Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
In How to Cite TV Tropes, it outright says not to use TV Tropes as an academic source unless writing about TV Tropes itself.
Edited by mightymewtron I do some cleanup and then I enjoy shows you probably think are cringe.Funny thing is, I had a teacher in high-school that actually let me use TVT for a paper. It was hilarious.
We're not a legit source by any means, but people will do it if they're allowed to.
Edited by WarJay77 Working on: Author Appeal | Sandbox | Troper WallThis is a wiki, therefore it will NEVER be a reputable source (at least as far as academia is concerned). Wikis cannot be reputable sources, because, as OP pointed out, it's too easy to add false information to one.
We remove incorrect information when we find it. Short of adding a citation system or restricting all editing privileges to a select few "trustworthy" tropers, that's all we can do. And I think if this site did either of the above, it would be hammering nails into its own coffin.
Yeah, honestly I love this site but people should NOT be viewing it as a reputable source of factual information (it just isnt equipped for that, it's not the priority.) Imo it sounds like a good thing that it has a reputation for getting things wrong occasionally, so people will maybe remember to take things with a grain of salt and fact check.
Edited by OctoyaI think it's a matter of having the right expectations.
People expect Wikipedia to have only the facts and be 100% factually correct. That's the wrong expectation for Wikipedia. The correct expectation is for basic general knowledge to be 99% correct. Everything else is a mixture of things that are correct but poorly explained, misunderstandings, pranks and lies.
People expect TV Tropes to have analyses of TV shows and movies, analyses that they might mostly agree with, and the occasional humor or attempt at humor. That might be the correct expectation for TV Tropes.
Obscure shows are a concern, but maybe fanfics should be more of a concern. I hardly ever read fanfics, and I find the vast majority of them dreadfully boring, even for shows I like.
If I told you there was an NCIS fanfic about a woman in the Navy who murders a fellow officer because he was allegedly messing up her Wikipedia page, you wouldn't believe it, unless I provided a link: https://www.ncisfiction.com/viewstory.php?sid=4607&chapter=1
In the fanfic, Wikipedia's Arb Com has been infiltrated by al-Qaeda. They're probably so full of themselves at Wikipedia they probably worry about that sort of thing happening. We're not that full of ourselves here, right?
The fanfic is obscure, but then so are most fanfics. If it wasn't mentioned on the Wikipediocracy forum, I probably would have never heard about it.
I've said many times in the past is that despite what some contributors often think, TV Tropes and its community are not authorities on any subject written within its content — not even the content it is most known for: tropes.
But even then, all of us here are pretty much amateurs at best. We aren't connoiseurs of a wide variety of media. We aren't highly-educated and accredited analysts of media and social interaction. That's one of the issues that commonly appears whenever a discussion is held over "examples" of tropes or even tropes themselves. "Is this an example of Scary Black Man?" "Is that the best definition of a Damsel in Distress?" We don't determine whether or not something is an example or a trope, or in fact is or isn't a trope, based on objective, researched criteria. We do it based on what is easiest for the site to manage.
I've also encountered a lot of the criticism of TV Tropes as a poor source of information, most of it have to do on ignorance on how this wiki works.
For example, they complain of that there's no mention to a negative reaction on the page of a work, when those in reality those belong to the YMMV sub-pages. Or they complain that the wiki actively suppresses any negative fact or opinion.
EDIT: They also accuse the site of being un-moderated which is objectively false.
Edited by matruzOne thing I've wondered about when it comes to citing TVT as a source for something is referencing terminology that originated here, as whether people like it or not, trope names often just become useful vernacular descriptors for the narrative pattern in question.
Edited by BaffleBlend "It's liberating, realizing you never need to be competent." — UltimatepheerWell, this is a wiki after all. A wiki isn't exactly the best place to gather info.
In my very specific case, I was about to finish collegue, so I kinda grew attached to always have sources, so I tend to add the source sometimes so anyone can check it out personally (when I created A Northern Light I added a link to Wikipedia about a murder case that was relevante for the book).
Edited by Braylovsky Yo soy el futuro / I am the future.In that case it would be better to cite what Wikipedia cites. After all, Wikipedia apologists often say that Wikipedia is just a starting point. The worst thing that can happen to an archived news story is that it gets put behind a paywall. I for one find that preferable to vouching for a page that will change in ways I can't anticipate or endorse.
Another idea: cite a specific revision of a Wikipedia page. But I don't trust those people not to falsify that record though...
made sure to add the negative opinions, as long as is written neutrally.
To win, you need to adapt, and to adapt, you need to be able to laugh away all the restraints. Everything holding you back.

I've recently seen some folks around other sites criticizing TV Tropes as a poor source of information (in the same way Wikipedia is frequently called as an unreliable source by people). In fact, I myself have been accused of adding false/erroneous information to the site (and I know for a fact that I've made my share of mistakes before - and fixed them).
Regardless, of it got me thinking. Since TV Tropes is a Wiki (and thus considered a reputable source of information by certain people), how do we control the veracity of information added to this site in edits, especially regarding obscure shows and behind-the-scenes info? And SHOULD we monitor this kind of stuff?
In theory, somebody could add false (or even damaging) info to a page for an obscure TV show with little traffic (or to a similarly little-visited page for Useful Notes or something similar), and it could remain there for years if nobody knows enough to verify the info. Heck, a person could probably even make a page for a show that doesn't exist and claim it's lost media, or even add an example that never actually occurred in the slightest.
I'm not saying we need to add a citations system or anything, but I am wondering if there is something that can be done about people trying to add false/damaging information (other than some editor randomly stumbles on it anywhere between a few days to a few years after it got added and removes it), especially since doing so could be beneficial to the reputation and integrity of this site.
I've browsed TV Tropes for years, and the site's become a lot more formal over that time, so maybe improving ourselves as a reputable source is the next step? Misinformation is a seriously problem on the Internet, after all.