On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:53 AM, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing
spoiler warnings from
nursery
rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler
warning
removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot
summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I don't think anyone is defending the spoiler warnings ahead of plot
summaries
either. However, given that, I'm having trouble thinking of what
sort of
spoiler uses the defenders are still in favor of. Examples might be
helpful.
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by
advocates of spoiler warnings:
1) Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
2) Recoding Wikipedia to have spoiler tags that can be hidden or shown
via user preference (as opposed to via an ugly monobook setting,
presumably)
3) Polling about spoiler warnings in the site notice.
4) Returning to the use of handmade spoiler tags because the TfD
result is obviously a consensus to do it that way, and anyway then
people can't find them via "what links here"
5) Including spoiler warnings whenever a reviewer can be found who
uses a spoiler warning because then it's sourced information and it
can't be removed
When I describe the utter repetitive frustration of dealing with this
for six months, I am not exaggerating. Policy formation should not be
that tortuous.
-Phil