Talk:The Real World: Las Vegas (2011 season)

Press Release

Official press release can be found here[1]. It should be incorporated into the article. Allwham 18:43, 17 September 2010

Thanks! Nightscream (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Heather Cooke

This person is not on the MTV cast website, not in the MTV cast photo, and there is no verifiable evidence this is a cast member at all. Stop adding her to this article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a source indicated next to her name, which indeed satisfies Verifiability. I emailed Vevmo, and they indicated to me that Heather Cooke replaces Adam after Adam is evicted from the cast. My say-so cannot be used as a source, of course, since this is OR, but Vevmo, which has been used for the past several season articles as a source, should be sufficient until she appears on MTV.com or the episodes. I've commented out the Heather Cooke info in the cast table, so that it's invisible for now. I'll un-comment it out when those episodes air. Nightscream (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The only primary source for this is MTV's website, which is the official site for the show. She's not listed there, and shouldn't be listed here. A forum post is hardly a legitimate source. That's like suggesting we should reference realitysteve.com on articles about The Bachelor. - Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

"The only primary source" implies that you're placing special importance on primary sources, as if they're preferable. They're not. Secondary sources are. Please see WP:SECONDARY. I linked to it in my previous message on your talk page, so I don't know why you're speaking as if you're not familiar with it.

As for using forums, please see WP:USERGENERATED. Sites whose content is user-generated like imdb or blogs cannot be used unless the material is clearly labeled as originating from the site's editorial staff, which that post is. Vevmo and their sources have almost always turned out to be correct regarding the show, which is why they've been relied on as a cited source in the articles for the past several seasons of this show. Nightscream (talk) 04:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it, and a web forum post isn't valid in any way. Again, per your example, RealitySteve has been correct in regards to information for the Bachelor for many years now, but that wouldn't be right to use as a source at all. Same thing here. I guess we both interpret "Internet forum postings...are largely not acceptable" differently. You take a more liberal approach. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"I'm familiar with it, and a web forum post isn't valid in any way." WP:USERGENERATED does not say that web forum posts aren't valid "in any way", so you obviously haven't read it carefully. As that policy states (note the emboldened type):

This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database, Cracked.com, CBDB.com, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users.

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

The reason for this is rather simple and obvious. Editorial staffs of websites with a history of reliability who make it their business to rely on sources and confirm information, are credible, whereas information from anonymous forum users is not, because they cannot be vetted or verified. Only a perversely dogmatic sense of absolutism, and the inability to reason properly with regard to relevant exceptions or qualifiers, would read WP:GENERATED in such a way to conclude that it means that any information appearing in a web forum "isn't valid in any way", and that a post by a member of a site's editorial staff that starts off a thread, and posts made by anonymous users during it, are somehow indistinguishable. That's not "liberal interpretation", as you asserted on my talk page, that's simply what the policy says. Nightscream (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There's still no way to vet or verify this information. It's a very liberal interpretation, and given we disagree here, I wouldn't mind hearing from some others. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. Verifiability refers to whether information is supported by a reliable source cited in the text. The information is so supported. The website in question is a reliable source, and thus, it has been verified. Verifiability does not refer to going further than that source. We no more have to verify it further with Vevmo than we would have to further vet or verify material supported by a New York Times article after reading the article itself. This is not mitigated by the fact that the Vevmo editorial staff decided to format the page on which that information appeared as a forum on which others could comment. To argue that it is is specious. There's nothing wrong with hearing from others, but you should also read the policies in question, and explain how what they say does not correspond to their implementation here, instead of just saying "it's an interpretation" over and over. The policy flat-out says blogs or forums or okay if the information is not coming from an anonymous user, but the editorial staff. The information in question comes from Vevmo's editorial staff. Where is there an "interpretation"? Nightscream (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, we agree to disagree. I've read your links. When I see a forum post from "molds13" who lives in "Awesomeville", I don't think that's trustworthy. When I go to the main domain, http://vevmo.com/, there's no About, no nothing. As far as I can tell, this is nothing but a forum, and comparing it the NYT is laughable. These people could post anyone is going to be on the RW as far as I know, as all it appears you need to do is SAY they're going to be on the show and post a few photos. Sorry, I can't accept that as reliable whatsoever. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

ratings for the 10th and 11th episodes

Can anybody add the ratings for the 10th and 11th episodes? I wanted do edit them myself, but for some strange reason, this site is semiprotected, so that i am as a random contributor are not able to edit the site.

The 10th ep got 2.07 mio viewers, the 11th 2,16 mio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz18 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)