the removal was not to say that spoilers should never be included, it was that spoilers should be expected in sections named "Plot" and were redundant. Removing spoilers would violate wikipedia is not censored.
On Nov 19, 2007 10:07 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@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@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l