The current stage of the Great Spoiler Shift is a rough guideline on [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] and discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer has asked one very apposite question: Where is the evidence our readers even care? None has been presented
(As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I get people calling and complaining about their *login not working* (wtf) as well as every *other* content issue under the sun. I have *never* had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture.)
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
- d.
d. wrote:
(As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I get people calling and complaining about their *login not working* (wtf) as well as every *other* content issue under the sun. I have *never* had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture.)
That's a good point, but it's not the sort of thing I can imagine people complaining about. (And in any case: we *do* generally have the warnings! "See how good it works?" This isn't a case of elephants in cherry trees.)
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
On May 19, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
That's a good point, but it's not the sort of thing I can imagine people complaining about. (And in any case: we *do* generally have the warnings! "See how good it works?" This isn't a case of elephants in cherry trees.)
Nah. We only ever had spoiler tags on 45,000 articles. Trivia sections and fictional subjects make up far more than 2.5% of our articles.
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
I would have thought this, except everybody's arguments for spoiler warnings have been remarkably phrased in terms of hypothetical readers. Nobody has said "Actually, I would be surprised to find a spoiler in a section on the plot" or "Actually, this spoiler in this article ruined Buffy's finale for me." I do find this telling.
-Phil
Phil Sandifer wrote:
I would have thought this, except everybody's arguments for spoiler warnings have been remarkably phrased in terms of hypothetical readers. Nobody has said "Actually, I would be surprised to find a spoiler in a section on the plot" or "Actually, this spoiler in this article ruined Buffy's finale for me." I do find this telling.
How could the spoiler in the article ruin buffy's finale if I was notified of it?
Just saying. I'll be refraining from doing a lot of book and movie articles with this change that I might have been willing to touch beforehand.
But I know that "Jeff Raymond likes tags" isn't any more of a reason than "Phil Sandifer dislikes tags," and I'm mighty disenfranchised by the wholesale removal of them at this point anyway, so...
-Jeff
On 20/05/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Just saying. I'll be refraining from doing a lot of book and movie articles with this change that I might have been willing to touch beforehand. But I know that "Jeff Raymond likes tags" isn't any more of a reason than "Phil Sandifer dislikes tags," and I'm mighty disenfranchised by the wholesale removal of them at this point anyway, so...
Er ... The more I think about your message, the less sense it makes.
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia.
- d.
On Sun, 20 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Er ... The more I think about your message, the less sense it makes.
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia.
First of all, not every plot element is a spoiler.
Second, not every plot element appears in a "plot summary" section.
Third, there's a user interface consistency argument to be made for plot summaries. I made an analogy on the discussion page: If you look at a calendar, it has columns for Monday and Tuesday. But everyone knows that Tuesday comes after Monday. If you only want to avoid redundancy, you should remove the Tuesday.
But if you want the user to be able to always find a day of the week by looking at the top of the column, rather than by looking at the top of the column and then making a couple of deductions if the top isn't there, you label every column even though some of them don't really provide any information. Putting spoiler warnings in all types of sections that contain spoilers--even if the user could figure out that some of them have spoilers anyway-- simplifies the user interface.
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler. If I turn to an article on a World Series game just concluded, I will see the result because some enthusiastic editor/fan has just put it there, even if I have it recorded the game for my later consumption and delight, and merely turned to the article to get the lineup.
Cliff's Notes, texts on Shakespeare, even reviews of current films and novels, all contain plot details, with never a spoiler warning in sight. Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so as not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
On my own head be it if I look up a film and find out that the butler did it, or that Hamlet dies in the final scene.
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups, many participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the point) a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they might read many others from the same source.
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot details freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing an encyclopaedia for cretins?
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler. If I turn to an article on a World Series game just concluded, I will see the result because some enthusiastic editor/fan has just put it there, even if I have it recorded the game for my later consumption and delight, and merely turned to the article to get the lineup.
Cliff's Notes, texts on Shakespeare, even reviews of current films and novels, all contain plot details, with never a spoiler warning in sight. Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so as not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
On my own head be it if I look up a film and find out that the butler did it, or that Hamlet dies in the final scene.
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups, many participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the point) a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they might read many others from the same source.
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot details freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing an encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
That's not the point. We still have the spoiler information. We just provide a convienient template (which you can hide) so that the reader can be warned. It is a minor service provide. If it seriously sacrifices the integrity of the article (as is apparently the case in [[The Crying Game]],) we can choose to omit it, or provide a warning for the entire article. I would not be against editing of the guidelines to reflect this, but don't simply discard them entirely. ~~~~
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an
encyclopedia.
The whole thing is a spoiler. If I turn to an article on a World Series game just concluded, I will see the result because some enthusiastic editor/fan has just put it there, even if I have it recorded the game
for my
later consumption and delight, and merely turned to the article to get
the
lineup.
Cliff's Notes, texts on Shakespeare, even reviews of current films and novels, all contain plot details, with never a spoiler warning in sight. Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so
as
not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
On my own head be it if I look up a film and find out that the butler
did
it, or that Hamlet dies in the final scene.
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups,
many
participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the
point)
a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they
might
read many others from the same source.
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot
details
freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing
an
encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
That's not the point. We still have the spoiler information. We just provide a convienient template (which you can hide) so that the reader can be warned. It is a minor service provide. If it seriously sacrifices the integrity of the article (as is apparently the case in [[The Crying Game]],) we can choose to omit it, or provide a warning for the entire article. I would not be against editing of the guidelines to reflect this, but don't simply discard them entirely.
The problem, as I and others have raised, is that defining a spoiler is extremely difficult to do without violating [[WP:NOR]]. How do we know what a spoiler is? You may just know it, but your subjective judgment will obviously differ from others, and without a source we can turn to, there's no way we can agree on what a spoiler is.
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole sections of articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone feels that X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was Phil Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the whole encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of information could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
Johnleemk
On 5/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole sections of articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone feels that X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was Phil Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the whole encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of information could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole sections of articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone feels that X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was Phil Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the whole encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of information could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
-- Peter in Canberra
*sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the top. ~~~~
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole
sections of
articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone feels
that
X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was Phil Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the
whole
encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of
information
could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
-- Peter in Canberra
*sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the top.
"WARNING: May contain information."
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole
sections of
articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone feels
that
X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was Phil Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the
whole
encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of
information
could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
-- Peter in Canberra
*sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the top.
"WARNING: May contain information."
-- Peter in Canberra
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The result is that in many cases, spoiler tags encompass whole
sections of
articles, even if not really necessary, simply because someone
feels
that
X is a spoiler and should be covered. As someone (I think it was
Phil
Sandifer?) pointed out, in such a case, we might as well mark the
whole
encyclopaedia with spoiler tags because virtually every bit of
information
could be an unwanted surprise to someone.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that infomonging is going on in here!
-- Peter in Canberra
*sigh* No one is suggesting eliminating, or even hiding (as in invisibility), the spoilers. We just want a little template at the top.
"WARNING: May contain information."
-- Peter in Canberra
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose?
Please refer back to my earlier email about the difficulty of defining spoilers. If you don't want information about the entire movie, then don't refer to an article which *gasp* has information about the whole thing.
Johnleemk
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
Don't read the ==Plot summary== section.
I notice that IMDb doesn't have spoiler notices. I was there the other day looking up details of The History Boys, which I thoroughly recommend to all as a witty, philosophical, fun movie.
--Pete in Canberra
Gabe Johnson wrote:
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of
the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
So then, what does the section heading, "Plot summary" (or something like it) mean to you?
Ec
G'day Gabe,
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
You can get all that from IMDb, without the risk of your eye accidentally picking up information you don't want.
I wouldn't look at Wikipedia if I wanted to avoid a spoiler, whether there was a spoiler warning or not. The warning is not effective. It doesn't assist those who you think will want it, and it serves only to annoy those who don't want it.
On 5/22/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Gabe,
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
You can get all that from IMDb, without the risk of your eye accidentally picking up information you don't want.
But Wikipedia does "not suck".
I wouldn't look at Wikipedia if I wanted to avoid a spoiler, whether there was a spoiler warning or not. The warning is not effective. It doesn't assist those who you think will want it, and it serves only to annoy those who don't want it.
It has helped me a few times. ~~~~
-- Mark Gallagher
On 5/21/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
In your case, you need a review, not an encyclopedia article. Reviews are designed to give the information you need and not the information you don't want.
Encyclopedia articles are not intended to replace reviews and should not be used as such.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/21/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
OK, here's when they will be useful. I want to know the background of the Movie X before I go out to see it. You know, the actors, filming locations, etc. But not the plot. Do I not deserve to know what will spoil my fun, even when there is a perfectly functioning and unobtrusive system established for that purpose? ~~~~
In your case, you need a review, not an encyclopedia article. Reviews are designed to give the information you need and not the information you don't want.
Encyclopedia articles are not intended to replace reviews and should not be used as such.
-Matt
Indeed. This is the crucial distinction.
-Rich
On 5/21/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
The problem, as I and others have raised, is that defining a spoiler is extremely difficult to do without violating [[WP:NOR]]. How do we know what a spoiler is? You may just know it, but your subjective judgment will obviously differ from others, and without a source we can turn to, there's no way we can agree on what a spoiler is.
Oh, come on. That argument assumes we're mostly mindless idiots, or that we don't share any common language or culture. In most cases it's obvious whether something is a spoiler or not.
Part of "Assume Good Faith" is to assume your fellow editors are humans.
On Tue, 22 May 2007, John Lee wrote:
The problem, as I and others have raised, is that defining a spoiler is extremely difficult to do without violating [[WP:NOR]]. How do we know what a spoiler is?
I'll say it again: meta decisions--about article content--are not subject to NOR.
On 5/23/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2007, John Lee wrote:
The problem, as I and others have raised, is that defining a spoiler is extremely difficult to do without violating [[WP:NOR]]. How do we know
what
a spoiler is?
I'll say it again: meta decisions--about article content--are not subject to NOR.
I've already explained before why this is not your garden variety editorial judgment. As I said, how the heck do we draw a line at what constitutes an inappropriate surprise to readers and what does not? We *need* some point of reference for this, or it all breaks down.
Johnleemk
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot
details
freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing
an
encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
That's not the point. We still have the spoiler information. We just provide a convienient template (which you can hide) so that the reader can be warned. It is a minor service provide. If it seriously sacrifices the integrity of the article (as is apparently the case in [[The Crying Game]],) we can choose to omit it, or provide a warning for the entire article. I would not be against editing of the guidelines to reflect this, but don't simply discard them entirely.
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a complete nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot
details
freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing
an
encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
That's not the point. We still have the spoiler information. We just provide a convienient template (which you can hide) so that the reader can be warned. It is a minor service provide. If it seriously sacrifices the integrity of the article (as is apparently the case in [[The Crying Game]],) we can choose to omit it, or provide a warning for the entire article. I would not be against editing of the guidelines to reflect this, but don't simply discard them entirely.
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a complete nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
-- Peter in Canberra
But does it hurt anyone to say that it may contain nuts? ~~~~
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a
complete
nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
-- Peter in Canberra
But does it hurt anyone to say that it may contain nuts? ~~~~
It offends me. It makes us look stupid.
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a
complete
nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
-- Peter in Canberra
But does it hurt anyone to say that it may contain nuts? ~~~~
It offends me. It makes us look stupid.
-- Peter in Canberra
Have any of the actual readers complained about us having them? ~~~~
On 5/21/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a
complete
nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet
of
peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
-- Peter in Canberra
But does it hurt anyone to say that it may contain nuts? ~~~~
It offends me. It makes us look stupid.
-- Peter in Canberra
Have any of the actual readers complained about us having them? ~~~~
Who counts as an "actual reader"? I've certainly complained about them, about a year ago on this mailing list I expressed my hatred for them.
Do the notices hurt anyone? No. But neither do misspellings or grammatical mistakes. I still fix them when I see them.
On 22/05/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
But does it hurt anyone to say that it may contain nuts? ~~~~
No, it insults their intelligence and makes them think the manufacturer is under the thrall of process-obsessive idiots.
- d.
Skyring wrote:
On 5/22/07, Gabe Johnson gjzilla@gmail.com wrote:
That's not the point. We still have the spoiler information. We just provide a convienient template (which you can hide) so that the reader can be warned. It is a minor service provide. If it seriously sacrifices the integrity of the article (as is apparently the case in [[The Crying Game]],) we can choose to omit it, or provide a warning for the entire article. I would not be against editing of the guidelines to reflect this, but don't simply discard them entirely.
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a complete nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Posting a spoiler notice is like putting a warning label on a packet of peanuts. "Warning, may contain nuts."
That sounds like an interesting proposal for changing the text of the spoiler warning. ;-)
Ec
On 5/22/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely the point. If you go to an article on a novel, only a complete nong would be surprised to find plot details.
Only a complete nong would equate "plot details" with "spoiler". Only a complete nong would believe that a spoiler warning somehow interferes with the provision of "plot details".
Grr.
Steve
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups, many participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the point) a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they might read many others from the same source.
Skyring makes a good point here, which is that spoiler warnings exist in forums where spoilers are not /de rigeur/ - internet discussion forums on Harry Potter, for instance, aren't going to give away the ending to the new book in every thread.
In such forums, the readers don't expect every thread to be in the business of spoilers, so a post that breaks the default assumption should carry warnings.
Note that even in these forums, not every post that gives away anything is marked 'spoiler' - only those that give away major plot twists etc.
This situation DOES NOT EXIST on Wikipedia. One doesn't go to our article on a fictional topic expecting light banter about the characters or a discussion of their relative hotness. One expects the whole deal, all important information.
As Skyring also mentions, is there any logical reason why fiction articles should have spoiler warnings but e.g. sports articles should not? If I haven't seen the game yet, it's my responsibility not to go reading things that might tell me the score; if I haven't read the book, likewise.
-Matt
G'day Matt,
As Skyring also mentions, is there any logical reason why fiction articles should have spoiler warnings but e.g. sports articles should not? If I haven't seen the game yet, it's my responsibility not to go reading things that might tell me the score; if I haven't read the book, likewise.
I quite like this question, too (oh, and welcome back, Pete).
Why *don't* we have spoiler warnings in sports articles?
Is it because the editors on sports articles don't bring the whole fanboy culture along with them?
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Matt,
As Skyring also mentions, is there any logical reason why fiction articles should have spoiler warnings but e.g. sports articles should not? If I haven't seen the game yet, it's my responsibility not to go reading things that might tell me the score; if I haven't read the book, likewise.
I quite like this question, too (oh, and welcome back, Pete).
Why *don't* we have spoiler warnings in sports articles?
Is it because the editors on sports articles don't bring the whole fanboy culture along with them?
We have had spoiler warnings on TV regarding the announcement of sports scores. Generally it is when the station broadcasting the event is time shifting, because the original event took place overseas in the middle of the night, or they were pre-occupied with another conflicting event. These spoiler warnings are almost invariably applicable for periods less than 24 hours.
Ec
On 5/22/07, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day Matt,
As Skyring also mentions, is there any logical reason why fiction articles should have spoiler warnings but e.g. sports articles should not? If I haven't seen the game yet, it's my responsibility not to go reading things that might tell me the score; if I haven't read the book, likewise.
I quite like this question, too (oh, and welcome back, Pete).
Not that I ever left...
Wikipedia is a strange place indeed if the issue of spoiler warnings generates such great volumes of heat.
It's a bit like the abortion debate, really. You get people at both ends and few in the middle.
Lest I be labelled a fundamentalist, may I suggest that spoiler warnings are appropriate for novels, or movies, or similar works that are less than a year old? Anything older than that is on the shelves of the second-hand bookshops, or in the dollar a week rack at the video rental.
On 22/05/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
As Skyring also mentions, is there any logical reason why fiction articles should have spoiler warnings but e.g. sports articles should not? If I haven't seen the game yet, it's my responsibility not to go reading things that might tell me the score; if I haven't read the book, likewise.
I found a {{spoiler}} tag on an article about part of World War II. (I forget the exact one.) No shittin'.
There was also a {{spoiler}} tag on [[Hyde Park, London]].
- d.
On Tue, 22 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
I found a {{spoiler}} tag on an article about part of World War II. (I forget the exact one.) No shittin'.
I'm sick and tired of the argument "here's an obviously bad spoiler tag, so all spoiler tags are like that, right?"
If you just don't want spoiler tags on World War II, you can fix that without changing policy: just remove the tag. Don't quote silly examples and then propose a policy change that affects a lot more than silly examples.
On 5/22/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I found a {{spoiler}} tag on an article about part of World War II. (I forget the exact one.) No shittin'.
That's interesting.
Meanwhile, we were discussing the use of spoiler templates in typical circumstances, such as film or novel plot summaries.
Steve
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Matthew Brown wrote:
In such forums, the readers don't expect every thread to be in the business of spoilers, so a post that breaks the default assumption should carry warnings. ... This situation DOES NOT EXIST on Wikipedia. One doesn't go to our article on a fictional topic expecting light banter about the characters or a discussion of their relative hotness. One expects the whole deal, all important information.
This situation DOES exist on Wikipedia. The readers don't expect every part of the article to be in the business of spoilers; they don't discuss how hot the characters are, but they do discuss other things which are not spoilers.
One "expects the whole deal" only on a per-article basis, not on a per-section but spoilers can be put on individual sections, or even within a section if the spoiler doesn't appear at its top.
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler. If I turn to an article on a World Series game just concluded, I will see the result because some enthusiastic editor/fan has just put it there, even if I have it recorded the game for my later consumption and delight, and merely turned to the article to get the lineup.
Cliff's Notes, texts on Shakespeare, even reviews of current films and novels, all contain plot details, with never a spoiler warning in sight. Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so as not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
On my own head be it if I look up a film and find out that the butler did it, or that Hamlet dies in the final scene.
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups, many participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the point) a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they might read many others from the same source.
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot details freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing an encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
"It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler"
Nicely said. But it is the way of the web, or so it seems.
"WARNING: May contain information."
Even better. I'm going to post this one on my lab partner's textbook--he recently discovered that by reading the text he scores very high on all of our tests, the tests being based mostly upon the text. He was a bit surprised by this....
KP
On 5/21/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler. If I turn to an article on a World Series game just concluded, I will see the result because some enthusiastic editor/fan has just put it there, even if I have it recorded the game for my later consumption and delight, and merely turned to the article to get the lineup.
Cliff's Notes, texts on Shakespeare, even reviews of current films and novels, all contain plot details, with never a spoiler warning in sight. Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so as not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
On my own head be it if I look up a film and find out that the butler did it, or that Hamlet dies in the final scene.
I have encountered spoiler warnings in online discussion groups about current television series of the opus of an author, but in such groups, many participants have not seen or read all the material, and (more to the point) a warning is placed so that they don't open or read a post, when they might read many others from the same source.
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot details freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing an encyclopaedia for cretins?
-- Peter in Canberra
"It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler"
Nicely said. But it is the way of the web, or so it seems.
"WARNING: May contain information."
Even better. I'm going to post this one on my lab partner's textbook--he recently discovered that by reading the text he scores very high on all of our tests, the tests being based mostly upon the text. He was a bit surprised by this....
--------------------
Philippe sez:
Had I known that, I might have done oh - so-much better in college. I wish you'd been there to enlighten me.
Philippe
On Mon, 21 May 2007, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
"It's entirely unclear how a fear of knowledge suits editing an encyclopedia. The whole thing is a spoiler"
Nicely said. But it is the way of the web, or so it seems.
It is poorly said, because it leaves no room for nuance.
"The whole thing is a spoiler" only in some abstract sense that bears no resemblance to what most actual people consider spoilers. Not every fact in an article about a work is a spoiler. *You* might not think that "The butler did it" is a spoiler but "this mystery has a murder in it" is not; but if so, you are very different from most other readers.
Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so as not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
In other words: these sources are aware that people don't want to see spoilers, and take measures (omitting key items/outcomes) to keep spoilers away from such people. But since the measures they use aren't appropriate for us, we should use nothing at all.
If anything, the fact that newspapers and magazines recognize that spoilers are a problem should suggest that we should too.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
On 5/23/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Reviews in newspapers and magazines might OMIT key items and outcomes so
as
not to ruin plot twists, but they never put up spoiler warnings for the details they give away.
In other words: these sources are aware that people don't want to see spoilers, and take measures (omitting key items/outcomes) to keep spoilers away from such people. But since the measures they use aren't appropriate for us, we should use nothing at all.
If anything, the fact that newspapers and magazines recognize that spoilers are a problem should suggest that we should too.
The distinction is that reviews are intended for people who haven't read the book or seen the film. They aren't encyclopaedia articles which are intended to give information and commentary.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
May I call your bluff on that?
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
The distinction is that reviews are intended for people who haven't read the book or seen the film. They aren't encyclopaedia articles which are intended to give information and commentary.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
May I call your bluff on that?
The trouble with finding these is that 1) most reviewers simply don't mention spoilers at all (with quite a number of them telling you they're leaving the spoiler out) 2) most reviews you'll find in a Google search aren't going to be print reviews 3) I'm on a dialup connection.
Still, I managed to find a couple:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19921218/REVIEWS/2...
"I would prefer, in fact, that you put this review aside until you see the film. If you read on, I will do my best not to spoil your own discoveries."
This one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700... has a "spoiler alert" in the middle of the article. So does this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101... Of course I can't prove these weren't added for the web version.
Here's another Roger Ebert one where he not only includes a spoiler warning in the article itself, but also defends the practice of using spoiler warnings: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/COMMENTAR...
Here's a Time magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1604863,00.html
"Fair warning: here's where the spoilers begin."
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
The distinction is that reviews are intended for people who haven't read the book or seen the film. They aren't encyclopaedia articles which are intended to give information and commentary.
(Besides, I've seen plenty of print reviews with spoiler warnings in them.)
May I call your bluff on that?
The trouble with finding these is that
- most reviewers simply don't mention spoilers at all (with quite a number
of them telling you they're leaving the spoiler out) 2) most reviews you'll find in a Google search aren't going to be print reviews 3) I'm on a dialup connection.
Still, I managed to find a couple:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19921218/REVIEWS/2...
"I would prefer, in fact, that you put this review aside until you see the film. If you read on, I will do my best not to spoil your own discoveries."
This one http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042700... has a "spoiler alert" in the middle of the article. So does this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101... Of course I can't prove these weren't added for the web version.
Here's another Roger Ebert one where he not only includes a spoiler warning in the article itself, but also defends the practice of using spoiler warnings: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/COMMENTAR...
Here's a Time magazine article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1604863,00.html
"Fair warning: here's where the spoilers begin."
Thanks for doing that. I found their usage in the Washington Post items a little pointless and unconvincing,. but at least the others require further mention.
I have to admit that Roger Ebert made some good points. He showed a great deal of sensitivity about the two movies that he discussed. But does saying, "A lady boxer is badly6 injured in a fight, and her coach helps her to kill herseld," really deal with the impact of the story. An impactful movie goes beyond the basic plot. It not only gives a message, but it gives it well in a way that does not fit into a plot summary. Great stories beg to be seen again when the plot is already well known. When you tell stories to children, they like to hear you repeat the same story. Until now I have had no desire to see "Million Dollar Baby." Why would I want to see a movie about a lady Rocky? Now that I know what it's about I would consider it more favorably.
The "Sopranos" article has a somewhat different reason for having the spoiler warning: It's a brand new show. By the end of the series the warning can come off, and viewers can spend more time relating to the various themes than run through the series. They can't do that if they are missing plot details. That commentator says, "Death on The Sopranos can be operatic or bathetic." I'm afraid that the same can be said of cherished practices at Wikipedia.
I can concede that there are places where spoiler warnings may be warranted, but why can't they be plain text warnings in places where they really matter? If those who support warnings, had used them with judgement and sensitivity the whole issue would have simply flown under the radar. Putting it in a template puts the tool in the hand of every crufter to be used in situations that are inversely proportional to their importance or necessity.
Ec
On 23/05/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I can concede that there are places where spoiler warnings may be warranted, but why can't they be plain text warnings in places where they really matter? If those who support warnings, had used them with judgement and sensitivity the whole issue would have simply flown under the radar. Putting it in a template puts the tool in the hand of every crufter to be used in situations that are inversely proportional to their importance or necessity.
Which is the precise problem. That's how spoiler warnings end up on [[Hyde Park, London]] and [[Sleeping Beauty]].
Spoiler tags may be a nice idea, but their use needs severe reduction.
See proposal at [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]].
- d.
On 5/22/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot details freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing an encyclopaedia for cretins?
Your argument is fallacious. It goes something like this: 1) An article about the book must contain spoilers. 2) A thinking person knows that it must contain spoilers. 3) A person who reads the article and is "spoilt" is therefore a cretin.
It's wrong because a person could rightly believe that the article will contain spoilers *with a warning*. Or that it will be possible to read an article *without reading the spoilers*.
Why should I not be able to read about a Harry Potter bock without having the ending spoilt? Maybe I'd like to know the basic plot outline, without knowing whether or not Harry dies at the end?* How is that unreasonable or cretinous?
Steve
* I don't know whether Harry dies at the end. So if you do, keep it to yourself.
On 5/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
What person, I ask, what thinking person is going to go to an article on
Harry Potter and the Order of the Boot and be surprised to find plot
details
freely given away? Surely they would expect the plot to be described and would be righteously indignant if we didn't describe it. Are we writing
an
encyclopaedia for cretins?
Your argument is fallacious. It goes something like this:
- An article about the book must contain spoilers.
- A thinking person knows that it must contain spoilers.
- A person who reads the article and is "spoilt" is therefore a cretin.
It's wrong because a person could rightly believe that the article will contain spoilers *with a warning*. Or that it will be possible to read an article *without reading the spoilers*.
A person who believes that encyclopaedia articles will contain spoiler warnings is, if not a cretin, woefully optimistic. This may be easily demonstrated at any library.
On 5/24/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
A person who believes that encyclopaedia articles will contain spoiler warnings is, if not a cretin, woefully optimistic. This may be easily demonstrated at any library.
Wikipedia bears a superficial resemblance to some print encyclopaedias. Any stronger statement is likely inaccurate. Do encyclopaedias have list of pokemons? Do they have warnings that material is not neutral? Do they change from day to day? Do they contain phrases like "JOHN IS GAY HAHAHA"?
So, a belief that print encyclopaedia articles contain spoiler warnings may be ill-founded. A belief that Wikipedia articles contain spoiler warnings is more reasonable. Especially since it's true.
Steve
On 5/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
A person who believes that encyclopaedia articles will contain spoiler warnings is, if not a cretin, woefully optimistic. This may be easily demonstrated at any library.
Wikipedia bears a superficial resemblance to some print encyclopaedias. Any stronger statement is likely inaccurate. Do encyclopaedias have list of pokemons? Do they have warnings that material is not neutral? Do they change from day to day? Do they contain phrases like "JOHN IS GAY HAHAHA"?
So, a belief that print encyclopaedia articles contain spoiler warnings may be ill-founded. A belief that Wikipedia articles contain spoiler warnings is more reasonable. Especially since it's true.
I doubt that Wikipedia was ever intended to showcase pokemon arcana or schoolchild graffiti. We hold a higher ideal. At least I do.
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support spoiler warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom Clancy, no - they belong to the ages.
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support spoiler warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom Clancy, no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support
spoiler
warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom
Clancy,
no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
At this point, I hear the unmistakable groaning and sighing sound of a long bow being drawn. Must Wikipedia always be a community of fundamentalists battling over which end of the egg to slice?
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support
spoiler
warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom
Clancy,
no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
At this point, I hear the unmistakable groaning and sighing sound of a long bow being drawn.
I'm just sick and tired of specious arguments tossed in as part of an argument by exhaustion strategy. The "spoiler warnings are original research" argument is one of the most blatant.
I think it's entirely appropriate to point out when an anti-spoiler person suggests something that happens to contradict one of the big anti-spoiler arguments.
Must Wikipedia always be a community of fundamentalists battling over which end of the egg to slice?
You (or your side) started the battle. I was fine with things being as they were. You don't get to walk in, say "oh, I'm going to force you to turn your eggs over," and then plead that egg slicing isn't important anyway so everyone else should compromise by turning them halfway.
(Besides, Swift wrote about breaking eggs, not slicing them.)
On 24/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
I'm just sick and tired of specious arguments tossed in as part of an argument by exhaustion strategy. The "spoiler warnings are original research" argument is one of the most blatant.
Oh, I thought the "user interface" one was pretty far-fetched myself. But maybe that's just me.
- d.
On 5/25/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
Must Wikipedia always be a community of fundamentalists battling over which end of the egg to slice?
You (or your side) started the battle. I was fine with things being as they were. You don't get to walk in, say "oh, I'm going to force you to turn your eggs over," and then plead that egg slicing isn't important anyway so everyone else should compromise by turning them halfway.
(Besides, Swift wrote about breaking eggs, not slicing them.)
Mmmm. You still wind up with egg on your farce. Who fired the first sh*t is not really important. What matters is that we found ourselves with spoiler warnings all over, and we looked silly.
Hamlet dies in the end, Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father and Harry Potter finds joy as you know who's catamite. Some secrets should have warnings, some shouldn't and some are worth debating.
On 5/24/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
Hamlet dies in the end
I can see it now.
'''''Hamlet: Prince of Denmark''''' is a
{{spoiler}}
[[tragedy]]
{{spoilerend}}
by [[William Shakespeare]].
How tempting it can be to violate [[WP:POINT]].
Anthony
Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Skyring wrote:
In deference to the uptothemoment nature of Wikipedia, I'll support spoiler warnings for recent works of fiction and movies. Shakespeare or Tom Clancy, no - they belong to the ages.
I assume then you completely disagree with the claim that spoilers are original research? After all, we can't allow original research just for articles about newer subjects, we must completely eliminate it.
I don't like spoiler warnings myself, but the argument that they're "original research" is frankly beyond silly, and starting to grasp at straws. By that standard all Wikipedia articles are completely original research, as they all involve judgment calls about how to present information to the reader.
-Mark
On 5/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
A person who believes that encyclopaedia articles will contain spoiler warnings is, if not a cretin, woefully optimistic. This may be easily demonstrated at any library.
Wikipedia bears a superficial resemblance to some print encyclopaedias. Any stronger statement is likely inaccurate. Do encyclopaedias have list of pokemons? Do they have warnings that material is not neutral? Do they change from day to day? Do they contain phrases like "JOHN IS GAY HAHAHA"?
So, a belief that print encyclopaedia articles contain spoiler warnings may be ill-founded. A belief that Wikipedia articles contain spoiler warnings is more reasonable. Especially since it's true.
That's a good point. Print encyclopedias might not contain spoiler warnings, but how many of them contain plot details or even plot summaries? Would it even be legal for Brittanica to include as many details as Wikipedia when it comes to plots of copyrighted works? I doubt it.
Anthony
That's a good point. Print encyclopedias might not contain spoiler warnings, but how many of them contain plot details or even plot summaries? Would it even be legal for Brittanica to include as many details as Wikipedia when it comes to plots of copyrighted works? I doubt it.
That's an interesting pint, has anyone ever tried to bring a legal challenge over that? How detailed a summary can still be considered fair use?
On 5/24/07, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com wrote:
That's a good point. Print encyclopedias might not contain spoiler warnings, but how many of them contain plot details or even plot
summaries?
Would it even be legal for Brittanica to include as many details as Wikipedia when it comes to plots of copyrighted works? I doubt it.
That's an interesting pint, has anyone ever tried to bring a legal challenge over that? How detailed a summary can still be considered fair use?
The Seinfeld Aptitude Test, which presented trivia questions and answers about the Seinfeld television series, lost a fair use argument in federal court (see Castle Rock Entertainment vs. Carol Publishing Group).
How detailed is too detailed in the context of an encyclopedia? Like all other fair use questions only 9 people can say for sure.
Anthony
On 5/24/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The Seinfeld Aptitude Test, which presented trivia questions and answers about the Seinfeld television series, lost a fair use argument in federal court (see Castle Rock Entertainment vs. Carol Publishing Group).
How detailed is too detailed in the context of an encyclopedia? Like all other fair use questions only 9 people can say for sure.
Although technically I suspect that the PLOT was not the issue, since plot is generally not copyrightable. Rather, it would be details outside of plot.
While like every legal question, you can only really answer it by going to court and seeing who wins, I suspect some things can be determined. One would be that a trivia game is subject to different fair use judgment than an encyclopedia.
I'd personally say that any plot summary that would be detailed enough to cause fair use issues for a commercial print encyclopedia is too detailed for Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a very brief summary, not a retelling of the story in thirty paragraphs. In checking out spoiler warnings, I've found some obsessively over-large "summaries" out there ...
-Matt
On 5/25/07, Matthew Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
The Seinfeld Aptitude Test, which presented trivia questions and answers about the Seinfeld television series, lost a fair use argument in
federal
court (see Castle Rock Entertainment vs. Carol Publishing Group).
How detailed is too detailed in the context of an encyclopedia? Like
all
other fair use questions only 9 people can say for sure.
Although technically I suspect that the PLOT was not the issue, since plot is generally not copyrightable. Rather, it would be details outside of plot.
I don't think you'll find a court that has ever ruled that a plot is not copyrightable. The general storyline (boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, whatever) might not be copyrightable, but the plot itself is the very essence of what makes a creative fiction work.
I'm not really sure what you mean about "details outside of plot". Here are some examples from the Seinfeld case:
1. To impress a woman, George passes himself off as: a) a gynecologist; b) a geologist; c) a marine biologist; d) a meteorologist
11. What candy does Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure from an operating-room balcony?
12. Who said, "I don't go for those nonrefundable deals . . . I can't commit to a woman . . . I'm not committing to an airline."? a) Jerry; b) George; c) Kramer I'd call those plot details, though I suppose you could get into a semantical argument with me over whether or not Seinfeld has a "plot" in the first place (the defendants in the case actually argue this as part of their defense).
While like every legal question, you can only really answer it by
going to court and seeing who wins, I suspect some things can be determined. One would be that a trivia game is subject to different fair use judgment than an encyclopedia.
Yes, of course, and a for-profit encyclopedia like Britannica is subject to different fair use judgment than an online non-profit one like Wikipedia.
I'd personally say that any plot summary that would be detailed enough
to cause fair use issues for a commercial print encyclopedia is too detailed for Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a very brief summary, not a retelling of the story in thirty paragraphs. In checking out spoiler warnings, I've found some obsessively over-large "summaries" out there ...
I'm not saying it all goes over the line, but I think Brittanica would have a tough time justifying some of the plot details of Wikipedia's Simpsons coverage, for instance.
On 5/25/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
- To impress a woman, George passes himself off as:
a) a gynecologist; b) a geologist; c) a marine biologist; d) a meteorologist
- What candy does Kramer snack on while observing a surgical procedure
from an operating-room balcony?
- Who said, "I don't go for those nonrefundable deals . . . I can't commit
to a woman . . . I'm not committing to an airline."? a) Jerry; b) George; c) Kramer I'd call those plot details, though I suppose you could get into a semantical argument with me over whether or not Seinfeld has a "plot" in the first place (the defendants in the case actually argue this as part of their defense).
Some of these definitely go beyond simple plot into intricate detail of the copyrighted work, especially when it comes to exact wording of the episodes' dialog.
I suspect any disagreement between us here is more to do with my defining 'plot' as a more limited and more meta-level aspect of the work than you do.
While like every legal question, you can only really answer it by
going to court and seeing who wins, I suspect some things can be determined. One would be that a trivia game is subject to different fair use judgment than an encyclopedia.
Yes, of course, and a for-profit encyclopedia like Britannica is subject to different fair use judgment than an online non-profit one like Wikipedia.
Indeed. However, a reference work is also different from a trivia game. I suspect that the game aspect was a good deal of what tripped up this defendant. Also damaging their case would be the extent of the use and the proportion it made of the ultimate work. A print encyclopedia covers many topics, and thus the fair use it makes of one copyrighted work is a small portion of the overall work; the educational intent is also a large aspect.
I'd personally say that any plot summary that would be detailed enough
to cause fair use issues for a commercial print encyclopedia is too detailed for Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a very brief summary, not a retelling of the story in thirty paragraphs. In checking out spoiler warnings, I've found some obsessively over-large "summaries" out there ...
I'm not saying it all goes over the line, but I think Brittanica would have a tough time justifying some of the plot details of Wikipedia's Simpsons coverage, for instance.
I think we have trouble too - not necessarily legally, but in terms of appropriateness and in terms of a treatment too deep and too wordy to be achieving what we set out to achieve.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
I'd personally say that any plot summary that would be detailed enough to cause fair use issues for a commercial print encyclopedia is too detailed for Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a very brief summary, not a retelling of the story in thirty paragraphs. In checking out spoiler warnings, I've found some obsessively over-large "summaries" out there ...
Yes, if I read the plot in a Wikipedia article it's to save me the trouble of wasting time to watch the movie just to find out about it. If it's going to be really long, I might as well watch the movie.
Ec
On 5/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yes, if I read the plot in a Wikipedia article it's to save me the trouble of wasting time to watch the movie just to find out about it. If it's going to be really long, I might as well watch the movie.
Some of ours are almost to that point - especially of movies, novellas and short stories.
-Matt
Matthew Brown wrote:
On 5/25/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Yes, if I read the plot in a Wikipedia article it's to save me the trouble of wasting time to watch the movie just to find out about it. If it's going to be really long, I might as well watch the movie.
Some of ours are almost to that point - especially of movies, novellas and short stories.
Even worse, single episodes of TV programmes. Nevertheless, with <s>programmes</s> soap operas like "Lost" or "Desperate Housewives" it's easy to become confused if you miss an episode. I'm just as happy reading a plot summary than going back and trying to recreate a past episode.
Ec
Angela Anuszewski wrote:
That's a good point. Print encyclopedias might not contain spoiler warnings, but how many of them contain plot details or even plot summaries? Would it even be legal for Brittanica to include as many details as Wikipedia when it comes to plots of copyrighted works? I doubt it.
That's an interesting pint, has anyone ever tried to bring a legal challenge over that? How detailed a summary can still be considered fair use?
I love going to the local pub to discuss an interesting pint. :-)
There's no single solution to the question. Remember that it's the form of expression, and not the ideas that are copyright. An adequate telling of the plot should whet the reader's appetite for more. It does not diminish the author's market, and thus passes the fourth test.
Ec
On 24/05/07, Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com wrote:
That's a good point. Print encyclopedias might not contain spoiler warnings, but how many of them contain plot details or even plot summaries? Would it even be legal for Brittanica to include as many details as Wikipedia when it comes to plots of copyrighted works? I doubt it.
That's an interesting pint, has anyone ever tried to bring a legal challenge over that? How detailed a summary can still be considered fair use?
A trivially small quotation has been held to be not fair use (well, not fair dealing) - the ruling was, I believe, that if you take the only bit of any actual interest and quote that you're damaging the ability to sell the book. I'd have to dig around a bit to find the case, but I believe it was a politicians memoirs being quoted in a newspaper.
On 5/27/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
A trivially small quotation has been held to be not fair use (well, not fair dealing) - the ruling was, I believe, that if you take the only bit of any actual interest and quote that you're damaging the ability to sell the book. I'd have to dig around a bit to find the case, but I believe it was a politicians memoirs being quoted in a newspaper.
UK law?
In any case like this, the work and amount being quoted is only part of the equation; the use being made and the character of the work in which it's being used are important as well.
I suspect in this case a large part of it was the attempt by one newspaper to scoop the exclusive of another?
-Matt
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
Plot elements != spoiler. This discussion is meaningless if those two concepts are considered equivalent.
Steve
On 5/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
Plot elements != spoiler. This discussion is meaningless if those two concepts are considered equivalent.
As long as {{spoiler}} continues to read "Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow.", people are going to continue to use the tag any time plot or ending details follow. In fact, my anecdotal evidence is that most of the {{spoiler}} tags I come across are applied wholesale to an entire plot section.
Maybe an interim solution is to have different spoiler templates for different situations. We could first take the time to disambig the use of template:spoiler into the different types of situations, and *then* have a policy discussion over each one. I'd be willing to help disambiguate the tags.
Anthony
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
As long as {{spoiler}} continues to read "Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow.", people are going to continue to use the tag any time plot or ending details follow. In fact, my anecdotal evidence is that most of the {{spoiler}} tags I come across are applied wholesale to an entire plot section.
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
Almost the same, but nobody is likely to put that on the Three Little Pigs.
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
This creeping "may" is pretty ugly and weasly.
Spoiler warning: The surprise ending to this story is revealed below.
Whether or not knowing that there *is* a surprise ending spoils it is debatable of course...
Steve
On Thu, 24 May 2007, Steve Bennett wrote:
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
This creeping "may" is pretty ugly and weasly.
Spoiler warning: The surprise ending to this story is revealed below.
That's too specific. It may reveal a surprise fact (the identity of Valen, for instance) that is not an ending, or it may reveal something that is part of an ending but not an ending in itself.
On 5/24/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
That's too specific. It may reveal a surprise fact (the identity of Valen, for instance) that is not an ending, or it may reveal something that is part of an ending but not an ending in itself.
How can a tag be too specific? If it's inappropriate for some particular use, make a different tag. The whole problem with the spoiler tags at the moment is they're not specific enough: are they revealing a massive surprise ending, or are they telling you the plot of Wind in the Willows? Specific tags for specific situations would resolve a lot of the complaints, such as David Gerard's about WWII - there would presumably be no specific tag to cover that situation, because it's an absurd situation that doesn't need a tag.
Steve
On 23/05/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
How can a tag be too specific? If it's inappropriate for some particular use, make a different tag. The whole problem with the spoiler tags at the moment is they're not specific enough: are they revealing a massive surprise ending, or are they telling you the plot of Wind in the Willows? Specific tags for specific situations would resolve a lot of the complaints, such as David Gerard's about WWII - there would presumably be no specific tag to cover that situation, because it's an absurd situation that doesn't need a tag.
Usually spoiler tags end up in nonfiction articles because someone puts a bit of irrelevant cruft in with a vague relation to the subject. Then it needs a tag because OMG SPOILER.
WikiProject Film had a policy to spoiler everything. This led to ludicrous cruft sections with TV, book, comic, etc. versions all unspoilered, but the film adaptation in spoiler tags.
The problem is not the idea of spoilers (though that sucks too) - it's that having them at all seems to lead to furiously-defended overuse. Someone seems to have put the {{spoiler}} tag on [[The Three Little Pigs]] as a joke, and then blithering idiots were edit-warring to keep it.
- d.
On 5/23/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
As long as {{spoiler}} continues to read "Spoiler warning: Plot or
ending
details follow.", people are going to continue to use the tag any time
plot
or ending details follow. In fact, my anecdotal evidence is that most
of
the {{spoiler}} tags I come across are applied wholesale to an entire
plot
section.
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
Almost the same, but nobody is likely to put that on the Three Little Pigs.
"Spoiler warning: plot twists or surprise endings follow" is less wordy and accomplishes the same thing. I'd support the change, but I think it'd be hard to make such a change stick, since it'd instantly cause a ton of articles to contain inaccurate warnings.
Anthony
On 5/23/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 5/23/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
As long as {{spoiler}} continues to read "Spoiler warning: Plot or
ending
details follow.", people are going to continue to use the tag any time
plot
or ending details follow. In fact, my anecdotal evidence is that most
of
the {{spoiler}} tags I come across are applied wholesale to an entire
plot
section.
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
Almost the same, but nobody is likely to put that on the Three Little Pigs.
"Spoiler warning: plot twists or surprise endings follow" is less wordy and accomplishes the same thing. I'd support the change, but I think it'd be hard to make such a change stick, since it'd instantly cause a ton of articles to contain inaccurate warnings.
But oh, by the way, simply knowing that a movie has a surprise ending is sometimes enough to ruin it. I know my experience in watching The Sixth Sense was ruined simply because I knew there was a twist in the movie, and so I found it easy to figure out what the twist was very early on (actually, I spent most of the movie debating with myself if what was the twist really was the twist, or if everyone else knew what I knew too).
On Wed, 23 May 2007, Anthony wrote:
"Spoiler warning: plot twists or surprise endings follow" is less wordy and accomplishes the same thing. I'd support the change, but I think it'd be hard to make such a change stick, since it'd instantly cause a ton of articles to contain inaccurate warnings.
It seems fair to me.
If it causes inaccurate warnings, then the inaccurate warnings should be removed.
On 5/24/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
"Spoiler warning: plot twists or surprise endings follow" is less wordy and accomplishes the same thing. I'd support the change, but I think it'd be hard to make such a change stick, since it'd instantly cause a ton of articles to contain inaccurate warnings.
There is some sort of false assumption here that there is ONE TRUE SPOILER WARNING. Make a new tag. Start using it accurately. Police its use. This idea isn't new.
Steve
On 5/24/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/24/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
"Spoiler warning: plot twists or surprise endings follow" is less wordy
and
accomplishes the same thing. I'd support the change, but I think it'd
be
hard to make such a change stick, since it'd instantly cause a ton of articles to contain inaccurate warnings.
There is some sort of false assumption here that there is ONE TRUE SPOILER WARNING. Make a new tag. Start using it accurately. Police its use. This idea isn't new.
Eh, I'd do it if "police its use" wasn't part of the requirement, especially as "police its use" tends to turn into "edit war to keep it in place".
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 08:10:22AM -0700, Ken Arromdee wrote:
The solution to this is to reword the spoiler warning, not to eliminate it. How about
"Spoiler warning: plot or ending details follow that some readers may not wish to see".
Almost the same, but nobody is likely to put that on the Three Little Pigs.
{{dubious}}
We have some very seriously brain-locked process fetishists around here.
It just occured to me: has anyone checked [[Iliad]], [[Odyssey]], or [[Beowulf]]? [[Genji Monogatari]]?
Anthony wrote:
On 5/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Surely one would expect ==Plot summary== to contain plot elements in an encyclopedic manner.
Plot elements != spoiler. This discussion is meaningless if those two concepts are considered equivalent.
As long as {{spoiler}} continues to read "Spoiler warning: Plot or ending details follow.", people are going to continue to use the tag any time plot or ending details follow. In fact, my anecdotal evidence is that most of the {{spoiler}} tags I come across are applied wholesale to an entire plot section.
That's what happens with templastes. It's like putting AK-47s in the hands of kids who don't know how to use them.
Maybe an interim solution is to have different spoiler templates for different situations. We could first take the time to disambig the use of template:spoiler into the different types of situations, and *then* have a policy discussion over each one. I'd be willing to help disambiguate the tags.
I think that that suggestion would only make matters worse. At least now if you want to monitor this kind of activity there is only a small number of templates to trace. The net effect of your suggestion is a bit like building separate madhouses to segregate the different kinds of madness.
Ec
Phil Sandifer wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
I would have thought this, except everybody's arguments for spoiler warnings have been remarkably phrased in terms of hypothetical readers. Nobody has said "Actually, I would be surprised to find a spoiler in a section on the plot" or "Actually, this spoiler in this article ruined Buffy's finale for me." I do find this telling.
Tailors designing fashionable clothing for the emperor? ;-)
Ec
On 5/20/07, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On May 19, 2007, at 7:44 PM, Steve Summit wrote:
That's a good point, but it's not the sort of thing I can imagine people complaining about. (And in any case: we *do* generally have the warnings! "See how good it works?" This isn't a case of elephants in cherry trees.)
Nah. We only ever had spoiler tags on 45,000 articles. Trivia sections and fictional subjects make up far more than 2.5% of our articles.
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
I would have thought this, except everybody's arguments for spoiler warnings have been remarkably phrased in terms of hypothetical readers. Nobody has said "Actually, I would be surprised to find a spoiler in a section on the plot" or "Actually, this spoiler in this article ruined Buffy's finale for me." I do find this telling.
-Phil
The reason we had no one complain is because their implementation is somewhat rampant right now. We should ask ourselves if people would start complaining if we removed them.
Mgm
On Mon, 21 May 2007, MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
The reason we had no one complain is because their implementation is somewhat rampant right now. We should ask ourselves if people would start complaining if we removed them.
At any rate, someone just pointed out [[Talk:Shadow_of_the_Colossus]] has someone complaining about a missing spoiler warning.
On 5/21/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
The reason we had no one complain is because their implementation is somewhat rampant right now. We should ask ourselves if people would start complaining if we removed them.
They are on by no means all fiction articles; not even an overwhelming majority.
People don't seem to be complaining about the dead-tree encyclopedias ruining fiction for them either ...
-Matt
G'day Steve,
<snip: why don't spoilers ever generate complaints?/>
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
People don't always write what they would like to read. Sad but true.
Witness, for example, the endless trivia and "in popular culture" sections. Now, finding out at [[Jupiter]] that the megahit game [[Bug-Eyed Space Invaders With Halos Doing Moon Jumps]] was set nearby may be of interest to two or three idiots who otherwise wouldn't care a jot for the planet, but the vast majority of stuff we see in such sections is asinine ([[Statue of Liberty]] used to --- maybe still does --- have a pop culture section longer than the rest of the article, containing such gems as "The Statue featured in one Simpsons episode, where Bart shouts at some immigrants, 'Go home, the country's full!'").
As a reader --- let alone my concerns as a Wikipedia editor, and therefore self-appointed co-guardian of its content and reputation --- some pop culture sections are simply horrifying. I understand it's the same for the vast majority of readers who read it. The support of such sections is that they provide an outlet for, for example, newbies who feel they want to contribute, and say, "Hey! I saw this statue on /The Simpsons/! I don't know what it's for, but I remember a funny joke about it ..."
Parts of Wikipedia, great swathes of it (see also, stub-sorting, certain infoboxen) are not there for the benefit of readers. In many cases, they exist because someone wants to write them, and doesn't give a damn whether anyone would want to read them.
Mark Gallagher wrote:
G'day Steve,
<snip: why don't spoilers ever generate complaints?/>
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious. We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
People don't always write what they would like to read. Sad but true.
They don't even write what others would like to read.
Witness, for example, the endless trivia and "in popular culture" sections. Now, finding out at [[Jupiter]] that the megahit game [[Bug-Eyed Space Invaders With Halos Doing Moon Jumps]] was set nearby may be of interest to two or three idiots who otherwise wouldn't care a jot for the planet, but the vast majority of stuff we see in such sections is asinine ([[Statue of Liberty]] used to --- maybe still does --- have a pop culture section longer than the rest of the article, containing such gems as "The Statue featured in one Simpsons episode, where Bart shouts at some immigrants, 'Go home, the country's full!'").
Just imagine if that were being written now with the Statue of Liberty placed somewhere along the Mexican border. :-)
As a reader --- let alone my concerns as a Wikipedia editor, and therefore self-appointed co-guardian of its content and reputation --- some pop culture sections are simply horrifying. I understand it's the same for the vast majority of readers who read it. The support of such sections is that they provide an outlet for, for example, newbies who feel they want to contribute, and say, "Hey! I saw this statue on /The Simpsons/! I don't know what it's for, but I remember a funny joke about it ..."
I think that many of the pop culture articles are excellent in their own context. The comprehensive original research done in that area has no rivals. What's horrifying is the lack of equal dilligence with regards to matters of the real world. Considering my current battle with the AfDeletionists over a series of local schools makes me wonder about the relative notability of a school that has graduated 1500-2000 real students over a fifty year life span and an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. For some, the fictitious school that Buffy attended is more important than any real one.
Parts of Wikipedia, great swathes of it (see also, stub-sorting, certain infoboxen) are not there for the benefit of readers. In many cases, they exist because someone wants to write them, and doesn't give a damn whether anyone would want to read them.
Self-importance begins at home. I am happy not to bother with them if they don't bother with me.
Ec
Steve Summit wrote:
d. wrote:
(As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I get people calling and complaining about their *login not working* (wtf) as well as every *other* content issue under the sun. I have *never* had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture.)
That's a good point, but it's not the sort of thing I can imagine people complaining about. (And in any case: we *do* generally have the warnings! "See how good it works?" This isn't a case of elephants in cherry trees.)
Yeah, they function a bit like phylacteries hung about the article to ward off the devil.
Conjecture isn't necessarily fallacious.
But in the realm of formal logic false can imply true. "Conjecture" can be viewed as another word for "hypothesis". The conjecture that God made the world in seven days has yet to be proven, but the number of people that believe it is significant.
We are all, most of us, readers as well as editors. The people who like spoiler warnings and argue for their retention are all, presumably, people who appreciate spoiler warnings in the text they read. The set of people who appreciate them (and would mourn their passing) is clearly not empty.
The thread inspired me to review a few passages from that most reverential piece of literary criticism, Miguel de Unamuno's"Our Lord Don Quixote".
"But the canon, a stiff-necked man stuffed with a vast amount of the crudest good sense, like all 'ergo-tists' who are more or less canons, gave vent to simple-minded arguments to the effect that there could be no doubt that the Cid had existed, as had [[Bernardo del Carpio]], though there might be some doubts as to whether they performed the feats assigned them. This canon was apparently one of those poor men who use criticism like a sieve, and who argue the point, note cards in hand, as to whether such an event happened in the way it is related, without ever noticing that the past exists no longer and the only thing which really exists now is that which acts, and that one of those so-called legends, when it moves men to action, lighting up their hearts or consoling their lives, is a thousand times more real than the account of any transaction whatever rotting in some archive. (Princeton University Press edition, 1967, pp 154-5)
In other words, if all there is to these stories is these spoiled plots, there's not much in the story worth spoiling. What I found great about some of the "Star Trek" series was the way that characters dealt with the moral dilemmas that they encountered. A dry retelling of the plot of a story cannot possibly capture that, and thus spoils nothing..
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
The current stage of the Great Spoiler Shift is a rough guideline on [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] and discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer has asked one very apposite question: Where is the evidence our readers even care? None has been presented
I got a very vigorous complaint about a spoiler over at [[Talk:Alliance of four great races]] recently. But there was already a spoiler warning template at the time, even specifying which season of Stargate SG-1 the spoiler was for, so I don't see what else could have been done.
On Sun, 20 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
The current stage of the Great Spoiler Shift is a rough guideline on [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] and discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer has asked one very apposite question: Where is the evidence our readers even care? None has been presented
(As one of those whose phone number seems to have become Wikipedia's phone number, I get people calling and complaining about their *login not working* (wtf) as well as every *other* content issue under the sun. I have *never* had a complaint that we spoilt a work of fiction for someone. I await a single piece of evidence, not conjecture.)
Well, one person already complained about it on that discussion page. But of course, this sort of complaint isn't one for which people would contact Wikipedia. Honestly, if you read a spoiler and didn't like it, do you seriously think as a new user your first order of business would be to contact Wikipedia and complain?
On 20/05/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Well, one person already complained about it on that discussion page.
Fairly obviously, I'm asking about complaints that are from third-party readers, not participants in the current discussion, and that came up *before* I directly asked if such complaints existed ...
But of course, this sort of complaint isn't one for which people would contact Wikipedia. Honestly, if you read a spoiler and didn't like it, do you seriously think as a new user your first order of business would be to contact Wikipedia and complain?
Not in any sane world. However, in this one, they complain volubly and at length about *every other* possible aspect of our content. So the silence on this one is in fact a curious absence, and leads me to think that spoilers are something that sounds useful but isn't actually something the readers are expecting.
I did go looking for complaints. Just a quick search on blogsearch.google.com for "Wikipedia spoiler". I got the following at a glance, which show readers expecting Wikipedia *will* contain spoilers, per the general content disclaimer:
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13132 http://www.watching4400.com/summer-glau-signs-on-for-the-sarah-connor-chroni... http://neoaddict.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/jericho-spoilers/ http://www.krunk4ever.com/blog/?p=1079 (where he spoils ''300'' for himself by reading [[Leonidas]]) http://www.sescoops.com/wwe/Another_WWE_Judgment_Day_Spoiler_Revealed_IC_Tit... http://dicombobulationnotes.blogspot.com/2007/03/oh-humanity.html (expects spoilers, doesn't sound entirely pleased by this) http://pandagon.net/2007/03/11/if-youre-having-fun-youre-doing-it-wrong/#com... (uses Wikipedia as source for a spoiler) http://thirdcat.net/?p=168] ("Spoiler warnings are the scourge of modern civilisation") http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?t=188248 http://darklightcrusader.vox.com/library/post/heroes-2nd-final-episode-summa... http://library-bound.blogspot.com/2007/04/prestigious-prestidigitation.html
That's one even verging on annoyed that we contain too much information ...
What samples do others here see?
- d.
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
The current stage of the Great Spoiler Shift is a rough guideline on [[Wikipedia:Spoiler]] and discussion on the talk page. Phil Sandifer has asked one very apposite question: Where is the evidence our readers even care? None has been presented
I am a reader and I have complained.
:)
Steve
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
Very poor form of me to reply twice to the same message, but I'd like to relate an experience I had this morning. I was led to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hardest_logic_puzzle_ever
I am extremely grateful for the spoiler warning. I was able to read the intro, which describes the problem. Then I saw the spoiler warning, and thought for a couple of seconds, and decided I didn't want the answer yet. Whereupon I was late for work due to spending an hour discussing the problem with my girlfriend.
Seriously, spoiler warnings are very appropriate in some places. Just because some people over-use them, or because we can come up with ridiculous scenarios (Shakespeare being the classic strawman), doesn't mean they don't have a purpose, or should be abolished.
Does anyone really think we should scrap the spoiler warning on that article? And if so, how are we better serving our readers, or improving our encyclopaedia?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hardest_logic_puzzle_ever
I am extremely grateful for the spoiler warning. I was able to read the intro, which describes the problem. Then I saw the spoiler warning, and thought for a couple of seconds, and decided I didn't want the answer yet.
You mean, this spoiler warning?
==The Solution== Warning: Solution details follow.
Somehow that actually seems a bit ridiculous. But maybe that's just me.
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
Very poor form of me to reply twice to the same message, but I'd like to relate an experience I had this morning. I was led to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hardest_logic_puzzle_ever
I am extremely grateful for the spoiler warning. I was able to read the intro, which describes the problem. Then I saw the spoiler warning, and thought for a couple of seconds, and decided I didn't want the answer yet. Whereupon I was late for work due to spending an hour discussing the problem with my girlfriend.
In this case there is a section heading for the solution. Why wouldn't this make the template redundant?
Ec
On 5/23/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
In this case there is a section heading for the solution. Why wouldn't this make the template redundant?
Dunno about you, but I don't read section headings when I'm actually reading. I use them when skimming.
Steve
On 5/23/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Do spoiler warnings in Wikipedia actually serve the public at all?
Very poor form of me to reply twice to the same message, but I'd like to relate an experience I had this morning. I was led to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_hardest_logic_puzzle_ever
I am extremely grateful for the spoiler warning. I was able to read the intro, which describes the problem. Then I saw the spoiler warning, and thought for a couple of seconds, and decided I didn't want the answer yet. Whereupon I was late for work due to spending an hour discussing the problem with my girlfriend.
Apparently, it's been removed.
Does anyone really think we should scrap the spoiler warning on that article? And if so, how are we better serving our readers, or improving our encyclopaedia?
You tell me.~~~~
Steve