Difference between revisions of "Help:How to verify data"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Reverted edit of EvgOzx, changed back to last version by BLongley) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | Although the majority of the data in the ISFDB is accurate, it's not possible to tell, just by looking at the data, what data has been verified and is correct, and what data is still unchecked. To address this, the ISFDB has a verification feature. This allows anyone with a copy of a publication, or a copy of one of several bibliographic sources, to record a "verification" of that publication. | |
First, let's assume that you have a copy of the publication itself. To verify it: | First, let's assume that you have a copy of the publication itself. To verify it: | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |Locus1 || [http://www.locusmag.com/index/ The Locus Index to Science Fiction: 1984-2005] (web resource that can be [http://google.com/search?q=site:locusmag.com inurl:index searched using Google]) | + | |Locus1 || [http://www.locusmag.com/index/ The Locus Index to Science Fiction: 1984-2005] (web resource that can be [http://google.com/search?q=site:locusmag.com+inurl:index searched using Google]) |
|- | |- | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | |Contento2 (zine) || Science Fiction, Fantasy, | + | |Contento2 (zine) || Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index (1890-1998) (CD-ROM, [http://www.locusmag.com/index/sfmagcd.htm 1999 Index online)]) |
| + | |||
| + | |- | ||
| + | |Bleiler1 (Gernsback) || Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years: 1926 Through 1936 <br> ([http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873386043 Amazon]'s Look Inside seems to contain complete Title Index) | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | Currey || ''Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Non-Fiction'' (1979) | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Verification Rules== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The rows in the verification table represent bibliographic references, while the columns represent the verification state. The list of references in this table is controlled by the ISFDB moderators. The three possible verification states are: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * '''Not Verified''' - This is the default state. This means that no work has been done to verify the publication data against the specified reference. | ||
| + | * '''Verified''' - This state means that a comparison was done between the ISFDB data and the specified reference. | ||
| + | * '''N/A''' - This state means that the reference in question has no record of this publication. | ||
| + | |||
| + | While verification seems straightforward, there are some ground rules which need to be established concerning the use of '''N/A'''. These are: | ||
| + | |||
| + | * If the reference in question has no record of this particular book, then it should be marked '''N/A'''. | ||
| + | * If the copyright date of the publication is later than the copyright date of the reference, then that particular reference should be marked '''N/A'''. This is really just a common sense corollary of the previous rule, meaning that you're not going to find data on an author like Neal Asher (who started publishing in the 90s) in Tuck's Encyclopedia (which was published mostly in the 70s), so don't even bother looking. | ||
| + | * If the reference only lists first editions, and the publication in question is not a first edition, then the reference should be marked '''N/A'''. This would include secondary sources like Reginald or the Clute encyclopedias. | ||
| + | * Some online references continue to grow (like the Locus index). If the publication date of the book in question is later than the last update to the online reference, it should be marked '''Not Verified''', implying that it may be done at a later date. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Additionally: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *If there are disagreements, then you should make a note in the notes field for that publication, listing the differences you have found. Generally it is ''not a good idea to update the record to agree with the source'', though if the publication is rare and hard to find, and multiple sources agree, it may be the right choice. In addition, if it appears that the problem is a simple typographical error, there is no reason not to make the update. A true typographical error in the publication should indeed be listed on the publication record, but should always be accompanied by a note explaining the situation. | ||
| + | *Note that once you've made corrections, or updated the notes field, you can go ahead and mark the publication as verified against that source, even if there were disagreements in the data. "Verified" doesn't mean that the source was correct; it means that the comparison has been made and the useful bibliographic data extracted. This will avoid other editors repeating your work. | ||
Revision as of 10:01, 10 July 2007
Although the majority of the data in the ISFDB is accurate, it's not possible to tell, just by looking at the data, what data has been verified and is correct, and what data is still unchecked. To address this, the ISFDB has a verification feature. This allows anyone with a copy of a publication, or a copy of one of several bibliographic sources, to record a "verification" of that publication.
First, let's assume that you have a copy of the publication itself. To verify it:
- First check to make sure you're really talking about the same edition and printing of the book. Suppose the ISFDB copy say "Tor Books, 1996, $13.95", whereas your copy says 1996 also but is priced at $14.95. Is this an error? Not necessarily -- there may have been multiple printings of this edition, with different prices (and sometimes different cover art). Checking the printing indicators at the front of the book, and see if you can tell which printing yours is. Ideally each publication would list the printing and edition info in the notes, but in most cases there are not multiple printings in a year so the year is sufficient to identify the book.
- Display the publication record. Examine all the data exactly as if you were going to enter it yourself. Are the page numbers accurate for the content? Is the cover artist correctly listed? Are the story authors listed as they appear in this publication? If anything needs to be changed, go ahead and update the ISFDB to have the correct information.
- Once you are satisfied that the information is absolutely correct, click the "Verify this Pub" link in the left navbar. This will display a list of sources, with three radio buttons next to each one. Change the "Primary" line to select the "Verified" radio button. Then click "Submit Data". This will immediately mark the record as verified; there is no moderator approval required for verifications.
If you don't have a copy of the publication, but you do have a copy of one of the bibliographic sources, you can check the information in that source against the record in the ISFDB. The details vary from source to source. For example, the Nicholls/Clute "Encyclopaedia of SF" has little beyond dates of publication and titles for many works, whereas the Tuck "Encyclopedia of SF" has much more detailed information.
- For these sources, simply check whatever data the source lists; if there are no disagreements, mark the source as verified.
These are the bibliographic references that ISFDB recognizes for verification:
Reference Description Primary The actual book or magazine Clute/Nicholls The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, 2nd edition (1993/5) Clute/Grant The Encyclopedia of Fantasy (1997); full text available in Amazon's Search Inside Contento1 (anth/coll) Index to Science Fiction Anthologies and Collections (till 1983) (web resource that can be searched using Google.) Locus1 The Locus Index to Science Fiction: 1984-2005 (web resource that can be searched using Google) Reginald1 Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, a Checklist, 1700-1974 Reginald3 Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature, 1975-1991 Tuck The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy through 1968 Contento2 (zine) Science Fiction, Fantasy, & Weird Fiction Magazine Index (1890-1998) (CD-ROM, 1999 Index online)) Bleiler1 (Gernsback) Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years: 1926 Through 1936
(Amazon's Look Inside seems to contain complete Title Index)Currey Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Non-Fiction (1979)
Verification Rules
The rows in the verification table represent bibliographic references, while the columns represent the verification state. The list of references in this table is controlled by the ISFDB moderators. The three possible verification states are:
- Not Verified - This is the default state. This means that no work has been done to verify the publication data against the specified reference.
- Verified - This state means that a comparison was done between the ISFDB data and the specified reference.
- N/A - This state means that the reference in question has no record of this publication.
While verification seems straightforward, there are some ground rules which need to be established concerning the use of N/A. These are:
- If the reference in question has no record of this particular book, then it should be marked N/A.
- If the copyright date of the publication is later than the copyright date of the reference, then that particular reference should be marked N/A. This is really just a common sense corollary of the previous rule, meaning that you're not going to find data on an author like Neal Asher (who started publishing in the 90s) in Tuck's Encyclopedia (which was published mostly in the 70s), so don't even bother looking.
- If the reference only lists first editions, and the publication in question is not a first edition, then the reference should be marked N/A. This would include secondary sources like Reginald or the Clute encyclopedias.
- Some online references continue to grow (like the Locus index). If the publication date of the book in question is later than the last update to the online reference, it should be marked Not Verified, implying that it may be done at a later date.
Additionally:
- If there are disagreements, then you should make a note in the notes field for that publication, listing the differences you have found. Generally it is not a good idea to update the record to agree with the source, though if the publication is rare and hard to find, and multiple sources agree, it may be the right choice. In addition, if it appears that the problem is a simple typographical error, there is no reason not to make the update. A true typographical error in the publication should indeed be listed on the publication record, but should always be accompanied by a note explaining the situation.
- Note that once you've made corrections, or updated the notes field, you can go ahead and mark the publication as verified against that source, even if there were disagreements in the data. "Verified" doesn't mean that the source was correct; it means that the comparison has been made and the useful bibliographic data extracted. This will avoid other editors repeating your work.