[WikiEN-l] Actual data on spoiler warning uses by the public

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com>:

> On 17/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Instead of accusations from the pro-spoiler side it would be
>> > interesting to hear
>> > from the anti-spoiler side. David or Guy would either of you object to
>> > this sort
>> > of compromise?
>>
>>
>> I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In
>> addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.
>
> Original research is *always* going to be in wikipedia. This is the
> most minor degree of original research I can imagine.

Institutionalizing OR is not a good idea at all.

> Every article
> has generalisations based on sources, which are original research if
> you extend the definition to include determining which parts of a
> fiction related article are spoilers.

Er no. Please read [[WP:OR]]. Deciding that something is somehow a 
spoiler when
no one else has noted is original research in a way that using sources is not.
If people are making generalizations beyond sources then they are engaging in
unacceptable original research.