding to this version? Is information on this version checked more thoroughly and/or more frequently by IMDb staff than the standard IMDb? At any rate I think it should be noted on this page whether to treat IMDbPro the same as IMDb or differently and if differently for what reason. I'm not sure if there has been any previous discussion around this either, if not it seems it may be worth it to form a consensus and provide information and clarity. Helper201 ( talk) 06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I presume, but cannot see where this is stated expressly, that an entry in the International Movie Database (IMDb) is ipso facto sufficient evidence for the actual existence of the movie to be quoted as a fact in a wiki (possibly extending also to the year of the movie's commercial release), and that it is not subject to the caveats quoted in this Wikipedia article regarding user-generated content. I might simply have missed such a reference, so has anyone seen any clarifying statement? Humboles ( talk) 07:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've seen Box Office Mojo used widely for box office figures, even though it's owned by IMDb. I'm not sure if it's user-edited in any way. Could we clarify our guidance? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
WP:RS
tertiary sources.←I think some of us are approaching this from the wrong angle. For me, I've largely stayed out of this because whether reliable or not, I see no real need to cite the IMDb in a genuinely encyclopedic article. It lacks sufficient context in its entries to provide the supporting information that's required. For example, I could have sourced the cast list at Changeling using IMDb, but in doing so I'd simply be left with a list of names and characters. There'd be no point. Instead, I've used articles from newspapers and magazines such as Variety to add the names as and when interesting casting information has come up. Similarly with the crew; the significant members (DP, production designer) each have sections devoted to their art. For most films I'd imagine that if a cast or crew member is relevant enough to be mentioned, they will be in sources that will provide more information than the IMDb is able to. And again, should some technical detail be relevant (type of camera or film), that too will be covered in detail beyond that which a mere list will provide. I can see circumstances in which it would be very useful to cite the IMDb, but these are most likely to be for films that are still in production, where there is an absence of in-depth coverage, and therefore not covered by this proposed guideline. Other occasions where the IMDb coverage may trump that in the usual sources might be for more obscure films, such as foreign or older ones. With that lack of published information, can we really be sure that the IMDb's staff is able to vet these as well as it might for more mainstream productions? What access to sources for these films do they have that we do not? Steve T • C 00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Saw my name, had to comment. Didn't read the entire mishmash of comments up there for tldr reasons. This is my take: if we can find out exactly what kind of fact-checking IMBD does to ensure accurate information, then it can be used. If there are certain facts that are checked, then we should use those only. If none of IMBD can be proved to be fully reliable, then we shouldn't use it all, whether for stubs or Featured Articles. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC) OK, did some more reading. Seems to me that the only info that can be proved wholly accurate without a doubt is the WGA and MPAA info. Everything else is either iffy or out of the question. Any information that is iffy or out of the question should not be used. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Naun, Chew Chiat. "Cataloguing, Lies, and Videotape: Comparing the IMDb and the Library Catalogue". Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. 41 (1): 23–43.
doi:
10.1300/J104v41n01_03. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
One fundamental respect in which the IMDb differs from most library catalogues is that it is the product not of a specialized profession, but of the combined efforts of members of the motion picture industry, IMDb staff, and the IMDb user community. It seems clear that once a film is submitted for inclusion in the IMDb, something like a conventional cataloguing procedure is carried out. The IMDb information pages explain that the cataloguing information is taken mainly from on-screen credits (formally prescribed as a chief source of information in AACR2 cataloguing) and various kinds of promotional material. Presumably, trained staff would be required to enter this information into the database in an appropriate form, e.g., using preferred forms of actors’ names. Most films are initially catalogued during pre-production and their IMDb records are updated throughout the production and release period. IMDb users are invited to submit additions or corrections, which are reviewed by IMDb staff.
But this core, as it were, of hard bibliographic data is surrounded by a large penumbra of “value-added” data contributed by a variety of sources. Actor biographies, for example, often appear to be contributed by members of the user community. The disadvantage of having contributed data is that its accuracy cannot always be verified and that–as we have seen with plot keywords–consistent practices cannot be enforced; but this seems a small price to pay for the wealth of information that the IMDb has to offer. Like cooperative cataloguing itself, the IMDb is a collaborative enterprise, but it is one in which the diversity of its community of stakeholders is clearly a strength.
What stands out is the sentence I've bolded. — Erik ( talk • contrib) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Like the social networking sites that are now so popular in media, IMDb has found that much of its success is built on the participation of site visitors. Last year, Mr. Needham said, its users submitted information to the database 16 million times, adding minutiae like what commercials Hollywood actors have performed in abroad, or what video games they have done voice-overs for.
When its users are not adding information, they are perusing -- or debating and challenging -- material related to the 787,000 film, television and video game titles detailed on the site. One can learn, for example, that while Jennifer Grey played Jeanie in the film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" (1986), Jennifer Aniston played Jeanie in the TV series "Ferris Bueller" (1990).
Those submissions are then monitored -- vetted is too strong a word -- by a team of editors who take their entertainment geekdom seriously. Any factual mistakes they may not find on their own are usually brought to their attention by users, who also make frequent accusations that some Hollywood wannabes who submit their biographies to the site are padding their resumes.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Today, it's rare that a movie question can't be answered with a visit to IMDb.com. Yes, mistakes do pop up occasionally, and because so many people consult the site, erroneous information can spread quickly. "We are not infallible," says Keith Simanton, IMDb's managing editor. "With almost 2 million people listed on the site, it's very possible to get things wrong." But when mistakes are pointed out, officials of the site take pains to correct them.
The IMDb's value as a reference source for popular movies is second to none. If there's a criticism of the site, it's that more esoteric films, along with older films and lesser-known filmmakers, are sometimes given short shrift.
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)Now IMDB isn't perfect. They fact-check, but on occasion, somebody who's nobody ends up with a listing. I personally had more than one production listed and a few--Surprise!--crew members that I didn't realize were on the payroll. Hey, here's a little tip for my friends in Tinseltown: If you're going to say you worked in a certain capacity on a production, make sure that position actually existed. Note to guy claiming to have directed the seventh episode of the short-lived TV series "Platinum": There were only six episodes.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)The way the IMDb collectsdata hasn't changed much under Amazon, either, although the process has been upgraded and streamlined. Tens of thousands of users still submit cast lists of movies, celebrity bios, and other information. Not all of it gets published, however. "There's a misconception in the Industry," says Dorfman. "Anybody can submit information to the IMDb. That doesn't mean it's going to be posted."
All new information first undergoes automated checks to filter out obvious mistakes: No matter how vehemently someone insists that John Huston will direct the next Star Wars installment, the information will be disregarded. Submitters are also graded according to their track record of accuracy "Based on other information you've submitted to us, you either move up or down a trust scale," says Dorfman.
The material then goes to an editor for additional verification. If it's an actor's birth date, for example, the editor might check social security or DMV records. As the IMDb has evolved, it has forged ties with official sources of information such as the Writers Guild of America, which helps ensure that all members' screenwriting credits are listed accurately Studios are also providing information about past and upcoming movies more readily than they once did.
Still, questionable information occasionally does elude the safeguards. Only Hollywood insiders would catch some of the mistakes: Matt Damon's agent is listed as PMK, which is a publicity company, not a talent agency Other submissions are even more dubious. According to the IMDb, most of the dialogue in Alien was ad-libbed, Charlton Heston rehearsed his role in Airport 1975 by flying a 747, Darth Vader never said, "Luke, I am your father," and Mel Gibson stands free foot eleven. Users also like to point out that Michael Douglas is older than Catherine Zeta-Jones and that Steven Spielberg uses music in his movies.
Every week, Dorfman says, the company is contacted by someone--usually an actor, director, or producer--who wants to change something in his or her credits. Often the request is to delete a title, not add one. "Sometimes we can't figure out why they don't want to be associated with a project. Your mind is probably going to adult films and things like that," says Dorfman. When one actress claimed a soft-core title was in her filmography by mistake, an editor obtained a copy of the film and watched it. There she was, clearly recognizable and listed in the credits.
The IMDb has been threatened with lawsuits, Dorfman says, but company policy forbids changes unless a mistake can be proved. That can be a problem for many publicists, for whom policing the IMDb on behalf of clients has become a basic obligation. One says her client's filmography included a movie in which the actor hadn't appeared, but when the publicist tried to get a correction she was met with silence. It wasn't the first time. "If you try and contact them to update a r[]sum[], add a photo, it just never happens," she says. Others in Hollywood complain that the site lacks enough head shots of actors (if you're not well known, there's a $35 fee for posting one), or that it has insufficient information on projects in development.
Please contribute 3rd party assessments of IMDb content to the section I just restored. It needs a wider range of opinion represented. Thanks. 67.100.126.67 ( talk) 07:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC).
I changed the tag from {{proposed}} to {{essay}} stating that this has been a proposed guideline since July 2007.
The creator of this page, User:Girolamo Savonarola marked this page as {{rejected}}
Since that time, the rejected tag has been reverted back to {{proposed}} twice.
Surprisingly, on this Kafkaesque bureaucratic webpage, I can't find any guidelines on how long before a rejected template should be added. Wikipedia talk:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance has a long argument about the process, but no definitive rules (yet).
Maybe Template:Historical or Template:Essay would be a good compromise. travb ( talk) 02:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind saying "No guideline is needed, an essay will do." There's already an essay which specifically names IMDB as a reliable source in some situations, and not in others. If that isn't sufficient to convince you, presumably because an essay doesn't have the weight of a guideline, then why would another essay change anything? arimareiji ( talk) 15:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Without having read *every* line in this discussion, I nonetheless feel that there is a major problem in the lack of context for analyzing IMDb. That is to say, what film-related sources *would* be considered reliable, especially by those critical of IMDb? I think it is a go-nowhere endeavor to try to reach a conclusion about IMDb simply by comparing it to itself... 12.73.194.188 ( talk) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems the current version in the form of an essay adequately addressed the questions. There is no reason IMDB shouldn't be used as a source or reference like it is spelled out by the essay. And in case FA article reviewers insist, they should be free to replace any use of IMDB on Wikipedia film articles with alternative sources. Not that it would make a difference in my opinion, if an alternative source says the exact thing as IMDB. But for now, it seems we can put this question to rest. The bottom line there is IMDb content suitable for Wikipedia and in case anybody in the FA process likes to get the IMDB replaced with alternative sources, they should be free to do so as they please.-- Termer ( talk) 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
No. This version's "Suitable content", part 2, is still fundamentally flawed. Editors may often use stuff from there to start an article here, "such as the cast list, character names, the crew lists, release dates, company credits, awards, soundtrack listing, filming locations, technical specs, alternate titles, running times, and rating certifications", but if there is any controversy, the site should be viewed with skepticism and not considered a reliable source. It's too easy for questionable, unverifiable info to appear on IMDb for such info to be simply deemed "suitable". For instance, the awards section for Like Mike lists an award from the 2003 Austin Fantastic Fest. I think that's somewhat suspicious, given that the first Fest was in 2005. Info supplied directly by the WGA and MPAA is fine, of course, but grouping any other info in the same "suitable" category is a very bad idea. Gimmetrow 23:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have modified the proposal slightly and removed the "rejected" tag. It is unclear to me why some editors want to reject this proposal rather than come up with something better. I have lowered the status of a major category of data in hopes of building a consensus.
If you believe that everything on IMDb is junk and it should never be cited in Wikipedia, I disagree with that, but I would rather see someone propose that and get a consensus in its favor rather than to leave the citability of IMDb in permanent limbo. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
[10] This version isn't really bad, but it also doesn't say much of anything. As far as I know, most editors working on films know that WGA-identified credits from IMDb are reliable. (Old versions of WP:RS actually said so, even.) MPAA-identified ratings are also OK, but relatively few film articles have that content (for various reasons). In practice, the cast and character lists of released films often get used to fill out a cast list, but the cast and characters can also be verified from the film itself, and where they disagree, the film takes precedence (except in unusual circumstances, such as multiple release cuts). The other film editors I interact with would probably not use IMDb for anything else except as a sanity check (ie, a claim of a release year that doesn't match IMDb would be a flag for further investigation). So I'm a little unclear - what do the authors intend this guideline to tell us? Gimmetrow 05:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know how biographies on IMDb are to be considered.
Debresser ( talk) 02:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to ask you to explain me with down to earth examples what is (and what is not) considered "potentially contentious material". It seems that in the past I might have misunderstood some things here, so please explain this to me carefully. Thank you. Debresser ( talk) 11:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please note this excerpt [11] from Wikipedia policy WP:PG :
-- Bob K31416 ( talk) 13:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bob K31416 failed proposal? the latest Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb#Reviving_the_proposal There are currently 4 supporters and 1 who remains sceptical but doesn't object the proposal either. So is it just me or has something gone wrong with the math here? There has always been controversy surrounding the use of IMDB on Wikipedia and this WP:Citing IMDb is definitely better than nothing.-- Termer ( talk) 03:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#IMDB as a source? for a discussion about establishing a policy, guideline or central discussion on IMDB. Maurreen ( talk) 03:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Now archived at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/Archive 25#IMDB as a source? AusTerrapin ( talk) 14:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:RS/IMDB. Cheers, -- Cirt ( talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some hatnotes to link to more essays and project info for IMDb. Widefox; talk 16:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Would it be ok to use IMDB as a source to prove the existence of a movie? Arved ( talk) 09:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Where exactly was consensus to mark this as a guideline determined? It looks to me as if the only such proposal failed. DES (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Should we add a section explaining that even when content on IMDb qualifies as a reliable source, it can be used only for establishing verifiability and not notability? It would give something to point to when explaining to a contributor that IMDb disinterestedly lists the credits for every film and TV program it encounters and that inclusion of a person on these lists is trivial. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 13:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I cannot believe that this article about citing the IMDb doesn't mention the movie ratings. That's pretty much the #1 thing people visit the IMDb for, and you'd think that after the 6+ years this article has been around it would mention whether citing the IMDb movie ratings is appropriate, disputed or inappropriate. Even if it's disputed, then why isn't it listed in the disputed section. -- 82.170.113.123 ( talk) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Can I cite IMDB as the source for a wikipedia article subject's birth date? 24.97.201.230 ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it considered appropriate to use IMDb to cite someone's date of death? I know it is inappropriate to cite IMDb regarding BLPs, but is it okay to cite them to give someone's date of death? 130.113.202.161 ( talk) 20:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Can we do something about making this essay useful? There are areas on IMDb where the resource cannot be reasonably be considered self-sourced, such as the All Events section for film festivals and the awards sections for historical information that some awarding bodies do not maintain archive of, or only provide the information on the winners and not nominees. Film festivals are notorious for only keeping the prior year's results, and redesigning their websites every couple of years.
Additionally, an artist's or film's award page is obviously database driven, there is no reason to believe that this data, [12] is user generated. If we could use the IMDb record, which is usually the most complete, we could have one or two references in a filmography tables' title line rather than wasting column space on a dozen or two sources. Sandra Bullock filmography#Film
Another problem I have with the Wikipedia prejudice for IMDb is that we can't reference a 10 year old film article that denotes the subject played a part in it. Sometimes the film is an important milestone in a career and the only other place to get a citation is from the credit roll, and if it's television it is even more likely that IMDB will be the only source. I seems to me, that in the case of an otherwise notable subject, that a simple inline to the cast section of a film should fall under WP:SELFSOURCE, but nobody dares try it because some editor will lose a spoke when they see IMDb in the reference section.
Of course a biography article should not use the actor's main page as a cite, nor should a film article cite from their listing, but IMDb is becoming the most complete record and a I have an anecdotal experience that their editorial control may have improved over the past 25 years.
DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT: I am a part time paid editor, generally biographies in film and music. The work is mostly clean up of existing articles/subjects or nurturing failed AfCs. 009o9 ( talk) 20:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
IMDb states on their Conditions of Use] page in a section entitled "Copyright" that "All content included on this site ... is the property of IMDb or its content suppliers and protected by United States and international copyright laws."
If we're going to have an essay about Citing IMDb then we really need to call this out in the essay, and say something about how much stuff from IMDb it's appropriate to include in an article. From the nature of the data IMDb contains, "paraphrase" isn't usually an option for much except the bio. For example: if an actor has 25 films they've worked on and the WP page lists all or most of them, I think that is going way beyond fair use and is probably in violation of copyright. Imho, instead of listing them all, an article should probably list a few major hits, perhaps, and just link to the site for the rest.
Similarly for an article about a movie; it should probably list just the major stars, and not a long list of cast and crew. Mathglot ( talk) 01:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The essay currently specifies that citing cast lists of pending productions is inappropriate. I would change that to all cast lists, which are available, after all, from official sources. This is particularly important with cast members listed as "uncredited," which I often think means that editor A is sure he/she saw actor B in a cameo as a bus driver (or something like that).-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Can casting announcements made on IMDb's Twitter account be used as reliable sources? For example, IMDb tweeted that Letitia Wright was cast in Avengers: Infinity War, and she later confirmed it herself. Richiekim ( talk) 14:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
IMDb is housing photos of the actors on various sets. Does anyone from IMDB know how photos are added there? Are they user-submitted or submitted by production companies? Can they be used as references to show the actor is in a film? AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 21:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
![]() | This page in a nutshell: Anecdotes, trivia, and unreleased film information from IMDb do not meet the reliable sources guideline. The IMDb should be used only as a tertiary source for hard data on released films. |
The above nutshell from the essay does not jibe with the content of the essay.
Nowhere in the essay does the essay state that portions of an IMDb can only be used as a tertiary source (a source that collates primary and secondary sources).
Furthermore, hard data is defined as data in the form of numbers or graphs, as opposed to qualitative information. Neither of the two " appropriate uses" listed for IMDb are numbers or graphs, so per the definition, they are not hard data. Another more factual phrase needs to be substituted for hard data.
The IMDb vets the Db portion of their site, so it should be acceptable as a secondary source.
Only reviews, comments, and forum posts are user submitted and unvetted. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
17:49, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Was just wondering if IMDbPro is any more reliable and therefore better for citations than IMDb, or if it should be treated the same way as the standard version. Pro is a paid for service and contains more information than the standard version but I don't know if this is any more reliable. For example is the Pro version only written by IMDb staff and by the people whom the pages concern? Does information on Pro require better sourcing before adding to this version? Is information on this version checked more thoroughly and/or more frequently by IMDb staff than the standard IMDb? At any rate I think it should be noted on this page whether to treat IMDbPro the same as IMDb or differently and if differently for what reason. I'm not sure if there has been any previous discussion around this either, if not it seems it may be worth it to form a consensus and provide information and clarity. Helper201 ( talk) 06:16, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
I presume, but cannot see where this is stated expressly, that an entry in the International Movie Database (IMDb) is ipso facto sufficient evidence for the actual existence of the movie to be quoted as a fact in a wiki (possibly extending also to the year of the movie's commercial release), and that it is not subject to the caveats quoted in this Wikipedia article regarding user-generated content. I might simply have missed such a reference, so has anyone seen any clarifying statement? Humboles ( talk) 07:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I've seen Box Office Mojo used widely for box office figures, even though it's owned by IMDb. I'm not sure if it's user-edited in any way. Could we clarify our guidance? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 20:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)