Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
I have asked the user to explain how their edit
improves the
encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
I as well.
I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has
emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users
believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof
that that consensus self-evidently does not exist.
This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has
created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the
effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false
consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither
read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a
specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a
'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the
proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who
cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the
wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist
to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to
be the Wikipedia Way.
This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that
the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the
guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee
of that whatsoever.
Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often
quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is
shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed
by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and
practise sneaked in without being noticed.
I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists
for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler
warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler
warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly
in defense of the guideline in question.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges
that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither
blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the
interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article
if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them.
-Matt
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely. This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies -
few people care until the small clique that develops them starts
enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are
actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy -
and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go
there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern
is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a
small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their'
field will conform to their rules.
The solution is:
1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to
contribute to, to enforce some style.
2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a
small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the
encyclopedia. At the moment all we have is the blunt weapon of MfD for
the community to say "Hell, no" to a small section of organised editors.