| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Dan W: Quote:
If anyone wants to change or add something in a profile, they must document their data. Anything less is laziness. Any such is a violation of contribution rules, should be voted against by the users and rejected by the reviewers. Nobody disagrees with this statement. But the point is undocumented data was added to the database and now someone else is trying to remove it with an equal lack of documentation. | | | | Last edited: by northbloke |
|
 | Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
Quoting Dan W:
Quote:
If anyone wants to change or add something in a profile, they must document their data. Anything less is laziness. Any such is a violation of contribution rules, should be voted against by the users and rejected by the reviewers.
Nobody disagrees with this statement. But the point is undocumented data was added to the database and now someone else is trying to remove it with an equal lack of documentation. Why are you arguing against your own position? The problem, right now, is someone wants to change a profile and is not documenting his change. What happened a year ago is irrelevant. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Dan, it reads that data get's into the database without documentation, which is against the rules, but the point is, that you have to document the removal too, so why not document that it's good if it is good??? Why would you document that it is bad data, if it's good data? Does that make any sense?
Dirk |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Posts: 128 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
It is not correct data since it has not been even minimally documeted Where does this weird dogma come from? Before it was even possible to document that the Earth and several other celestial bodies go round the Sun in something approaching ellipses, it was still true. The truth of a proposition does not depend upon documentation. We - scientists, journalists, DVD Profiler users - document so that others can follow an argument or procedure [for DVD Profiler: check the facts for themselves]. Documentation is crucial if you are not of an authoritarian character*, that is, if you want to know instead of believe. Unfortunately sometimes common knowledge is all we can rely upon unless we want to come up with a whole disseratation. Mind that common knowledge is not the same as common wisdom, which is inevitably always wrong. To change, taking up one example mentioned, the perfectly correct name of a well-known English actress and change it to some rarely used diminutive version has nothing to do with trying to maintain truth or even consistency. It's just nonsense.** I don't remember the movie Walter Matthau cameo'ed in under his birth name, nevertheless, I would gladly approve of a contribution mentioning him under his better known screen name - documented or not. *see Bob Altemeyer, The Authoritarians. Self-published/University of Manitoba, 2007. Available for free as a [url=http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/]download[/url]. **Un-fun fact: Her real name is listed as Winnifred Jacqueline Fraser-Bisset in Wikipedia. |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | My apologies Dan,
I missed your 3:49 (local time) post and your use of the word "add" in subsequent posts led me to believe you supported the removal of the data. I see now that we agree that both the addition and removal of data should be documented. |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting TheDarkKnight: Quote:
Dan, it reads that data get's into the database without documentation, which is against the rules, but the point is, that you have to document the removal too, so why not document that it's good if it is good??? Why would you document that it is bad data, if it's good data? Does that make any sense?
Dirk Once data is in the database we can do nothing about it. So, regardless of when it was entered it's there. Any change is to be documented. What I was doing with you is reminding you that any new contributions are to be documented just as any change is to be documented. Your words (quoted and highlighted) seemed to indicate that you were not aware of that fact. | | | | Dan | | | | Last edited: by Dan W |
|
| Dan W | | Registered: May 9, 2002 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 980 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting northbloke: Quote:
My apologies Dan,
I missed your 3:49 (local time) post and your use of the word "add" in subsequent posts led me to believe you supported the removal of the data. I see now that we agree that both the addition and removal of data should be documented. As long as we can move forward, no problem. Apology accepted. | | | | Dan |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 762 |
| | Posted: | | | | Now you are assuming that I am not aware of it Dan.
Dirk
EDIT: Thanks, for editing your post. | | | | Last edited: by TheDarkKnight |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | DarkKnight, I think you may have missed the same post that I did, so I'm quoting it here: Quoting Dan W: Quote:
I have to disagree with the removal any correct data if it is properly documented and accurate. This would include assistants and/or any other credit that we have a position for. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,414 |
| | Posted: | | | | This was really a bad disc to try to make an example of, skip, since Bisset and Belmondo are both well-known and readily identifiable. Instead of making your point, you only introduced more garbage data into the database, undercutting your point. Since you know it's correct information (or could verify it with minimal effort), I don't see what you're accomplishing by breaking established links. Trying to teach people a lesson through bad contributions isn't very effective. | | | | "This movie has warped my fragile little mind." |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 13,201 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
John Wilcox: Cinematographer===>Additional Photography By
Nicolas Roeg: Cinematographer===>Additional Photography By
Normally Additional Photography would not be credited but these are credited on the front End immediately after the DOP I haven't read the entire thread yet, so forgive me if this has already been covered, but these are not valid profiler credits...no matter where they are credited. Photography by, yes. Additional Photography by, no. | | | No dictator, no invader can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever.
There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom.
Against this power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand.
The Centauri learned this lesson once.
We will teach it to them again.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be free.
- Citizen G'Kar | | | | Last edited: by TheMadMartian |
|
| Registered: March 15, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 5,459 |
| | Posted: | | | | No, I don't think anyone else had noticed that. And you're quite right. Some people should really read the rules before contributing...   |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | Reputation:  | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting hal9g: Quote:
Document the removal, and you won't have an issue.
The Rules say ALL changes must be documented! Not just additions. It's just about impossible to prove that an uncredited actor is not in a film, unless there are only a handful of actors, and you can verify the identity of each and every one that is there. The removal of undocumented (and possibly incorrect) cast is often too onerous. --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 20, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 2,850 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Tim:
You didn't cite the CLT in your notes, you didn't cite ANYTHING. You just pulled it out of you %^&
Skip  Couldn't you have put proper documentation in your contribution notes, and left the correct information in the database? --------------- |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting scotthm: Quote:
Quoting hal9g:
Quote:
Document the removal, and you won't have an issue.
The Rules say ALL changes must be documented! Not just additions.
It's just about impossible to prove that an uncredited actor is not in a film, unless there are only a handful of actors, and you can verify the identity of each and every one that is there. The removal of undocumented (and possibly incorrect) cast is often too onerous.
--------------- I always love this one. No proof was offered to get the folks added as uncredited yet we're told to prove a negative. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | I love it too, midnit.
Scott:
I am considering this since Tracey weighed in about his original notes, I haven't decided yet. My point is generally speaking you did it wrong, now do it over, don't expect me to do the work that you should have done to begin with. However as tracey noted this partricular title involves a special circumstance which I may simply note.
The bottom line is ALWAYS provide documentation and don't ever expect me to subscribe toi the sacred cow theory of some here, in my book undocumented data is INCORRECT data even if it is correct.
Now to give some more thought to your suggestion.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|