GAMES: GameSpot GameFAQs MOVIES: Metacritic Movietome Comic-Con
Thursday, Jan 15, 2009

Its been a difficult couple of days for me, and more than once I considered giving up and leaving the site, but today finally ended with a positive result and I'm pleased to say that my future on this site, and my future in my editorships, is completely secure.

I am posting this because I want to lay to rest any lingering suspicions about me. There are some that will never be convinced, or that don't want to be, but there are some out there whose opinion I think too highly of to let this go. You know who you are. Of course, those that matter most never doubted me in the first place. Thank you to those who have already assured me of that. To those who haven't perhaps this blog will show you the truth.

So here's what happened:

As some of you are undoubtedly aware, someone accused me of gaming and plagiarism. And not just to their friends, or even to me, but to the staff. I got a private message from a staff member asking me to explain myself. Apparently, the summaries I wrote for The City were appearing on another website and it looked like *I* was the plagiarizer and not the other way around. Fortunately, that website contained links to its many other sites, all owned by the same person. Long story short, I was hardly the only person on tv.com whose summaries had been ripped off and published on their site. Many users who are above reproach, including several site moderators, had their summaries copied as well. Clearly, that website owner relies on tv.com writers to do its work for them. I'm just grateful their blog contained links to their other sites, or it would have been my word against theirs. I detest plagiarism. Writing is the one thing I love above all, and the talent I take the most pride in. I would never steal someone else's work and claim it as my own. Truthfully, it's beneath me.

My submission history was also investigated and found clean. I'd had warning from a friend who knew ahead of time that I was going to be investigated, so I knew it would be, but it is still not fun to receive a message from site moderators letting you know that you are being investigated. While the staff was as kind as possible, it is still very upsetting to know that there are people who are tracking your every move; hoping and trying to get you retired. I've never had a problem on this site before and lately it has felt unfriendly, clique-ish and high school-esque. I've been tempted to leave more than once but I love this site too much to leave without a fight.

And that, as they say, is that.

Posted by Adelette, 5:58pm
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Comments

Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
An interesting resolution. I have no problem posting here because I don't really care one way or another about any "personalities" on this site. I do think that perhaps you have corrected mistakes a few too many times (production codes, changing actors role from their names to "himself", airdates etc.) and have more points than I would be comfortable with for the number of episodes aired. At the same time, the gaming accusations are a little much, gamers rack up thousands of points for doing nothing. What your blog DOES point out is how passively aggressive it can be here at TV.com - as if the number of guides edited makes any difference to the billions of people on planet Earth or will be engraved on someone's tombstone when they die. The "race to 80" CPs to be editor of a current show around here is probably the biggest bone of contention - it practically DEMANDS people editing and re-editing, everyone who wants to compete gets caught in the game. I just smile and take comfort in that I could care less about modern TV. Most ALL of this is the result of the level system and the "desire to acquire" that has marked TV.com since it's major relaunch in 2005. As long as guides are semi-literate and interesting, I don't care. Over 50% of program guides here are bad, poor grammar, wrong numbering, ludicrous or duplicated cast/crew etc. So put me down as "in the middle" as far ar this subject. I'm mildly critical of you and mildly critical of your accusers. If your newest guide has more CPs than I think is justified, it pales in comparison to loads of garbage stored on this site (check out "EastEnders (US)" , "The Ricki Lake Show" or hundreds of others sometime). None of this would be necessary if the system was transparent, like Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with making edits, but making edits and gaining status just leads to hard feelings and suspicions getting passed around in secret. If CBS really wanted to make information better and more responsive, they would trash the editor/level system here at TV.com and start over with an entirely different process.
Posted Jan 15, 2009 8:40 pm PT
I am so glad you're not leaving, I have appreciated your work on this site very much. Good luck in the future.
Posted Jan 16, 2009 12:16 am PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Jan 16, 2009 5:38 am PT
Mac, I'm glad you posted. I have to say that you are spot on about the system here being flawed. I enjoy the site, and find it much more fun than, say, Wikipedia, but I could care less about levels and status. Although you make a good point... if tv.com could let everyone see the show's edit history, then gaming would be impossible, because it would be obvious to anyone who looked at the history. On the other hand, it would be a heckuva lot harder to keep the guides in decent condition if any edit was allowed to go live without moderation. Also, I can't help but defend myself against a few things. I did change an actor's name to "Herself". All of the others were credited that way and I am stickler for consistency... but I made that edit *before* I made editor, not after. (Also, I didn't add that particular actress to the cast, so it's not as if it were a double edit.) Regardless, it was up to tv.com staff to decide if that was an appropriate edit. They accepted it. That should be good enough for anyone. Second, I didn't edit any airdates after the episode was submitted, except one that was mistakenly added (by someone else) as 2008. As for production codes, I didn't add them more than once either. So I am not sure where you are getting your information, unless it's from gossip and heresay. What I *did* edit more than once was the show and episode summaries because after my initial edits, others went in to edit and made grammar errors. I went back to clean it up. There's certainly nothing wrong with that. And as you read in my blog, I *was* scraping cast together and submitting them separately. But that was eventually rejected anyway. This is the first guide I've obtained that had no previous editor - and it was my first time submitting cast at the show level, without the import tool. I didn't know I was doing anything wrong. I've since been corrected. And loudly.

Again, the staff looked at my submission history and found it clean -if they hadn't, then surely I'd have been retired. I really do appreciate your honesty. It's refreshing to encounter someone unafraid to say what they really feel, instead of double talk and backstabbing. Above all, I appreciate honesty and candor.
Posted Jan 16, 2009 5:59 am PT
Well, I could not tell who was making what edits, because, as I said, the edits aren't transparent. It's very hard to sort out what happens without being able to see it directly. I'm purposely not taking sides here, merely for academic reasons. The beauty of Wikipedia is that most people specialize in about 10 or 20 different things and check frequently for new additions on those limited number of pages they specialize in. Errors sit around for days, not months or years. Vandalism is easy to spot, who made what change is available for all to see. Vandalism in the form of making a "contribution" isn't rewarded with "points" or the right to be a sole "editor". A contributor usually leaves after being over-ruled a few times, there is no reward of possible "ownership". No one has a profile page to laud their high status. Actually, I think that a lot of things could be improved by simply: 1. Scrapping the level system 2. Limiting editorships to 10 or 20 3. Making every guide's submission history viewable by every member. The whole nature of this site gets people involved in a competition, and people start thinking the world is interested in this competition or what level someone is. When in fact, the world just wants to look at program guides and see decently written and accurate information. Just as the world is not interested in what acronym internet handle has made the most edits to a Wikipedia page.
Posted Jan 16, 2009 9:07 am PT
Page 1 
« prev  |  next »
  • Adelette
  • Level: 1 (63%)
  • Rank: Mogwai
  • Forum Posts: 161
  • Messages Read: 0


advertisement

Friends

My Friends