On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, David Goodman wrote:
That is saying we should report whatever a
reviewer says, rather than
whatever of it is encyclopedic. If 5 reviewers put spoilers in 5
different places, do we include all of them?
Only if we're quoting the reviewers' entire reviews. Since our article is
probably not going to be exactly like each reviewer's article, even in
structure (let alone in actual words), we need not put spoiler warnings in
the exact same places, if "the exact same places" is even meaningful
considering that it's a review and not an encyclopedia article.
An interesting theory that they would have to be exactly the same. One not
backed up, in any way, by the core policies of the wikipedia however.
Ultimately, disagreements among sufficiently knowledgeable people come about
due to lack of shared values. If you don't agree with the core values of the
wikipedia, why are you here?
If a notable reviewer writing in a reliable source points to some set of
information in their piece and labels it 'spoiler' and that information is
also contained in the wikipedia then that information verifiably and notably
is. Under the core values it is not wrong to tag or otherwise label that
information as such in the wikipedia.
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.