Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by judge2020 1417 days ago
Wikipedia allows anyone to audit edits and raise issues if things are fishy. IMDb allows edits but the history is only visible to admins.
2 comments

IMDb is crowdsourced and accepts user data submissions. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/contribution-info...

External users are not part of it. It's a "curated" model. IMDb clearly stakes their reputation on accuracy and comprehensive coverage. IMDb's TOS ensures that you relinquish all copyright claims and grant them an exclusive license to your content. IMDb won't cite their sources nor attribute contributors. They own and control everything on the site. Their rates for abuse and misinformation are unpublished. IMDb is an opaque, black box.

Wikipedia has a similar model for protecting articles known as "Pending Changes". Anyone can submit an edit to the article, but the revisions and new data is held back from the "front page" publication until approved by someone with the proper user rights. Almost anyone in good standing can obtain those rights, and it's 100% transparent. Every edit is reviewable by anyone with Internet access, every edit is attributed and licensed under CC-BY-SA. The servers, editors, and bots track and tag vandalism and other forms of abuse with public records. Verifiability is mandatory.

Me and my gang of companion editors, who have a long edit history going many years back (100% deleting content) shall revert your audits and reject your issues. There are 10 of us! You have no further questions. If you continue being disruptive you will be banned.
I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek, but it is very accurate.
Are you talking about here, imdb, or maybe Wikipedia?