Ken when you read one paragraph from a source, and then summarize it, you are making a decision as an editor of exactly how to summarize the source aren't you? So in the same way, when you read a book, and represent it in two paragraphs in an article on "Chicago" or whatever, you are choosing what to include, exclude, how to whittle it down to a sparse representation of that source.
You are making these decisions, and they are part-and-parcel of "editing" they are not "original research" because you are not *creating* new "statements-of-fact". Instead you are summarizing other people's statements into a much smaller space.
That isn't the same thing is it? It would only be the same, if your summary *does not actually represent* the source.
Will Johnson
**************New MapQuest Local shows what's happening at your destination. Dining, Movies, Events, News & more. Try it out! (http://local.mapquest.com/?ncid=emlcntnew00000001)
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are making these decisions, and they are part-and-parcel of "editing" they are not "original research" because you are not *creating* new "statements-of-fact". Instead you are summarizing other people's statements into a much smaller space.
I'm well aware that they're not original research; however, I don't consider a spoiler warning to be original research either. I'm more wondering if anyone thinks that spoiler warnings are original research but other types of editing-based comments aren't, and if so, how this can be justified.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are making these decisions, and they are part-and-parcel of "editing" they are not "original research" because you are not *creating* new "statements-of-fact". Instead you are summarizing other people's statements into a much smaller space.
I'm well aware that they're not original research; however, I don't consider a spoiler warning to be original research either. I'm more wondering if anyone thinks that spoiler warnings are original research but other types of editing-based comments aren't, and if so, how this can be justified.
Look, here's the real issue.
Spoiler warnings are immature and idiotic, and make us look like a Power Rangers fansite. They are wholly extraneous to our primary purpose. They help nobody, and make us look like a joke.
NPOV warnings are not.
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better. Other issues came up in the debate, but in the end, spoiler warnings were deprecated because they were stupid, and that is the main reason why everyone who wanted them gone wanted them gone.
-Phil
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
-Phil
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
-Phil
So does having edit histories with names like snowspinner in them.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:26 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
-Phil
So does having edit histories with names like snowspinner in them.
Ah, Geni. You've yet to find a WikiEn thread you can't lower the discourse of.
-Phil
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 6:26 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:54 PM, geni wrote:
2008/10/7 Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better.
Unproven. Spoiler warnings had the advantage that people actually put in some spoilers.
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
-Phil
So does having edit histories with names like snowspinner in them.
Ah, Geni. You've yet to find a WikiEn thread you can't lower the discourse of.
-Phil
It is widely accepted that many of the names in wikipedia history pages look ah less then professional. If we were to accept your argument against spoiler warnings as valid we would require some serious modification of the pages (creating some interesting copyright issues).
Far less effort to accept it lacks validity and wait for better arguments to come along. Personally I would suggest an argument based around the [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]] guideline and [[WP:NOR]] a bit rule lawyer but at least consistent with wider wikipedia practices.
You could also try and win some appearing constructive points by suggesting a tag along the lines of "this articles fails to include important plot points commonly known as spoilers.If you have adequate sources please add them" although that would probably further damage the "it makes us look silly" argument.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 7:07 PM, geni wrote:
Ah, Geni. You've yet to find a WikiEn thread you can't lower the discourse of.
-Phil
It is widely accepted that many of the names in wikipedia history pages look ah less then professional. If we were to accept your argument against spoiler warnings as valid we would require some serious modification of the pages (creating some interesting copyright issues).
It was still an idiotic and offensive point to make against someone who changed his username to his real name to bolster accountability.
Far less effort to accept it lacks validity and wait for better arguments to come along. Personally I would suggest an argument based around the [[Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles]] guideline and [[WP:NOR]] a bit rule lawyer but at least consistent with wider wikipedia practices.
There were multiple arguments - NOR, no disclaimers, and the damage they did to organization of articles. But the heart of the issue - the thing that was underlying the whole discussion is that people were seeing spoiler warnings on Romeo and Juliet, and their brains were exploding.
You could also try and win some appearing constructive points by suggesting a tag along the lines of "this articles fails to include important plot points commonly known as spoilers.If you have adequate sources please add them" although that would probably further damage the "it makes us look silly" argument.
Well, and more to the point, that's flying into the face of trouble given the zeal with which people like TTN are trying to scour fiction articles and plot summaries from the project. If anything the anti- spoiler position is a pleasant nostalgia trip compared to the assault on fiction that we're in now.
-Phil
On 10/7/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Well, and more to the point, that's flying into the face of trouble given the zeal with which people like TTN are trying to scour fiction articles and plot summaries from the project.
Yes, I would have expected the immediate resumption of the same behavior that earned him a six-month topic ban to a text-book example of "exhausting the community's patience".
If anything the anti-spoiler position is a pleasant nostalgia trip compared to the assault on fiction that we're in now.
Agreed, not even in the same ball-park.
—C.W.
On Oct 7, 2008, at 8:21 PM, Charlotte Webb wrote:
On 10/7/08, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Well, and more to the point, that's flying into the face of trouble given the zeal with which people like TTN are trying to scour fiction articles and plot summaries from the project.
Yes, I would have expected the immediate resumption of the same behavior that earned him a six-month topic ban to a text-book example of "exhausting the community's patience".
Though to be fair, has anyone asked the arbcom yet?
-Phil
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Though to be fair, has anyone asked the arbcom yet?
IMO (speaking personally, not for the committee as a whole) the AC is unlikely to take it. We don't do well with cases that involve much other than personal conduct; if TTN follows established deletion methods, like he appears to be currently doing, it's hard to bring a conduct case against him.
IOW it's outside the AC's rather narrow remit and would consist of rewriting deletion policy, which we haven't been given the authority to do.
Personally, I want to rewrite our deletion policy with a chainsaw, but that's beside the point.
-Matt
On Oct 8, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Matthew Brown wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Though to be fair, has anyone asked the arbcom yet?
IMO (speaking personally, not for the committee as a whole) the AC is unlikely to take it. We don't do well with cases that involve much other than personal conduct; if TTN follows established deletion methods, like he appears to be currently doing, it's hard to bring a conduct case against him.
Presumably, for a twice-sanctioned user, failing to demonstrate that he is "working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community," which is what he was previously sanctioned for not doing, would suffice, no?
I mean, it's not like you haven't sanctioned him previously for this behavior.
-Phil
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Charlotte Webb wrote:
Well, and more to the point, that's flying into the face of trouble given the zeal with which people like TTN are trying to scour fiction articles and plot summaries from the project.
Yes, I would have expected the immediate resumption of the same behavior that earned him a six-month topic ban to a text-book example of "exhausting the community's patience".
Spoiler warnings and fiction articles have one thing in common: It's much easier to delete them than to add them.
This was the real reason that all the spoiler warnings were able to get deleted... and it's also why complaining about the deletion of fiction articles is going to be useless. You made your bed; now lie in it.
(And by the way, I haven't been really following this. I assume this fiction article and plot summary controversy is the same as the episodes and characters controversy from a little while ago? I did notice that Tetsusaiga had been removed, which is rather ironic. One rule misuse cancelling out another.)
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Philip Sandifer wrote:
There were multiple arguments - NOR, no disclaimers, and the damage they did to organization of articles. But the heart of the issue - the thing that was underlying the whole discussion is that people were seeing spoiler warnings on Romeo and Juliet, and their brains were exploding.
Of course, if that really bugged people, the correct solution was to take the spoiler warnings off of Romeo and Juliet. Not to take advantage of the fact that given the ability to search for templates, it's much easier to delete thousands of spoiler warnings than add them.
Phil wrote:
They also organized articles around hiding spoilers. But more importantly, spoiler warnings just looked stupid. In a fundamental sense, they looked non-serious.
[I really, really don't want to beat this dead horse. No matter how much I agree with Ken that spoiler warnings should have stayed, I also agree with you, Phil, that he should get over it. But:]
Spoiler warnings looked non-serious TO SOME PEOPLE. In a fundamental sense, it was a POV issue. Some of us (though, obviously, not the majority) thought that (a) they looked perfectly fine and (b) WP:NOT a stodgy traditional encyclopedia and absolutely shouldn't worry about trying to look like one.
[But in the stated interest of not beating this dead horse, I do hereby solemnly promise not to reply publicly to anyone who responds to this post to point out how wrong they think I am for stubbornly clinging to a fondness for spoiler warnings.]