On Nov 15, 2007 5:53 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We
have a
"last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
I am not restrained from action due to any fear to myself of what might happen.
I have to date classified this (I believe) wrong action as insignificant enough that I am not willing to put time and effort into overturning it. I have no doubt that I could change that and act effectively and reasonably without my being banned, yelled at overly badly, brought up for Arbitration, etc, though it's likely someone somewhere would call me silly names on ANI.
I've made a value judgement that spoiler warnings being in Wikipedia is, to me, less valuable than the other things I am continuing to put effort in to. So far, to date.
I have also made a value judgement that avoiding the appearance of a false consensus on this issue IS important to me, so I'm speaking my mind here.
I hope that the implication that people are in fear over this issue is wrong. If it is in fact true and well founded, with threats that can be pointed to in diffs, then I think we legitimately have a problem here.
I have not yet seen any evidence of that and assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.