His plans for 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'
-
SRHanson — 19 years ago(October 24, 2006 08:52 AM)
Um. No, it's not. Maybe on articles that are monitored heavily, I would agree. There are people fact-checking left and right. If someone adds something bogus to the George W. Bush article, for example, it's removed right away and/or the topic is brought up on the talk page to verify its citations. Usually there are none because some joker thought they were funny and could get away with adding nonsense.
On articles that aren't as closely monitored, it's harder to stay on top of the facts. The "trivia" about Oz performing Miss Piggy as Grandma Georgina either originated from IMDb or Wikipedia. Folks place trust levels too high in both sites, and as a result they believe what they read. Contrary to what some may believe, IMDb does not fact check everything. Especially not a claim that a director supposedly made in some unnamed interview. If the original contributor could provide that information, it would be easy to prove or disprove if it happened.
And, as I've said before, even if the words came out of Oz's mouth, he was assuredly kidding. Miss Piggy is a character owned by The Walt Disney Company Oz would never legally be able to pull it off. Additionally, the cast roster provided looks like some kid of fanboy fantasy of Muppet performers reuniting. It's just hogwash. -
deaston — 19 years ago(October 25, 2006 12:57 AM)
I'm not disagreeing with your other points, what I'm saying is that wikipedia is a verifiable source. Granted, their verifiablility has been questioned (and may be rescinded [again]), but as of about a year and a half ago, the AP has stated that it is a verifiable source because of the way it is set up to disclaim possibly erroneous information.
I tried to find the AP's statement and I couldn't. However, Google "wikipedia" and "associated press (or just AP)" and you will see many articles using wikipedia as a source. If it wasn't a verifiable source, the AP would not be using it. -
SRHanson — 19 years ago(October 25, 2006 07:58 AM)
Wikipedia has grown quite a bit in a year. There are more people contributing and not as many verifying. I would agree that Wikipedia can be verifiable, but I stress that it's only on the most high profile articles such as stem cell research or Jesus Christ. Articles on Frank Oz or the history of the yo-yo aren't getting as much attention. That's why I'm here to beep for the validity of certain claims being made on the Frank Oz article. So far, neither I nor the others involved on that article's talk page have been able to prove this particular piece of information.
-
mattpack1 — 18 years ago(October 07, 2007 11:36 PM)
ummm your a moron..
this whole claim is BS!!!
he was never even asked to direct let alone make up little miss piggy fantasies. Check out this interview,
http://www.avclub.com/content/interview/frank_oz/2
He specifically states that the whole willy wonka thing never even happened. Next time don't just sit there defending imdb and wikipedia, get off your lazy ass and do your own research!!