On 16/12/2007, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 8:18 PM, Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
See http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6424&p=147306#p147306
In retrospect I'm not sure why no one did this before. The sample isn't exactly representative (since it is xkcd fora). But one interesting thing seems clear; the public prefers spoiler warnings on Wikipedia and uses them.
Well... thirty people on an internet forum prefer spoiler warnings and use them. I'm not entirely sure we can generalise from that to "the public" with any degree of confidence.
That's true. The sample size is very small. But considering that one argument made in favor of spoiler removal was that the spoiler-removal was favored by the public this preliminary data doesn't seem to back that up at all and if anything shows the other direction.
Is there anyway to avoid having always visible spoiler warnings, while allowing users who care about such things to either set a preference to collapse spoiler sections or to be able to set a user.css or user.js function to hide those sections?
There does seem to be a few compromise positions available.
Yes, there is. I was one of the few (perhaps the only one) advocating them at the time of the debate on spoiler warnings. For some reason it's a compromise palatable to neither side. I guess that's why they call it a compromise.
user.css:
.wikiSpoilerStart, .wikiSpoilerEnd { display: block; }
That is about the long and short of a clean solution for those who care as far as I see it.
Peter