Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb

I notice that most Wikipedia articles about movies do not include their IMDB rating. This is a remarkable decision for an organization that is based on the virtual, largely anonymous, crowd-sourced knowledge of empowered users. IMDB ratings are the product of something rather similar. If IMDB voters are less 'transparent' than Wiki authors (who certainly aren't nakedly obvious) they are far more numerous.

IMDB ratings are culturally significant. When Shawshank Redemption deposed Citizen Kane, 20 odd years ago, it was both major news, and an important reality check. Kane is a fine movie, but was reified by film schools. Shawshank may not be the greatest movie ever, either. But IMDB's flaws, namely that it represents opinions dominated by American white males (presumably) are exactly those leveled at Wikipedia. Wikipedia still works, because it allows anyone to contribute. Ditto IMDB. The fact that its voting system is open to all, if controlled for obvious attempts at manipulation, is not a bug, but a feature. As IMDB states, they exploit the concept of the "Wisdom of the Crowd". It bears repeating this 'wisdom' works if people think for themselves, without social influence. Anonymous voting is a genuine tool to achieve it.

It does seem, from 30,000 feet, that Wikipedia HQ competes with IMDB, and refuses to allow IMDB ratings because they think they're superior. It's amusing, I suppose, but also rather dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianMichaelCoyle (talk • contribs)

 Annette Maon (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

If you really think Wikipedia competes with IMDB, then you should pay close attention to the much bigger competitor which is information panels that appear on search engine result pages, which give readers the answers they want so they never bother coming to Wikipedia at all.

Wikipedia is crowd sourced but emphasizes using reliable sources to confirm that information. User generated information such as from other Wikis or user voted web polls are not reliable sources. WP:RS It is worth considering editorial intent, what does including IMDB scores do except indicate popularity that is already being shown by other more reliable sources, such as critics and box office. There are some exceptions, and when the IMDB score is noteworthy or "culturally significant" enough to be reported by WP: SECONDARY sources (such as Shawshank Redemption) then Wikipedia does mention it, but even then it isn't the score itself that is important, the point is to say that the film is enduringly popular.

As the IMDb user voted scores are not a reliable source the policy against including them (except in very limited circumstances) is unlikely to change. Comments on this essay are unlikely to change anything either, and if you want anything to happen you would probably need to make your case with the Wikipedia:Film Project (or WP:TV). (I understand this is an old discussion and my unoriginal responses are even older, but I write this as much for the many people reading without commenting than I do for the person who asked the original question.) -- 109.76.139.151 (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Essay doesn't mention IMDb Ratings. It doesn't state that they are good, bad, or indifferent. They aren't mentioned. If editors shouldn't use IMBd ratings, the essay should state that they shouldn't be used. Editors are pushed to use Rotten Tomatoes scores, which are highly misleading. For example, the Kim Possible movie has a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 100% based on 6 reviews. Those reviews are NOT reliable resources based on Wikipedia's standards. That leads readers to this essay, which fails to bring up the topic. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

They are not mentioned here because this is an essay, and it comes below guidelines, and below core principles of Wikipedia. The IMDB ratings are already excluded because they are user generated content WP:UGC and they are not a reliable source WP:RS. There is no obligation for this essay to repeat what has already been made clear elsewhere. It is not unreasonable for this essay to focus on the positive and recommend how to do things better (and not go into details about what not to do). -- 109.76.140.170 (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

How are IMDB ratings "excluded"? They would not be being "used" for anything except to state that "the IMDB rating for this film was 7.8 on 21st June 2022". That's a reliable and accurate statement of what the IMDB rating is. It is not a reliable indication of how the film is generally regarded, but as long as it just states what it states, it is accurate. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

There's no basis for including them as it's just based on users. For instance, Rotten Tomatoes is used because the score is based on reviews from critics. – The Grid (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is no answer at all. So what that it's just based on users? It is what it is. As long as it not presented as anything other than what it is, why should it be excluded? Both an IMDB rating and a Rotten Tomatoes rating just reflect the opinions of a set of people. Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

And one is far more vulnerable to manipulation by a small if dedicated group of people than the other. Nardog (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Again,so what. IMDB ratings are a thing, and they are a notable thing. Saying that a film has an IMDB rating of 9.0 may simply be noting that IMDB has been manipulated to have a rating of 9.0 for this film. You don't seem able to divorce yourself from the idea that reporting an IMDB rating is implying some kind of judgement on a film.

If Roger Ebert liked a film, that doesn't mean the film is good, it just means Roger Ebert liked it. If IMDB users have rated a film at 6, it just mean IMDB users have rated a film at 6. It's a popular website, people use it, and this is notable. 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC) Aredbeardeddwarf (talk) 23:25, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the section on disputed uses, the meaning of "released films only" is unclear. Does it mean that it's okay to cite IMDb as a source for those sections for released films? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:46, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I am confused. I think the main context and reason to cite IMDB is to identify a film, by linking to its title page. Is this essay arguing against such use? IMDB serves as the largest publicly available database of films. Sure, it has user generated content, possibly messy, but still adding some more bits to help decide what is what. It would be silly and arrogant from a generalist, completely user generated encyclopedia to fully disregard a specialist one with its core content created/supervised by editors just because there are also unreliable pieces of information there. Providus (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

The "Inappropriate uses" section reads: 1. Any potentially contentious material about living persons (BLPs). Could you please clarify whether using IMDb to support a BLP date of birth is okay or inappropriate? Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#IMDb doesn't mention DOB, either. I've also read WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Context: I added a "citation needed" tag to a draft and the draft creator provided a link to IMDb and referred me to IMDb Biographical data guidelines which claims that some sort of proof (official document, social media link or LinkedIn link) is necessary.

Many thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMDB is WP:SELFPUB. I find it good for looking up stats about an actor, such as what films they've been in and how many appearances in a TV show and if they had a named role. But information in articles shouldn't be cited directly to IMDB. It should be cited to other sources.

But anyway, to answer your question, no, I think using a self-published source such as IMDB to cite a birthdate is definitely against WP:BLPDOB. BLP tells us it is better to omit things like birthdates and middle names if they are not common knowledge, for privacy reasons. And the way to judge whether it's common knowledge is if it's been published in reliable sources. And IMDB is not reliable because it's self-published. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

IMDb is 100% not acceptable for bio info (for WP:BLP) – that is long-standing policy. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks lot, guys. For additional context: I saw that this particular reality TV personality's date of birth is all over the place in Google searches, but not in reliable sources. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Since December 2022, IMDb allows individuals to "claim" IMDb name pages about them and "self-submit/verify their age/year of birth, birthname, alternate names, and other demographic information", including "gender/gender identity, race/ethnicity, disabilities, and sexual orientation" (example). This seems like a resource that could be used on BLPs as regards WP:DOB and MOS:GENDERID, comparable to WP:ABOUTSELF sources like verified social media profiles.

According to a help page, a paid IMDbPro member can request to claim a page and "should receive an email notice within 24 hours" before the request is "reviewed and verified". A free member must specify the page to claim and provide a payment method when signing up. It's not clear how long it takes for a free membership request to be processed.

So should we consider self-verified information on IMDb to be an acceptable ABOUTSELF source? Or is the verification process too opaque? On the one hand, IMDb claims to review the user contributions too and it's our collective experiences that have found the process so porous it's not an RS. On the other, one would think they keep a better eye on IMDbPro given it's their cash cow and there was a whole legal battle that eventually led to this self-verification system, and verified social media profiles turning out to be impersonation is not unheard-of so doubts regarding authenticity may be hashed out on each article's talk page just like any other platform. Nardog (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

My $0.02 would be "no" – this is not a "good enough" "source" to get around things like WP:BLPPRIVACY. If a subject really wants to make info like this available publicly, they generally have social media accounts, which do pass WP:ABOUTSELF (provided they are "verified" accounts). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not saying it should be given precedence over other social media profiles when they are available, I'm suggesting we consider it an option when they are not. WP:BLPPRIVACY says a verified social media account "may be usable if there is no reason to doubt it". I'm asking if there is. You seem to think yes; care to elaborate on why? (What are you referring to with those quotes around "good enough" and "source"?) Nardog (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It sounds like opening a can of words here. I would put the verification on a lower spot than the usual social profiles. (Twitter would also be lower.) It just seems like IMDB would be a last measure for making a case if information is correct about someone, perhaps better as a case-by-case basis. Even the help page suggests an account can be owned by a talent manager or someone other than the actual person. – The Grid (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I would put the verification on a lower spot than the usual social profiles And why is that? an account can be owned by a talent manager or someone other than the actual person Isn't that the case for most social media? Nardog (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply