Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Zero wrote:
Zero wrote:
Hi, I'm George, and I'm a Wikipedia Editor, and a I'm a Wikipedia reader, too. The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what r>eaders want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler warnings are common in other online forums, and have been for a long time, and they're there for a reason. They're there because some people object to spoilers. Sometimes a majority of readers object to spoilers.
Indeed. However, I do recall the premise that wikipedia isn't a forum. That's a strawman argument. It isn't possible for wikipedia to spoil an reader because that is the point of wikipedia (to provide elaborate summeries). An encyclopedia is an device through which to provide knowledge and in this area, I paticularly, believe we excell.
It is perfectly possible to spoil a reader. Lots of people are interested in a movie without wanting to see the plot twist, or a book, etc. Voluminous ancedotal evidence from Usenet responses >>on SF topics is that if you post a spoiler without a warning, huge quantities of people who were interested enough to be looking at discussions and reviews, but hadn't gotten around to seeing/reading the material yet, object.
WP can and should provide plot summaries and related spoiler type content. Doing it with the sorts of warning flags that people expect in other electronic media is just being fair and consistent, though.
It is certainly possible to spoil a reader. Just not in an encyclopedia which thrive on the informative distribution of knowledge. People object in large numbers...? There's a great deal of articles lacking spoilers. I've seen nor heard not a peep from readers that read the encyclopedia about that.
Usenet..? Usenet isn't wikipedia. -Zero
-Zero
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.