In the interest of heading of "edit wars" with cast lists, perhaps we can agree on a standard method of addressing them. My proposal would be:
Radio Times is usually pretty accurate, but sometimes the show itself will release innaccurate information beforehand so as to keep plot details a surprise.
I'd say we can probably use any trusted magazine/newspaper or the online equivalent as a source, as we can assume they have been fact checked.
We can't use anything like wikipedia or IMDb as they can both be edited by anyone (I think the process of joining IMDb is just a bit more difficult) and they aren't fact checked.
Personally I wish we could just wait until each episode airs before adding any details on it and we actually know what happened. But I don't think anyone would agree with me on that!
I have to say I find that a fairly specious argument. How many people get to fact check an article at Radio Times or any newspaper or magazine article before it goes to press? The author, the editor, maybe a few more including admittedly professional fact checkers? Then, how many people read any given article on IMDB, Wikipedia, etc., which as collaborative writing sites allow, as you say, anyone to edit. Certainly orders of magnitude more. True, anyone can enter bad information, but there are so many eyes on it, that the people entering good information vastly outnumber the bad actors.
I referenced a study previously on this point which showed that the accuracy of articles on Wikipedia was basically statistically identical to that of Encyclopedia Britannica, which in and of itself is far better fact checked than the average newspaper or magazine article. None of which addresses the scope of Wikipedia or IMDB, which is far greater than any privately written publication could possibly afford. By word count Wikipedia is 60 times larger than Encyclopedia Britannica, and by article count, over 100 time larger.
IOW, where there is overlap, Wikipedia is basically the equivalent of the best private reference compendium on the planet, and then goes on to provide 60 times as much information as is available in that compendium.
However the real advantage of sites like IMDB and Wikipedia is that it compiles all of the information in one place. Radio Times may get a cast list out before the episode airs and before it makes it onto IMDB, but IMDB concentrates all of the information about any movie, TV program, etc. in one convenient place, and hence one convenient means of referring to vast amounts of related information. After all, why is it Wikipedia and IMDB have Wikia templates while Radio Times does not?
Well, I said what I think.
Personally, what I care about is that people don't add unsubstantiated information about episodes that have yet to air - far better to wait until after an episode has aired and add it then. People come to this wiki looking for accurate info.
Also, what has happened in the past is that the pages for episodes and series will get lots of edits in the run up to a series/episode airing - adding tons of info. But very few come back after it has aired to edit it into a page that reads well, makes sense, and accurately reflects what actually happened in the series.
Cast lists really aren't where this wiki is lacking. People adding more detail to plot sections on episode pages, or on individual character pages would be much more helpful imo.
And to answer your question, wikipedia and IMDb have templates because people made them - it doesn't say anything about their reliability. The fact is that mistakes will get edited onto those sites and sometimes not removed again.
I think one of the great things about wikia is that it shows our depth of knowledge about the things that interest us. (I think we all agree we can trust ourselves as viewers to be able to accurately record what we saw in an episode don't we?) So if we concentrate more on recording what has already happened and aired, rather than what is to come then we wont need to worry about this much at all.
I think one of the great things about wikia is that it shows our depth of knowledge about the things that interest us. (I think we all agree we can trust ourselves as viewers to be able to accurately record what we saw in an episode don't we?)
So you are effectively saying that while that will work here it does not work for IMDB or Wikipedia. :)
Yes, I know I took that slightly out of context.
Well yes, because I'm talking about writing about episodes that have already aired vs ones that haven't.
And if we don't trust each other to write about what we've seen accurately then writing this wiki would become near impossible.
Well, if an episode hasn't aired yet how can they possibly accurately know what happened in it, who starred in it, etc?
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're menaing. Which is possible becaus it's very late here.
If you reread my original post, the answer should be obvious.
BTW, my real point was to try to head off edit wars, I was only proposing one means of doing so.
What do you think?