Jeff Raymond wrote:
I think, however, this is one of those times
where we need to be cognizant
of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be completely
ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the
typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and
occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]], which
most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it
equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
I agree we should pay attention to that possibility, but I think a lot
of it could be done in a subtler way. In articles on specific works,
simply collecting the spoilerish content under a heading such as Plot
Summary ought to provide sufficient warning that plot information will
be given away in that section. Other than that, just being a bit
careful about gratuitously spoiling endings could remove a lot of the
trouble---if a work relies heavily on a twist ending, then maybe mention
that it relies heavily on a twist ending in the intro, but don't mention
what the twist *is* until the Plot Summary section.
-Mark
_______________________________________________
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
Unless the twist is precisely what makes the work important. In which
case it is clearly one of the most important pieces of information and
belongs in the lead.