|
Post by Islander on Sept 8, 2006 15:20:40 GMT -5
Nah - if Jesi was founder of TV Tome, we'd have all driven her away by now for selling it to C|Net ! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Jesi on Sept 8, 2006 18:20:47 GMT -5
MC would probably kick me out of the bus if I'd dare sell TV Tome I don't know I remember surfing through TV Tome quite a bit when it still existed, now I hardly check TV.com.
|
|
|
Post by Raskolnikov on Sept 8, 2006 20:09:09 GMT -5
IMDB is sorta reliable it has recent movie projects for some actors. Its good for foriegn actors and indie sometimes. But as in other sites people can write what ever they want on the boards and stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Sept 9, 2006 3:30:03 GMT -5
IMDB > Wikipedia > TV Tome > TV.com
|
|
|
Post by Jesi on Sept 9, 2006 7:44:36 GMT -5
I agree with most of it though I'm still in doubt if IMDB is more reliabe than Wiki...
|
|
|
Post by adam on Sept 9, 2006 7:54:12 GMT -5
I agree. Wiki is more used and more scrupulously checked.
|
|
|
Post by Raskolnikov on Sept 9, 2006 16:02:14 GMT -5
Really all my teachers really hate it for research. And the things they put are not checked. I would say IDMB>Wiki like Mac said.
|
|
|
Post by sodoffbaldrick on Sept 9, 2006 16:18:59 GMT -5
The reliability of a Wikipedia article will generally depend on how well-known the subject matter is. For instance, if a piece of information isn't deleted within a few days of being added to the Freddie Mercury article, I'd say there's a good chance that it's true. Information that has been on the Emma Taylor-Isherwood article for a month without being deleted, however, shouldn't be believed so easily.
|
|
|
Post by Gideon on Sept 9, 2006 16:29:03 GMT -5
I've always found Wikipedia to be very reliable, but then again, a lot of the things I look up on Wikipedia are very well-known, which goes with SB's point about Wikipedia articles probably being more accurate for more well-known subjects. The Bee Gees Wikipedia article is very accurate, as are the pages for Frasier, Cheers and Arrested Development. And those are just a few.
I've personally never come across any inaccurate information on Wikipedia. I don't recall doing so on IMDB either. I've always been more inclined to consider Wikipedia the more reliable source, mainly because I think it has a more professional layout than IMDB. Also, I'm now an editor on Wikipedia - I haven't done much so far - I've just written three synopses of Frasier episodes.
|
|
|
Post by lazerxangel on Sept 9, 2006 20:15:17 GMT -5
If we're talking about the IMDB and the Robert Clark situation, it's probably because some crazed fan thought it would be funny to post that there.
|
|
|
Post by MirrorCard on Sept 10, 2006 0:05:52 GMT -5
I agree. Wiki is more used and more scrupulously checked. ha! no. Really all my teachers really hate it for research. And the things they put are not checked. I would say IDMB>Wiki like Mac said. One of my teachers said that if you cite wikipedia as a source, you fail the course. He was joking, but he was serious. I've personally never come across any inaccurate information on Wikipedia. I always come across incorrect information for tv shows with smaller, more volitile fanbases, like anime. I've been the editor of a few shows on there for a long time, certainly while I still hated it. I dunno, something just flipped - one day I hated it, the next I didn't. There are some major faults with the site, and the staff are fairly inept, but all in all it's much better than TV Tome ever was .! I still hate it. The site gives my computer a hard time sometimes. tvtome was far more user friendly. However, tv.com does have some features - the ability to edit a contribution before accepting/regecting it - that are good, but I feel that, in time, they could have been implimented into tvtome's program and are not unique to what tv.com can do. MC would probably kick me out of the bus if I'd dare sell TV Tome In the end, I think I'd realize that you'd have enough money to retire, even at your age . But I would have yelled a lot at you before then, especially if you acted the way the founder acted when he sold tvtome. He was completely silent about it. I think he made an announcement post (if he did) and then vanished. To my knowledge, he only appeared once more after much discontent in the member base, rumors of editors sabotaging their own tvtome guides, and members endorsing other website to contribute to, to untactfully "request" our support of the new tv.com.
|
|
|
Post by adam on Sept 10, 2006 8:47:40 GMT -5
One of my teachers said that if you cite wikipedia as a source, you fail the course. He was joking, but he was serious. Well thats clear...
|
|
|
Post by ICWP on Sept 10, 2006 9:07:30 GMT -5
I agree. Wiki is more used and more scrupulously checked. ha! no. ...No, it really is. There's a likkle program editors can download, that lets them check edits instantly as they're made. Anything that doesn't belong there is usually removed within minutes. Or, if it's so obviously out of place, a couple of seconds. EDIT: Oh yes, TV.com smells. That is all.
|
|
|
Post by Raskolnikov on Sept 11, 2006 0:01:04 GMT -5
I agree. Wiki is more used and more scrupulously checked. ha! no. One of my teachers said that if you cite wikipedia as a source, you fail the course. He was joking, but he was serious. Yeah i dont think college professors or high school teachers want wiki as an credible resouce. My honors teacher gave me tons of papers on how wrong wiki is.
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Sept 11, 2006 1:09:40 GMT -5
What reasoning did your teacher give?
|
|