On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/25/06, Garion1000 <garion1000(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or
not complete enough,
too
technical, whatever), a reader should be warned.
But when a reader looks
up
something 'obscene', he shouldn't be
surprised to see something
'obscene',
I would be very much surprised to see explicit pornography if I looked
up "hard-core pornography". We're an encyclopaedia, after all - not
normally the sort of place one expects to find porn.
I had to check out that article. It's only a stub. But actually I wouldn''t
mind an example of hardcore pornogaphy on the article on hardcore
pornography. Not a gallery or something, but just a small picture...sure. I
also don't think it's that important though. No need to update your
watchlists. :)
Seems to be a common problem that "spoiler"
is confused with "plot
summary". Consider a movie review in the paper. You'll usually get a
decent plot summary of the first two-thirds of the film. You would
never see anything like the surprise twist at the end revealed. Now, I
think we can go a little further than that, but when it comes to
revealing that twist, we should be careful to respect our readers, who
may be reading the article in order to decide whether the film is
worth seeing or not.
But wikipedia is indeed different than a review. For a review I would go to
rottentomatoes or for more info to IMDB. But for more in depth information I
would go to wikipedia. And then I would expect spoilers.
Garion