On 5/15/07, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Delirium wrote:
Jeff Raymond wrote:
I think, however, this is one of those times where we need to be
cognizant
of our audience and how we're used. I don't think we should be
completely
ignorant of the fact that we're a quick reference tool, and that the typical way some people use Wikipedia lends itself to bizarre links and occasional missteps.
Yes, it's kind of dumb to put a spoiler in [[The Christmas Carol]],
which
most English-reading audiences would know the ending of. But is it equally as dumb for [[The Book Thief]]?
I agree we should pay attention to that possibility, but I think a lot of it could be done in a subtler way. In articles on specific works, simply collecting the spoilerish content under a heading such as Plot Summary ought to provide sufficient warning that plot information will be given away in that section. Other than that, just being a bit careful about gratuitously spoiling endings could remove a lot of the trouble---if a work relies heavily on a twist ending, then maybe mention that it relies heavily on a twist ending in the intro, but don't mention what the twist *is* until the Plot Summary section.
-Mark
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Unless the twist is precisely what makes the work important. In which case it is clearly one of the most important pieces of information and belongs in the lead.
Of course. The film you mentioned is an example of where the ending belongs in the lead. But I think we could safely write about Star Wars without revealing Vader is Skywalker's father in the lead.
Mgm