How: "the NYT terminated its review at this point? " why is that encyclopedic information? --we link to the review if anyone wants to see such details as where the NYT stopped. I can see that a mention of what scenes were in the producer's trailer might be relevant.
On 11/19/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@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. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l