| Author |
Message |
| Registered: March 28, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 1,299 |
| | Posted: | | | | Those with the Fight Club UPC 024543000358 have seen bigdaddyhorse's last couple of contribution attempts at getting The Dust Brothers credited as Michael Simpson and John King. It didn't work out because other people with the same name have already been credited, and there was no source for birth years. So I e-mailed Michael Simpson and asked him, and he replied with 1964 for him and 1965 for John King. So... what's the consensus on using this e-mail as a source? I'm inclined to trust members when they claim to have verified data, but I know different members have different opinions on that, so I'm leaning towards creating a PDF of the e-mail, uploading it to the web, and including a link in the contribution notes. But maybe some members would frown upon this, as it'd be relatively easy to fake something like that. So... thoughts? KM | | | Tags, tags, bo bags, banana fana fo fags, mi my mo mags, TAGS!
Dolly's not alone. You can also clone profiles.
You've got questions? You've got answers? Take the DVD Profiler Wiki for a spin. | | | | Last edited: by Astrakan |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | In my personal opinion the source needs to be verifiable. In other words anyone wanting to check up on the source should be able to do so via a link or what have you. In my opinion this opens up to much of a possibility of anyone saying they emailed and got a reply for any type of info... but yet a voter don't have the ability to check on that source if they feel the need to do so. So I personally would be against the only source being something the voters can't check. That is my thoughts on the subject anyway.
As you said... a pdf version of the email would be too easy to fake. | | | | Pete | | | | Last edited: by Addicted2DVD |
|
| Registered: April 13, 2007 |  Posts: 651 |
| | Posted: | | | | I have used an e-mail from Weta Workshop to confirm birthyear for Richard Taylor (King Kong, LotR) to differ him from the soundguy Richard Taylor (24 etc) it got approved, and I didn't fake that mail, I took a screenshot from the actual mail, with the Weta Workshop logos, and so forth.
I am a so-called perfectionist so I want my database to be 100% correct, and also my contributions to be 100% correct. I never contribute anything without checking lots of sources, and in R.T case, I couldn't find any BY for him either on the Weta website, or other sources, so I sent an e-mail to the place that he works. So, yes in my opinion an email is a valid source for me. It's difficult to fake the logos, and signatures in an email anyway, and I don't see the point to fake an email to get a fake BY anyway, if you don't get an answer or can provide another documentation, don't contribute the BY. | | | "What's God?"
"You know when you want something really bad and you wish for it?, God's the guy that ignores you"
-The Island, Steve Buscemi |
|
| Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 1,777 |
| | Posted: | | | | Personally, my opinion is that the only reason we are looking for a BY is to separate cast/crew conflicts correctly. The only reason I would even care in the slightest as to the accuracy of the BY is if we run into two with the same year. Otherwise, I could care less. The important thing is to be able to maintain the separation. Given that, I really don't care where you get the info from, the main goal has been satisfied. As it currently stands, I have to make up BYs in my local just to get the folks properly credited and linked. The fact that you even bothered to email goes above and beyond anything I'm willing to do with my local. |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 906 |
| | Posted: | | | | An email from the person in question is much better than any third party source in my opinion. I couldn't care less if I can't see the email or a pdf is to easy to fake. If a person tells me he actually emailed a person, why shouldn't I trust him? Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
In my personal opinion the source needs to be verifiable. In other words anyone wanting to check up on the source should be able to do so via a link or what have you. In my opinion this opens up to much of a possibility of anyone saying they emailed and got a reply for any type of info... but yet a voter don't have the ability to check on that source if they feel the need to do so. So I personally would be against the only source being something the voters can't check. That is my thoughts on the subject anyway.
The voters can email the person in question and check for themselves, so it is verifiable. Maybe not as easy to verify as a weblink but the same goes for those that use books as a source. Not everybody have the book, so they have to trust the contributor (or buy the book, a book that might be out of print) I might be naive, thinking that most people want to do right, but I feel that there is way to much mistrust on this forum.(In general, not directed at you Addicted2DVD) | | | 
The colour of her eyes, were the colour of insanity | | | | Last edited: by reybr |
|
| Registered: April 7, 2007 |  Posts: 357 |
| | Posted: | | | | I think the thing to do is make the change and quote your source as in all submissions. There are no rules about what is and what is not a source save what you can't use. After that it's up to the voters and the screeners. I would vote yes. I think the rules ask me to address whether the contribution complies with the rules. I would only vote no if I could find some evidence to the contrary if there was a clear reason to doubt it's veracity. I have used e-mail as a source before. | | | | Last edited: by Graveworm |
|
  | T!M | | Profiling since Dec. 2000 |
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: |  Posts: 8,736 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
An email from the person in question is much better than any third party source in my opinion. I couldn't care less if I can't see the email or a pdf is to easy to fake. If a person tells me he actually emailed a person, why shouldn't I trust him? Very much agreed! |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Certainly superior to unrevealed extensive research.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
 | Berak | | Bibamus morieundum est! |
| Registered: May 10, 2007 | | Posts: 1,059 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Jubal: Quote:
Certainly superior to unrevealed extensive research.
Skip Agreed!  | | | Berak
It's better to burn out than to fade away!
True love conquers all! |
|
| Registered: May 19, 2007 | Reputation:  |  Posts: 6,730 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting reybr: Quote:
If a person tells me he actually emailed a person, why shouldn't I trust him? The answer is given by a TV-Show Quoting Gregory House, M.D.: Quote:
People lie EDIT: And while there are several contributors out there whom I would trust if they told me they e-mailed person X, there still are many others whom I wouldn't even trust to tell me the correct century we're in. So I have to agree with Pete (Addicted2DVD). | | | It all seems so stupid, it makes me want to give up!
But why should I give up, when it all seems so stupid?
Registrant since 05/22/2003 | | | | Last edited: by Lewis_Prothero |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting goblinsdoitall: Quote:
Quoting reybr:
Quote:
If a person tells me he actually emailed a person, why shouldn't I trust him?
The answer is given by a TV-Show
Quoting Gregory House, M.D.:
Quote:
People lie
EDIT:
And while there are several contributors out there whom I would trust if they told me they e-mailed person X, there still are many others whom I wouldn't even trust to tell me the correct century we're in.
So I have to agree with Pete (Addicted2DVD). ROFL, man ain't that the truth. Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Astrakan: Quote:
Those with the Fight Club UPC 024543000358 have seen bigdaddyhorse's last couple of contribution attempts at getting The Dust Brothers credited as Michael Simpson and John King. It didn't work out because other people with the same name have already been credited, and there was no source for birth years.
So I e-mailed Michael Simpson and asked him, and he replied with 1964 for him and 1965 for John King.
So... what's the consensus on using this e-mail as a source?
I'm inclined to trust members when they claim to have verified data, but I know different members have different opinions on that, so I'm leaning towards creating a PDF of the e-mail, uploading it to the web, and including a link in the contribution notes.
But maybe some members would frown upon this, as it'd be relatively easy to fake something like that.
So... thoughts?
KM if you have emailed them then that's going more than the distance. And you get a Plus from me. I don't think you should publish the email - this would probably give their email / address etc and should be kept confidential. You have asked the person concerned and that is good enough for me. And I can recall a previous occassion where I think someone was asked by email who had been in the film to ansswer some queries - there was no suggestion that the email wasn't good enough amd (as far as I know) the email exchange on that occassion wasn't published. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 2,692 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Addicted2DVD: Quote:
In my personal opinion the source needs to be verifiable. In other words anyone wanting to check up on the source should be able to do so via a link or what have you. In my opinion this opens up to much of a possibility of anyone saying they emailed and got a reply for any type of info... but yet a voter don't have the ability to check on that source if they feel the need to do so. So I personally would be against the only source being something the voters can't check. That is my thoughts on the subject anyway.
As you said... a pdf version of the email would be too easy to fake. this is a BY we are talking about.. | | | | Paul |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 17,334 |
| | Posted: | | | | and? In my personal opinion (which is all I ever made comment on) it don't matter. Any info that is added to the contribution should be added with a source that can be easily checked by any voter as well as the screener.
That is the reason you seldomly see birth year or common names in my contributions... as I feel I haven't found enough proof to feel comfortable about contributing the information.
The OP asked for our opinions on the matter... and that is all I gave is my honest opinion on the matter. | | | | Pete |
|
| Registered: May 8, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 1,945 |
| | Posted: | | | | An email is perfectly fine with me, why should the guy lie about his BY ? IMHO this is the best source ever, coming directly from the guy in question  so a BIG YES from me cheers Donnie | | | | www.tvmaze.com |
|
| Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Reputation: | | Posts: 3,480 |
| | Posted: | | | | An email is perfectly fine. Make note of it in your contribution notes. After it's accepted, please submit it to the list of acceted birth years. Done. | | | ...James
"People fake a lot of human interactions, but I feel like I fake them all, and I fake them very well. That’s my burden, I guess." ~ Dexter Morgan |
|