Yeah, IMDB relies on people finding and submitting information.
Also, I'm not entirely sure they are actually checking information nowadays. Classic example: the fact 3 different actresses have been listed for Wonder Woman.
'Same Time, Same Place'
[NAFDA] "There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer." From Zorro to Angel (including Wonderfalls, The Inside and Drive), this is where Buffistas come to anoint themselves in the bloodbath.
Yeah, IMDB relies on people finding and submitting information.
Also, I'm not entirely sure they are actually checking information nowadays. Classic example: the fact 3 different actresses have been listed for Wonder Woman.
I had to submit an entire TV Movie just to list a credit for a friend, and they required a laborious amount of information. But once the shows/movies are created, there's much less of a barrier for me to assign credits--I wonder what they'd even check that against.
Just looking, Wikipedia'ing Joss Whedon shows pretty accurate information. Meanwhile, going to WhedonWiki.com from Whedonesque is full of inaccuracies.
I'm clearly bored.
Since both tend to be user-driven information sources, I'd tend to put more faith in the site whose users are accustomed to researching in encyclopedias than the one with message boards full of flamewars about whether or not a given celebrity is HAWT.
"She looks like..."
"Wonder Woman!"
Joss' Wikipedia entry has his address on it. Dear god.
Home or email?
Home, of course.
Every so often somebody sends mail to the Goners site addressed to Joss. Some of it worries me, although most is kind hearted.
I skimmed and then I realized I just didn't care.
Another funny. I'm watching Hell's Kitchen (FOX). It drove me to Wikipedia.