Shared publicly  - 
 
there's a interesting phenomenon. imdb.com used to be the granddaddy of movie review/rating site. (it originated in 1980s from newsgroups, later somehow acquired my amazon) Wikipedia article on movies used to refer to it for ratings. But since few years ago, it started to also use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. Today, it doesn't even mention imdb's rating at all.

For example, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games:_Catching_Fire#Critical_response

i am not familiar with Rotten Tomatoes nor Metacritic. Does anyone know why Wikipedia started to use them and not even include imdb? (preferably, if anyone can point to a policy page on this, or a discussion)

#wikipedia   #movie  
1
johnanth's profile photoXah Lee's profile photo
3 comments
 
I am a "Wikipedian" with over 1000 edits to my name. I'm not aware of an official policy (WikiProject FIlm probably knows), but at least in the case of the Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the answer is in front of you!

Notably, it says Critical response. Not audience response. IMDb holds only user ratings, whereas Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes base their scores only on the reviews of critics, though Rotten Tomatoes does allow for users to review films.

They have a small but significant difference. Rotten Tomatoes simply counts the percentage of critics that gave a positive review, whereas Metacritic takes their numberical scores and averages them out of 100.
Also see: http://mrphilroth.com/2013/06/13/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-rotten-tomatoes/

Nevertheless, the benchmark for both of these sites is for professional movie critics only. IMDb ratings, especially for films with just 100 or so ratings, are bound to be more unreliable and less-well thought out.
Xah Lee
 
+johnanth that article is funny, it shows his wife beat him, and without needing to know complicated math or programing :D
nice article, thank for finding it.
Add a comment...