David Gerard wrote:
[[User:Ned Scott]]'s written a proposal, currently up at [[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning]] (after much hacking by others) which strikes me as sane and workable.
I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads. This suggests to me that the actual wiki opinion is not so very much in favour of spoilers everywhere. I wonder if we'll start getting email from aggrieved readers, i.e. the people spoilers are supposed to be for.
- d.
I would be surprised if we did. After all, they read Wikipedia for the *knowledge*, not the non knowledge. If they didn't want it spoiling, they would read a review site, or see the damn film (or book, song, whatever....) before reading about what happens.
Alex (Majorly)
_________________________________________________________________ Txt a lot? Get Messenger FREE on your mobile. https://livemessenger.mobile.uk.msn.com/
On 5/19/07, Alex Newman alex9891@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[[User:Ned Scott]]'s written a proposal, currently up at [[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning]] (after much hacking by others) which strikes me as sane and workable.
I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads. This suggests to me that the actual wiki opinion is not so very much in favour of spoilers everywhere. I wonder if we'll start getting email from aggrieved readers, i.e. the people spoilers are supposed to be for.
- d.
I would be surprised if we did. After all, they read Wikipedia for the *knowledge*, not the non knowledge. If they didn't want it spoiling, they would read a review site, or see the damn film (or book, song, whatever....) before reading about what happens.
Alex (Majorly)
Possibly they want an introduction to the background of the movie/book/whatever, that doesn't suck? ~~~~
On 5/19/07, Alex Newman alex9891@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
[[User:Ned Scott]]'s written a proposal, currently up at [[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning]] (after much hacking by others) which strikes me as sane and workable.
I note that I've been removing inappropriate spoilers as fast as I can and almost all have stayed that way. Whereas those reverting me have tended to be blocked for 3RR a lot, i.e. are hotheads. This suggests to me that the actual wiki opinion is not so very much in favour of spoilers everywhere. I wonder if we'll start getting email from aggrieved readers, i.e. the people spoilers are supposed to be for.
- d.
I would be surprised if we did. After all, they read Wikipedia for the *knowledge*, not the non knowledge. If they didn't want it spoiling, they would read a review site, or see the damn film (or book, song, whatever....) before reading about what happens.
Alex (Majorly)
They could also want to figure out who the cast is of a film they just heard of on Wikipedia and not even know about IMDB. Besides, I often come across film or book articles without finding out what they are until it's too late.
Mgm
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Alex Newman wrote:
After all, they read Wikipedia for the *knowledge*, not the non knowledge. If they didn't want it spoiling, they would read a review site, or see the damn film (or book, song, whatever....) before reading about what happens.
This is nonsense. People don't read Wikipedia for "the knowledge", as if the only possibilities were all knowledge or none. They may want some knowledge without wanting other knowledge; spoilers may fall in the second category.
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
This is nonsense. People don't read Wikipedia for "the knowledge", as if the only possibilities were all knowledge or none. They may want some knowledge without wanting other knowledge; spoilers may fall in the second category.
"may" here seems to include "may not". i.e., this is conjecture. Do you have any evidence for it?
(Six years, zero complaints.)
- d.
On Sun, 20 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
This is nonsense. People don't read Wikipedia for "the knowledge", as if the only possibilities were all knowledge or none. They may want some knowledge without wanting other knowledge; spoilers may fall in the second category.
"may" here seems to include "may not". i.e., this is conjecture. Do you have any evidence for it?
(Six years, zero complaints.)
I can't very well examine your complaints to rebut this in a way that is not conjecture.
On 5/20/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007, Alex Newman wrote:
After all, they read Wikipedia for the *knowledge*, not the non knowledge. If they didn't want it spoiling, they would read a review site, or see the damn film (or book, song, whatever....) before reading about what happens.
This is nonsense. People don't read Wikipedia for "the knowledge", as if the only possibilities were all knowledge or none. They may want some knowledge without wanting other knowledge; spoilers may fall in the second category.
Is it even possible to accomodate those people, though?
Answering my own question, yes, it is possible, but the current spoiler templates, as implemented, don't do anything to accomplish it.
Anthony