TV.com

Far too many people use questionable sources to back up submissions in the quotes, notes and allusions categories. It's very important for contributors and editors to recognize that not all sources are equally valid.

POOR SOURCES

--brainyquote.com (This site is full of second-hand information, with no verification provided for any of the quotes listed. No one should ever use this site. Certainly it should not be the basis for any quote submissions to any guide.)

--Amateurish fan pages: If a site looks like it's run by one person and has the look and feel of a 1995 Trellix-made site, then it's probably not a good idea to cite that website as the source for a quote or note submission.

TRUSTWORTHY SITES (usually)

--Official network sites: CBS.com, NBC.com, abc.go.com, scifi.com, hbo.com, etc.

--Mainstream news sites: Yahoo News, washingtonpost.com, Variety, nytimes.com, bbc.co.uk, latimes.com, etc.

--Official sites for organizations like the Emmy Awards, the Academy Awards

SITES THAT SHOULD PRIMARILY BE USED AS RESEARCH TOOLS, NOT PRIMARY SOURCES

--IMDb: This site is very useful as a general reference tool but the quotes and notes can often be unreliable. It's generally not a good idea to use it as the only source. However, if you have done extensive research on an obscure show or actor and IMDb is the only source available, it's worth a shot. However, it probably shouldn't be used to back up multiple items for a single show or actor.

--Wikipedia: The same principles apply here as with IMDb. Wikipedia can be very helpful as a research tool. Encyclopedias are supposed to be used to provide introductions to various topics. However, they are not supposed to be used as primary sources. Many people mention the fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia articles. This is somewhat true but many controversial or noteworthy articles are locked and open for editing only to registered users. There seems to be less of an incentive to post misleading or nonsensical items for more obscure topics and people so the open-editing policies seem to work in most of those cases. When students write papers for school, they shouldn't cite the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Encarta encyclopedia as primary sources either. With well-written Wikipedia articles, you will find hyperlinked footnotes to the original source material. Read the Wikipedia article for an overview of the topic but click on the footnotes to view the original sources. Use those original sources to back up your submissions to TV.com guides.

----------------------------

I'll edit this post and thread as I think of additional points on the subject.

I would just add that using print sources and the programs themselves are good too. Just, when using the program itself, use a time stamp, such as "quote from "King of Queens", syndicated version, 13 minute mark"...or if making a sub from a publication, add details, such as "trivia from People Magazine interview, March 1998 issue, page 73"...