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?
On 11/19/07, Ian Woollard <ian.woollard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Seems to me removal of the spoilers was non consensus
and is a
position only being maintained by technical difficulties of reverting
and threats. This is so not good.
My position is that spoilers *should* be included if identification of
information as a spoiler is verifiable to a notable and reliable
source.
The removal was performed in such a way as to indicate that spoilers
should not ever be included; and that position is at odds with the
fundamental core principles of the wikipedia.
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd
get punished for edit warring,
and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest
of
endurance.
I'll add that doing this would have to be preceded by reverting the spoiler
warning template and any relevant policies. Trying to do that would result
in an edit war in which the spoiler opponents would be considered innocent
and
the spoiler proponents would be considered guilty, on the grounds that
status
quo protects the current version and that a consensus is necessary to change
it.
_______________________________________________
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
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.
_______________________________________________
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