User talk:Hultgrenmagnus

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Hultgrenmagnus! Thank you for your contributions. I am Whisperjanes and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Whisperjanes (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * The Teahouse, our help forum for new users
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

December 2020
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to The Perks of Being a Wallflower (film) have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, the whole topic was entirely unknown to me. However, the Reliable Source criterion does not automatically exclude all IMDb content. It may be the case for most information that IMDb carries, about outside elements such as movies, actors, directors, and other crew. (Even though in my experience, getting edits accepted by their editorial staff does require pretty hard work.) But when it comes to information about IMDb ratings, those are generated on the IMDb website. The ratings can certainly be subject to opinion campaigns, just like Wikipedia, but high-profile instances of such vandalism are rightfully mentioned as facts on Wikipedia movie pages - see for instance Ghostbusters (2016 film). Except for IMDb editorial decisions in certain cases of suspected vandalism, the vote tally does not shrink, because the number of votes cast is not edited by users. Thus, quoting IMDb as the source for an IMDb rating does not constitute use of a questionable source, since an IMDb rating is a fact in itself. With all due respect, I would like to add back the reference. --Hultgrenmagnus (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The ratings are actually more unreliable than almost anything else, because they're easily manipulated. Relevant discussion here. DonIago (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That 2007 discussion doesn't actually mention manipulation, only that it's a passive poll. Which is basically my point. What happens with vandalism and campaigns is that many different people rate movies that they haven't seen, as is bound to happen in a passive poll. Their referring to "box office" as the only measurement, without considering the long tail of subsequent revenue, is just as bad. Multiple measurements are what get to the truth: opening weekend, license sales, streaming, merchandising, reviews, following, quotes, references. Reviews are written when a movie is new, very rarely later. IMDb scores, however susceptible to elaborate frauds, hate campaigns or bot purchases, do reflect something else. --Hultgrenmagnus (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have my doubts that they reflect anything that we should be mentioning in articles unless third-party sources have taken note of them, but you're welcome to raise the question at the article's Talk page or at WT:FILM or such. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)