On Nov 15, 2007 6:30 PM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.11.16 01:53:04 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com scribbled 0 lines:
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.
-- geni
I think his point here is a No True Scotsman point: 'If people *really* wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back' [emphasis added].
Sure, there may be real costs to trying to restore spoilers but hey - if you let tedious-bot-reverts/edit-warring/warnings/blocks/bans deter you from adding and maintaining spoiler warnings, then you obviously didn't *really* want spoilers. As we've just established that no one actually cares about or wants spoilers, it logically follows from WP:BOLD that it's perfectly alright to do anything in furtherance of removing spoiler tags.
I believe this to be an unreasonable exaggeration of his point.