Quoting Peter Ansell ansell.peter@gmail.com:
On 17/12/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Instead of accusations from the pro-spoiler side it would be interesting to hear from the anti-spoiler side. David or Guy would either of you object to this sort of compromise?
I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.
Original research is *always* going to be in wikipedia. This is the most minor degree of original research I can imagine.
Institutionalizing OR is not a good idea at all.
Every article has generalisations based on sources, which are original research if you extend the definition to include determining which parts of a fiction related article are spoilers.
Er no. Please read [[WP:OR]]. Deciding that something is somehow a spoiler when no one else has noted is original research in a way that using sources is not. If people are making generalizations beyond sources then they are engaging in unacceptable original research.