Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/16/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I have asked the user to explain how their edit improves the encyclopedia. I can't wait to hear the answer.
I as well.
I have noticed a behaviour in which when a false 'consensus' has emerged in a corner of Wikipedia's policy and guidelines, some users believe that this false consensus gives them license to ignore proof that that consensus self-evidently does not exist.
This has clearly happened here: a subset of Wikipedia editors has created a false consensus in a corner of Wikipedia's guidelines to the effect that spoiler warnings are mandatory. This kind of false consensus can happen easily, because most Wikipedia editors neither read nor edit guideline pages on a regular basis. Only those with a specific issue to push tend to pay them that much attention. Thus, a 'consensus' can emerge (all five editors actually noticing the proposed change vote in favor). If the change sticks - if nobody who cares enough notices and fights it - then editors coming across the wording for the first time assume that a strong consensus must exist to support the wording and begin blindly following it, assuming it to be the Wikipedia Way.
This is encouraged by the heading on most guideline pages saying that the content is supported by strong consensus - even though the guideline pages are not protected and therefore there is no guarantee of that whatsoever.
Those who have blindly bought into that false consensus are often quite jarred when they find out that there is opposition to it, as is shown here. That our spoiler guideline appears to be strongly opposed by a large number of long-time editors shows that its current form and practise sneaked in without being noticed.
I strongly doubt that anything remotely resembling consensus exists for the extreme interpretation of the spoilers guideline (that spoiler warnings should always be used). Thus edit-warring to keep spoiler warnings in place is seriously misguided if it is being done strictly in defense of the guideline in question.
I suspect that when the dust settles we will find a position emerges that has widespread support - I imagine one that neither blanket-endorses nor blanket-condemns spoiler warnings. Thus, in the interim, editors should address the specific concerns of the article if the addition or removal of a spoiler warning concerns them.
-Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Absolutely. This is the problem with so many of our stylistic policies - few people care until the small clique that develops them starts enforcing conformity across swathes of articles. When people who are actually working on the article complain - they are told it is policy - and directed to the policy page - if they want to change it they must go there. When they do, the clique quickly rejects them. The same pattern is happening with infobox mania and with bloated Wikiprojects where a small group, often of non-writers, decides that all articles in 'their' field will conform to their rules.
The solution is: 1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to contribute to, to enforce some style. 2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the encyclopedia. At the moment all we have is the blunt weapon of MfD for the community to say "Hell, no" to a small section of organised editors.