Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
You quoted GSyren who quoted Pantheon and then agreed with Pantheon's sentiment which was that further discussion was pointless when you posted this:

If you're gonna quote me than use the whole quote. Do not take bits out to make me look like a moron who wants to censor people.

But I didn't quote you, did I?  I paraphrased what I interpreted your "sentiment" to be.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Quoting T!M:

Quote:

Well, it's crystal clear to me. I'd also say that Gerri's pro-active approach in manually pre-approving m.cellophane's contributions despite unfounded no-votes from the usual suspects kind of takes away any doubts, wouldn't you?

Well, if it's crystal clear, perhaps you can answer the question I raised earlier:

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
Is that really what Ken meant? If it is, then why the "If there is a dispute..." disclaimer? The information is either right or wrong. If I prove it to be wrong, then asking the contributor for documentation is a moot point.

So what does it take?
- I can prove it's wrong
- I know it's wrong
- I suspect it's wrong
- I don't know, but it may be wrong

Sorry, but comparing submitting no documentation to support a contribution to lying about what you've submitted are not the same thing.

People caught lying about their contributions should be reprimanded by Invelos in some way.  They undermine the entire system.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:

So what does it take?
- I can prove it's wrong
- I know it's wrong
- I suspect it's wrong
- I don't know, but it may be wrong

Here's my take:

If it's the first 2 points then you should either vote NO stating you know the data to be incorrect or contact the contributor and discuss it.

If it's the last 2 points then you should research it yourself. This will either result in a positive outcome and you can vote YES or you go back to your first 2 points and vote NO etc.

I agree with T!M though - if someone's bothering to submit this data then the likelihood is that you'll never be at the first 2 points.

At least that's how I look at it. In effect you're putting a certain amount of trust in your fellow contributors, but at the same time double checking if you do doubt the entries. I'm sure if you check the same contributors work a couple of times and find it to be accurate you wouldn't bother again in the future; because you've established their work can be trusted.

Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Sorry, but comparing submitting no documentation to support a contribution to lying about what you've submitted are not the same thing.

People caught lying about their contributions should be reprimanded by Invelos in some way.  They undermine the entire system.

I'm sorry but I disagree.

'Data copied from parent profile and visually verified by me' IS documentation of your work. You are stating where the information came from and what you did with it. In effect, you are telling people that they can trust your work because you've verified it.
When, in this case, that is a total lie.

So, I do not see the distinction between this and Credited As.

If someone states that they've established Mr. A=Mr. B. and that the CLT confirmed their findings for common name; it could be just as much of a lie as Mr. A=Mr. B and I've visited the following sites to confirm this: Site A etc, etc.

Unless you actually visit those sites and check that information you don't know. You are trusting that the person has done the research simple because of what they say they've done. I don't think there's a single person who checks every site someone lists in their Notes (and I wouldn't believe them if they said they did).
It's simply easier to take the contributor's word for because they've listed sites. That's false logic and just as likely to let bad data into the database.

I don't trust someone more because they list a bunch of sites. I trust them because I check their work myself and find it to be accurate.
As I have said there are contributors whose work I trust because I have checked it and found it to be accurate.
Likewise there are some whose work sets off warning flares the moment I see their name - before I've even read their notes...because I have learnt from experience, that their notes are not always truthful.

I personally have always felt the onus is on the voter to check the work. If you read someone's notes saying they've checked the data against the credits you either have to take their word for it or check that data yourself. But, because most users don't want to do the work themselves they simply accept what's written in the notes.
Providing documentation for Credited As is simply another way for voters to be able to accept the data without having to do any work themselves. They can vote yes with a clear conscious simply because someone listed the sites they visited.
Personally I would rather someone checked my work and learnt that I can be trusted. Unicus recently stated that trust has to be earned; and I totally agree with this statment.
My trust is earned by submitting good data that, when checked by me, proves to be accurate and reliable. You do not earn my trust by listing a smokescreen of sites as proof of work.

The difference is that I can put the disc in my DVD player and quickly verify the cast/crew.  There is no question at that point about the veracity of the data.

When someone submits an "As Credited" with no support, there is no quick way for me to verify it.  Now I've got to go hunting around the internet.  What if I can't find anything to support the change?  Can I vote no at that point?

Quoting Pantheon:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
The difference is that I can put the disc in my DVD player and quickly verify the cast/crew.  There is no question at that point about the veracity of the data.

And you can just as easily do a quick internet search - less time consuming that putting the disc in and checking data.

Quote:
When someone submits an "As Credited" with no support, there is no quick way for me to verify it.  Now I've got to go hunting around the internet.  What if I cna't find anything to support the change?  Can I vote no at that point?

If you can't find anything then it's likely that the contributor didn't find anything either, don't you think? Meaning, that if you've put in the effort and found nothing then it's likely they didn't.
So drop them a PM and see what's said.
But, I personally believe, that it's far more likely that you will find the same results - allowing you to vote yes.

If they include the link in their contribution, it's even quicker.  And there's a history maintained to support the change.

Quoting GSyren:

Quote:
When I asked about documentation for Credited As in this thread, everybody agreed with me.
Where were T!m, Pantheon & co then... 

Yes, we certainly like to keep talking about the same things over and over again here, don't we? Sometimes I feel like diving in, and sometimes I just yawn and actually go watch one of them little shiny discs... 

FYI: You will have noted that even back then, Forget_the_Rest noted that those contributions WERE being accepted. As I said earlier: Invelos' stance on this hasn't changed: it's always been like this.