I'm trying to understand the relevence of this unnecessary nonsense, and I must conceed that the rebutals provided by fellow editors (a great deal of them newbies that just began editting the wiki ) is some strawman to do with consideration. For more elaborate discussion see [[User talk:Megaman Zero]] and [[Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning#Guideline]].
Obviously we all work toward building a great encyclopedia. But what do these have to do with that quality...? I'm quite confused by this. Days of discussion and not user in support of the template in question can provide one. Was there some demand by readers to implement this...? This seems quite utterly out of the boundries of a neutral editor at wikipedia to decide upon.
How on earth can a encyclopedia spoil a reader by being an encyclopedia...? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for netquitette relations. I humbly beg the community to clarify upon this matter and reconsider carefully the precense of this useless template upon wikipedia.
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Sports Fantasy Football 06 - Go with the leader. Start your league today!
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
How on earth can a encyclopedia spoil a reader by being an encyclopedia...? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for netquitette relations. I humbly beg the community to clarify upon this matter and reconsider carefully the precense of this useless template upon wikipedia.
This is a perennial argument. Yes, we are an encyclopaedia. No, I don't feel that that goal is impaired by us warning the user "You may not want to read the following paragraph". For the same reason, warnings when users will encounter graphic violent or pornographic images seems appropriate.
Quite personally, I do avoid reading articles about certain books and TV shows, because I know the spoiler warnings aren't well implemented. Therefore, my experience as a reader is diminished, and Wikipedia's goal is hampered to a small extent.
But hey, others disagree, and it's not ruining my life either.
Steve
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Zero wrote:
How on earth can a encyclopedia spoil a reader by being an encyclopedia...? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for netquitette relations. I humbly beg the community to clarify upon this matter and reconsider carefully the precense of this useless template upon wikipedia.
This is a perennial argument. Yes, we are an encyclopaedia. No, I
don't feel that that goal is impaired by us warning the user "You may not want to read the following paragraph". For the same reason, warnings when users will encounter graphic violent or pornographic images seems appropriate.
Quite personally, I do avoid reading articles about certain books and
TV shows, because I know the spoiler warnings aren't well implemented. Therefore, my experience as a reader is diminished, and Wikipedia's goal is hampered to a small extent.
But hey, others disagree, and it's not ruining my life either.
- Steve
Well that's another hassle. They are not only inappropriate, they're being used incorrectly. What does it matter to the encycloepdia if someone reads a plot twist...? That's what we do.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Well that's another hassle. They are not only inappropriate, they're being used incorrectly. What does it matter to the encycloepdia if someone reads a plot twist...? That's what we do.
We spoil stories? As a reader, I don't like it when the encyclopaedia spoils my future appreciation of something. As an editor, I wish to avoid readers that experience.
But look, I'm against graphic pornography in Wikipedia, as well. Not because I'm some kind of prude, but because it makes Wikipedia less pleasant, and less useful to certain readers.
Steve
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Zero wrote:
How on earth can a encyclopedia spoil a reader by being an encyclopedia...? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for netquitette relations. I humbly beg the community to clarify upon this matter and reconsider carefully the precense of this useless template upon wikipedia.
This is a perennial argument. Yes, we are an encyclopaedia. No, I
don't feel that that goal is impaired by us warning the user "You may not want to read the following paragraph". For the same reason, warnings when users will encounter graphic violent or pornographic images seems appropriate.
Quite personally, I do avoid reading articles about certain books and
TV shows, because I know the spoiler warnings aren't well implemented. Therefore, my experience as a reader is diminished, and Wikipedia's goal is hampered to a small extent.
But hey, others disagree, and it's not ruining my life either.
- Steve
Well that's another hassle. They are not only inappropriate, they're being used incorrectly. What does it matter to the encycloepdia if someone reads a plot twist...? That's what we do. -Zero
--------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Well that's another hassle. They are not only inappropriate, they're being used incorrectly. What does it matter to the encycloepdia if someone reads a plot twist...? That's what we do. -Zero
To the encyclopedia? Utterly nothing, of course; the encyclopedia, being an inanimate collection of bits on some spinning metal plates in Florida, is in no position to have an opinion on the matter.
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for). It costs us nothing to add a template to an article about a movie noting that the surprise ending is revealed; and while most readers may not care, there are some that, desiring to avoid reading such materials, will thank us for our foresight in providing such a warning.
On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:49:09 -0400, "Kirill Lokshin" kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for).
The boat sinks...
Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:49:09 -0400, "Kirill Lokshin" wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for).
"You suspect"..? Are you telling me this template was created without any request by the target audiance in question...? This is ridiculous. Who are we...? We're editors of an neutral encyclopedia. Its not up to us to make such assumptions without founded edvidence.
Its somewhat similar to the premise of a mother giving her lad a jacket in the wintertime without asking him if he desired one. Do we really assume our readers are that stupid...? If you see a header called "Plot" and there's three pharagraphs below it, then its obvious what lies within. This template is incredibly redundant.
If there were previously some sort of a mass request where millions of readers requested this nonsense, advocating it assisted them in the informative reading of an encyclopedia, then I could possbily understand. Currently, it gives the entirely wrong impression of what an encyclopedia is and what its attempting to convey. This isn't a networking site.
--------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for).
"You suspect"..? Are you telling me this template was created without any request by the target audiance in question...? This is ridiculous. Who are we...? We're editors of an neutral encyclopedia. Its not up to us to make such assumptions without founded edvidence.
Hi, I'm George, and I'm a Wikipedia Editor, and a I'm a Wikipedia reader, too.
The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what readers want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler warnings are common in other online forums, and have been for a long time, and they're there for a reason. They're there because some people object to spoilers. Sometimes a majority of readers object to spoilers.
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, I'm George, and I'm a Wikipedia Editor, and a I'm a Wikipedia reader, too.
The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what r>eaders want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler warnings are common in other online forums, and have been for a long time, and they're there for a reason. They're there because some people object to spoilers. Sometimes a majority of readers object to spoilers.
Indeed. However, I do recall the premise that wikipedia isn't a forum. That's a strawman argument. It isn't possible for wikipedia to spoil an reader because that is the point of wikipedia (to provide elaborate summeries). An encyclopedia is an device through which to provide knowledge and in this area, I paticularly, believe we excell.
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote: On 6/24/06, Geni wrote:
Are they paying us..?
Yes.
:) -Zero
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
They don't have to. This is a project to distribute a _free_ encyclopedia, remember?
On 6/24/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
They don't have to. This is a project to distribute a _free_ encyclopedia, remember?
However we also host it which costs money.
On 6/23/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
They don't have to. This is a project to distribute a _free_ encyclopedia, remember?
However we also host it which costs money.
But it doesn't affect our primary mission -- which has always been to *give away* the encyclopedia we're writing -- in the least.
On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
But it doesn't affect our primary mission -- which has always been to *give away* the encyclopedia we're writing -- in the least.
Nitpick: our primary mission is to produce a free-content encyclopedia, that we also give away at no cost (but may also sell printed or DVD copies of at some point in the future, like de: is already doing).
OK, carry on. :-)
-Kat who as a reader likes the spoiler tags, when used appropriately
Zero wrote:
Indeed. However, I do recall the premise that wikipedia isn't a forum. That's a strawman argument. It isn't possible for wikipedia to spoil an reader...
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
Speaking of strawmen! *Everything* we do is for our readers! If not for them, who else?
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:Steve wrote:
Speaking of strawmen! *Everything* we do is for our readers! If not for them, who else?
Yes, of course we do everything for the reader - in an informative manner so far as it assists them to comprehend the subject being depicted. Not construct baseless assumptions based upon a networking site's reluctance to disclose information. Those sites aren't an encylclopedia intent upon the distribution of knowledge. -Zero
--------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:
Hi, I'm George, and I'm a Wikipedia Editor, and a I'm a Wikipedia reader, too. The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what r>eaders want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler warnings are common in other online forums, and have been for a long time, and they're there for a reason. They're there because some people object to spoilers. Sometimes a majority of readers object to spoilers.
Indeed. However, I do recall the premise that wikipedia isn't a forum. That's a strawman argument. It isn't possible for wikipedia to spoil an reader because that is the point of wikipedia (to provide elaborate summeries). An encyclopedia is an device through which to provide knowledge and in this area, I paticularly, believe we excell.
It is perfectly possible to spoil a reader. Lots of people are interested in a movie without wanting to see the plot twist, or a book, etc. Voluminous ancedotal evidence from Usenet responses on SF topics is that if you post a spoiler without a warning, huge quantities of people who were interested enough to be looking at discussions and reviews, but hadn't gotten around to seeing/reading the material yet, object.
WP can and should provide plot summaries and related spoiler type content. Doing it with the sorts of warning flags that people expect in other electronic media is just being fair and consistent, though.
Readers object to spoilers..? What does that have to do with us..? Are they paying us..?
Well... either WP exists for the readers, in which case their opinions on spoilers matter, or it exists for the editors, in which case the opinions of editors here that we like spoilers matter, or it exists for you, in which case your opinion that spoilers are for wimps should overrule the other two categories.
I know WP isn't about voting per se, but I think you're outconsensused. 8-)
Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Zero wrote:
Zero wrote:
Hi, I'm George, and I'm a Wikipedia Editor, and a I'm a Wikipedia reader, too. The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what r>eaders want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler warnings are common in other online forums, and have been for a long time, and they're there for a reason. They're there because some people object to spoilers. Sometimes a majority of readers object to spoilers.
Indeed. However, I do recall the premise that wikipedia isn't a forum. That's a strawman argument. It isn't possible for wikipedia to spoil an reader because that is the point of wikipedia (to provide elaborate summeries). An encyclopedia is an device through which to provide knowledge and in this area, I paticularly, believe we excell.
It is perfectly possible to spoil a reader. Lots of people are interested in a movie without wanting to see the plot twist, or a book, etc. Voluminous ancedotal evidence from Usenet responses >>on SF topics is that if you post a spoiler without a warning, huge quantities of people who were interested enough to be looking at discussions and reviews, but hadn't gotten around to seeing/reading the material yet, object.
WP can and should provide plot summaries and related spoiler type content. Doing it with the sorts of warning flags that people expect in other electronic media is just being fair and consistent, though.
It is certainly possible to spoil a reader. Just not in an encyclopedia which thrive on the informative distribution of knowledge. People object in large numbers...? There's a great deal of articles lacking spoilers. I've seen nor heard not a peep from readers that read the encyclopedia about that.
Usenet..? Usenet isn't wikipedia. -Zero
-Zero
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
On 6/24/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what readers want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler
Of course we should. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. For readers. Who will never tell us what they want. We have to make thousands of assumptions in that process. What fonts to use? Unicode or ASCII? Should [[Georgia]] be about the US state or the country? Or neither? Are photos or diagrams better? Should we use thumbnails or larger images?
A bit of intuition, discussion, and yes, common sense, go a long way in answering these quetsions.
Steve
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/24/06, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
The dichotomy of "editors" not being "users" is false. We're a subset of readership. We should not use our judgement to assume what readers want arbitrarily, but using common sense is different. Spoiler
Of course we should. We're here to write an encyclopaedia. For readers. Who will never tell us what they want. We have to make thousands of assumptions in that process. What fonts to use? Unicode or ASCII? Should [[Georgia]] be about the US state or the country? Or neither? Are photos or diagrams better? Should we use thumbnails or larger images?
A bit of intuition, discussion, and yes, common sense, go a long way in answering these quetsions.
We're linguistically haggling over where we define "arbitrary" and "common sense", not a substantiative disagreement, Steve.
If no other internet communications medium used spoiler warnings, and some editor came up with them out of the blue, and started tagging articles with them, that would be arbitrary.
Them being in use "everywhere" and commonly accepted practice, and their use in WP being subject to ongoing positive discussions, makes them common sense. By definition, pretty much - they're already common enough that their use can't be considered arbitrary.
Chosing not to use them is a perfectly valid point of discussion, and could be a valid end choice on a policy basis if an argument and consensus were reached. But using them now is common sense.
George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote: On 6/24/06, George Herbert wrote:
We're linguistically haggling over where we define "arbitrary" and "common sense", not a substantiative disagreement, Steve.
If no other internet communications medium used spoiler warnings, >and some editor came up with them out of the blue, and started tagging articles with them, that would be arbitrary.
Them being in use "everywhere" and commonly accepted practice, >and their use in WP being subject to ongoing positive discussions, makes them common sense. By definition, pretty much - they're already common enough that their use can't be considered arbitrary.
Chosing not to use them is a perfectly valid point of discussion, and could be a valid end choice on a policy basis if an argument and consensus were reached. But using them now is common sense.
Yes, that sounds sensible. They are widely accepted now, as its (presumely) the "in" and "hip" thing to do about the internet. I, as an long-time and experienced editor am troubled by this attack upon our status as an encyclopedia and conveyance as a knowlegeable resource. And so I come with the spirit of advocacy to query and discuss the usefulness and relevance of a silly template with my fellow editors, hopefully in light of good outcome for the encyclopedia and its value as a informative resource. -Zero
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
On 6/24/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, that sounds sensible. They are widely accepted now, as its (presumely) the "in" and "hip" thing to do about the internet. I, as an long-time and experienced editor am troubled by this attack upon our status as an encyclopedia and conveyance as a knowlegeable resource. And so I come with the spirit of advocacy to query and discuss the usefulness and relevance of a silly template with my fellow editors, hopefully in light of good outcome for the encyclopedia and its value as a informative resource. -Zero
FWIW, I also really would like the spoiler templates to be killed. Especially when I saw the [[Romeo and Juliet]] article. But consensus definitely seems be to that they should stay. It is possible to do without though. Like mentioned earlier, the german wikipedia doesn't has them and I believe the opera's project doesn't use them. But sometimes you also just have to accept that you can't convince people (can't imagine why anyone would not agree with me though :). Hey, if it were up to me I also would kill 90 % of the use of the current template. And some of the infoboxes. I guess I just don't like many templates. I don't know if this page was mentioned before but see also [[User:Shanes/Why tags are evil]]. But like I said, sometimes you just have to accept the fact that they are going to stay. But please do try to change consensus. :)
Garion
Garion1000 wrote:
On 6/24/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, that sounds sensible. They are widely accepted now, as its (presumely) the "in" and "hip" thing to do about the internet. I, as an long-time and experienced editor am troubled by this attack upon our status as an encyclopedia and conveyance as a knowlegeable resource. And so I come with the spirit of advocacy to query and discuss the usefulness and relevance of a silly template with my fellow editors, hopefully in light of good outcome for the encyclopedia and its value as a informative resource. -Zero
FWIW, I also really would like the spoiler templates to be killed. Especially when I saw the [[Romeo and Juliet]] article.
See also: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Spoiler
On 6/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Garion1000 wrote:
FWIW, I also really would like the spoiler templates to be killed. Especially when I saw the [[Romeo and Juliet]] article.
See also: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Spoiler
--
That was great.
Garion
Zero megamanzeo521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Garion1000 wrote:
FWIW, I also really would like the spoiler templates to be killed. Especially when I saw the [[Romeo and Juliet]] article.
See also: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Template:Spoiler
--
That was Great - Garion.
Oh yes! That should be policy! - Zero _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.
Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/24/06, Garion wrote:
FWIW, I also really would like the spoiler templates to be killed. Especially when I saw the [[Romeo and Juliet]] article. But consensus definitely seems be to that they should stay. It is possible to do without though. Like mentioned earlier, the german wikipedia doesn't has them and Ibelieve the opera's project doesn't use them.
But sometimes you also just have to accept that you can't convince people (can't imagine why anyone would not agree with me though :). Hey, if it were up to me I also would kill 90 % of the use of the current templates. And some of the infoboxes. I guess I just don't like many templates. I don't know if this page was mentioned before but see also [[User:Shanes/Why tags are evil]]. But like I said, sometimes you just have to accept the fact that they are going to stay. But please do try to change consensus. :)
Garion
I'm trying. Although I'm okay if they stay, I really think it destroys the point of an encyclopedia which is what we're supposed to be doing. I'm currently discussing this on the [[Wikipedia:Spoiler warning]] talkpage and on [[User talk:Megaman Zero]].
The main reasoning provided is its "courteous". According to policy established and the spririt of the wiki this isn't paticularly senseful. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored]].
Wikipedians are generally a good lot. I don't expect to change heads anytime soon but I think it is obvious the usefulness of this template is clearly not in view of building the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful, that, in the future this can come out to sensible agreement. Currently, I will continue discussion on the matter. - Zero
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups gets better. Check out the new email design. Plus theres much more to come.
On 6/24/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Wikipedians are generally a good lot. I don't expect to change heads anytime soon but I think it is obvious the usefulness of this template is clearly not in view of building the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful, that, in the future this can come out to sensible agreement. Currently, I will continue discussion on the matter. - Zero
I've provided several reasons why they contribute to our chief goal. You haven't provided any evidence that they interfere with our chief goal.
Steve
Zerot megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/24/06, Zero wrote:
Wikipedians are generally a good lot. I don't expect to change heads anytime soon but I think it is obvious the usefulness of this template is clearly not in view of building the encyclopedia. I'm hopeful, that, in the future this can come out to sensible agreement. Currently, I will continue discussion on the matter. - Zero
I've provided several reasons why they contribute to our chief goal.
You haven't provided any evidence that they interfere with our chief goal.
Steve
Please. The value and spirit of the encyclopedia comes before the community every time. The spirit of the encyclopedia is the sharing of knowledge and the freedom of this information unhindered by the source material in any capacity. Sticking silly labels on articles created by hard sweat doesn't fullfill that spirit. Making assumptions on the basis of a networking site must not be mistaken for the the production and flourishing of the encyclopedia. - Zero
--------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On 6/25/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Please. The value and spirit of the encyclopedia comes before the community every time. The spirit of the encyclopedia is the sharing of knowledge and the freedom of this information unhindered by the source material in any capacity. Sticking silly labels on articles created by hard sweat doesn't fullfill that spirit. Making assumptions on the basis of a networking site must not be mistaken for the the production and flourishing of the encyclopedia. - Zero
Ok, just to carry on your thinking, how do you feel about the following "silly labels":
* This article is a stub - you can help out by editing it. * Please expand and improve this section as described on this article's talk page or at Requests for expansion, then remove this message * The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion on the talk page. * This article needs more context around or a better explanation of technical details to make it more accessible to general readers and technical readers outside the specialty, without removing technical details. See below for more information. * The title of this article should be eBay. The initial letter is capitalized due to technical restrictions. * Due to technical limitations, some web browsers may not display some special characters in this article.
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
Ho hum.
Steve
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough, too technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks up something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something 'obscene', or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
Garion
On 6/25/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough, too technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks up something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something 'obscene',
I would be very much surprised to see explicit pornography if I looked up "hard-core pornography". We're an encyclopaedia, after all - not normally the sort of place one expects to find porn.
or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
Seems to be a common problem that "spoiler" is confused with "plot summary". Consider a movie review in the paper. You'll usually get a decent plot summary of the first two-thirds of the film. You would never see anything like the surprise twist at the end revealed. Now, I think we can go a little further than that, but when it comes to revealing that twist, we should be careful to respect our readers, who may be reading the article in order to decide whether the film is worth seeing or not.
Has anyone trialed using javascript hide/show buttons to hide/show the spoiler? One benefit is it would force judicious labelling of the "spoiler" - in most cases, it should only be a sentence or two.
Steve
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough,
too
technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks
up
something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something
'obscene',
I would be very much surprised to see explicit pornography if I looked up "hard-core pornography". We're an encyclopaedia, after all - not normally the sort of place one expects to find porn.
I had to check out that article. It's only a stub. But actually I wouldn''t mind an example of hardcore pornogaphy on the article on hardcore pornography. Not a gallery or something, but just a small picture...sure. I also don't think it's that important though. No need to update your watchlists. :)
Seems to be a common problem that "spoiler" is confused with "plot summary". Consider a movie review in the paper. You'll usually get a decent plot summary of the first two-thirds of the film. You would never see anything like the surprise twist at the end revealed. Now, I think we can go a little further than that, but when it comes to revealing that twist, we should be careful to respect our readers, who may be reading the article in order to decide whether the film is worth seeing or not.
But wikipedia is indeed different than a review. For a review I would go to rottentomatoes or for more info to IMDB. But for more in depth information I would go to wikipedia. And then I would expect spoilers.
Garion
Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote: On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett wrote:
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough, too
technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks up something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something 'obscene', or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
Garion
It is entirely unecessary. "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", its written everywhere. I absolutely refute the claim one would "accidently" "stumble" upon wikipedia and be unaware of this.
Take a gander at wikipedia or a external link from google. It is written multiple times across the screen, so much as to be excessive. "Their enjoyment of fiction"...? The enviroment in which we edit and prepare the project determines the quality and status of wikipedia. Treating wikipedia similar to social networking or movie site hurts wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. Comparing the view of an imaginary reader's "potential harm from learning something new" hurts wikipedia. We share knowledge freely. To say otherwise at the fictional argument of "consideration" is not in view of an encyclopedia. - Zero _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On 6/25/06, Garion1000 garion1000@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
It makes sense to me. When an article is bad (or not complete enough, too technical, whatever), a reader should be warned. But when a reader looks up something 'obscene', he shouldn't be surprised to see something 'obscene', or when a reader looks up a movie, he shouldn't be surprised to find a plot summary there. To me a warning in those cases seems unnecessary.
When I look up a movie, I'm usually looking for something other than the plot, and in that case, I expect any spoiler sections to be noted -- odds are, I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't want the ending to be spoiled.
On 6/26/06, Mark Wagner carnildo@gmail.com wrote:
When I look up a movie, I'm usually looking for something other than the plot, and in that case, I expect any spoiler sections to be noted -- odds are, I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't want the ending to be spoiled.
Again, its not that important, I am just curious. Could maybe someone with a copy of the encyclopedia Brittannica could look up Citizen Kane and see if it mentiones Rosebud.
Garion
Zero megamanzero@521com wrote: On 6/25/06, Zero wrote:
Please. The value and spirit of the encyclopedia comes before the community every time. The spirit of the encyclopedia is the sharing of knowledge and the freedom of this information unhindered by the source material in any capacity. Sticking silly labels on articles created by hard sweat doesn't fullfill that spirit. Making assumptions on the basis of a networking site must not be mistaken for the the production and flourishing of the encyclopedia. - Zero
Ok, just to carry on your thinking, how do you feel about the
following "silly labels":
- This article is a stub - you can help out by editing it.
- Please expand and improve this section as described on this
article's talk page or at Requests for expansion, then remove this message
- The neutrality of this article is disputed.Please see the discussion
on the talk page.
- This article needs more context around or a better explanation of
technical details to make it more accessible to general readers and technical readers outside the specialty, without removing technical details. See below for more information.
- The title of this article should be eBay. The initial letter is
capitalized due to technical restrictions.
- Due to technical limitations, some web browsers may not display some
special characters in this article.
I have to admit to a sense of irony that we warn users of excessively technical language, and we warn them if the title of the page isn't quite right. We even warn them that the article uses unicode characters. But we refuse to warn them that they may witness >>seriously obscene material or have their enjoyment of a work of fiction totally spoilt.
Ho hum.
Steve
I must admit the mentioned tags are really quite feasible in wikipedia. As an editor with over 14,000 edits, many of them new articles, I must conceed the appropriate tags are quite valuable to the intregity, spirit, improvement and operation of the encyclopedia.
Lets review:
* Stub tag- Lest we forget, this is wikipedia. As an editor, I value completion and professional appearence, so personally I strongly oppose the creation of a brief article; rather I prepare a rather detailed document over a time period in [[User:MegamanZero/Sandbox]] and move it to mainspace upon completion. This, or I merely create the article in one go from the outset.
However, its reasonable to forsee editors do not follow this personal standard, and create a brief article immediately, perhaps without research or proper overview. In this case, we insert the stub template to being attention to it. And as an editor that does much writing, I know from experience they garner attention to make improvement. And improved articles means an improved encyclopedia. Are you aware of how many articles have benefited from expansion from me becuase I took note of the stub or clean-up tag...? Take a gander at my contribution tree. I assure you it is very productive indeed.
* I look upon the second template with slight dissapointment, although I admit it is useful to an outside party with a tendency to expand articles at a whim. Being Bold in wikipedia gets work done.
* I strongly endorse this tag. It provides a service to the encyclopedia in that it requires the attention of a neutral editor. In these cases, all that is required is a rewrite after some research on the matter. I've used it to the advantage in many occassion and it highlights a need when an editor blatently commits to the violation of the neutrality we demand at wikipedia.
* I'm not going to explain the rest in detail; they are all tools for editors to discuss upon for the improvement of the article itself. When readers come to wikipedia, they must expect this is a volunteer project and there is work in progress to make it to the highest quality.
"Our goal is to get wikipedia to Britianica quality or better" - Jimbo Wales
And we will get there, I'm positive. But we have quite a way to go. The most glaring dissapointment I have with the spoiler tag is it wasn't developed with an encyclopedia in mind. Many users claim the offense of "Oh but its nice and it will help not to spoil them". This isn't that kind of website.Wikipedia is an uncensored, pure callaboration of knowledge unhindered by what other social websites may do.
You say" "well it doesn't help the wikipedia, but the reader in a way similar to usenet". This is wrong. Anything promoting such external social ideals lacking in edvidence to improve the encyclopedia itself should of course be deleted on sight. - Zero
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Ring'em or ping'em. Make PC-to-phone calls as low as 1¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On 6/25/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
And we will get there, I'm positive. But we have quite a way to go. The most glaring dissapointment I have with the spoiler tag is it wasn't developed with an encyclopedia in mind. Many users claim the offense of "Oh but its nice and it will help not to spoil them". This isn't that kind of website.Wikipedia is an uncensored, pure callaboration of knowledge unhindered by what other social websites may do.
The spoiler tag, as well as any "warning, this page contains pornographic images" tags, are totally unrelated to censorship. Really. And I don't see what either of these tags has to do with "other social websites" - we don't imitate, we make our own decisions based on what seems reasonable.
You say" "well it doesn't help the wikipedia, but the reader in a way similar to usenet". This is wrong. Anything promoting such external social ideals lacking in edvidence to improve the encyclopedia itself should of course be deleted on sight. -
I didn't mention usenet. And I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. It seems to me that we are both using the ideal that "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" to support opposing viewpoints. Maybe Wikipedia should stop claiming to "be an encyclopaedia", and instead define precisely what it wants to be, and where it wants to draw its limits. Not all encyclopaedias are the same, so just claiming to be in that general class of works isn't enough anymore.
Steve
Zero megamanzero521@gmail.yahoocom wrote: On 6/25/06, Steve wrote: .
The spoiler tag, as well as any "warning, this page contains
pornographic images" tags, are totally unrelated to censorship. Really. And I don't see what either of these tags has to do with "other social websites" - we don't imitate, we make our own decisions based on what seems reasonable.
To whom's decision...? It is censorship. It thrives upon the ideal of a person perhaps not engaging in the action by merit of another group selectively in the belief they think it might be "cover-worthy", which is never the case in any encyclopedia.
I didn't mention usenet. And I'm afraid I don't understand your point
here. It seems to me that we are both using the ideal that "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia" to support opposing viewpoints. Maybe Wikipedia should stop claiming to "be an encyclopaedia", and instead define precisely what it wants to be, and where it wants to draw its limits. Not all encyclopaedias are the same, so just claiming to be in that general class of works isn't enough anymore.
Steve
I was not making reference to "you" in paticular making the argument of usenet. This is the common view: "Other websites do it as "courtesy" and thus should be accepted about the Encyclopedia because people like it".
In view of "not all encyclopedias are the same", you lost me there. That's an interesting comparison. I suppose you'll say then that the implementation of a template derived from the ideal of a networking site is appropriate in any encyclopedia. There's no need to differientiate; encyclopedias may focus on different subjects, some more than others, in different qualities and quanities. That doesn't change the spirit. An encyclopedia's definition is universal- to give information and leave the responsibility of "handeling dangerous information" to the reader. When one embarks upon the knowledge pot known as an encyclopedia (wherever or however it may be) those lads take it upon themselves to make the decision to enlighten themselves in any capacity. As neutral editors, I don't see how that decision become our concern. We build an encyclopedia, not selctively dictate who might or might not view it on a personal whim. - Zero _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Zero wrote:
This is the common view: "Other websites do it as "courtesy" and thus should be accepted about the Encyclopedia because people like it".
We're not doing it simply because other websites do it, and the argument for why we're doing it is not "because other websites do it". What we've got here is correlation, not causation. We do it because it's a good idea, which is the same reason they do it. When people make the argument "but all the other websites are doing it", all they're saying is, "so it's not a preposterous idea".
In view of "not all encyclopedias are the same", you lost me there.
It's simply the case that Wikipedia is more than just a an encyclopedia. Not only is it not paper, it also shares some attributes of the more dynamic, information-sharing websites. It's new and different; not all the old rules apply.
That's an interesting comparison. I suppose you'll say then that the implementation of a template derived from the ideal of a networking site is appropriate in any encyclopedia.
No need to drag in the slippery-slope or strawman arguments. We're calling these like we see 'em, really.
We build an encyclopedia, not selctively dictate who might or might not view it on a personal whim.
But we're *not* dictating anything! And that's why it's *not* censorship. In fact, what it *is*, is *providing additional information* -- metainformation. We're telling the reader, "Oh, by the way, this next bit is something you might not want to read -- your choice -- if you don't want any spoilers."
(If I wanted to get silly, I could accuse you of censorship for trying to deny me my right to warn my readers in this way. :-) )
On 6/25/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
To whom's decision...? It is censorship. It thrives upon the ideal of a person perhaps not engaging in the action by merit of another group selectively in the belief they think it might be "cover-worthy", which is never the case in any encyclopedia.
You're totally losing me. Not only are templates that give the reader a way of opting out of some content "censorship", but encyclopaedias are never selective about their content?
In view of "not all encyclopedias are the same", you lost me there. That's an interesting comparison. I suppose you'll say then that the implementation of a template derived from the ideal of a networking site is appropriate in any encyclopedia. There's no need to differientiate; encyclopedias may focus on
And apparently also I think that any template derived from a myspace.com-like site would be appropriate at Wikipedia?
doesn't change the spirit. An encyclopedia's definition is
universal- to give
information and leave the responsibility of "handeling dangerous
information" to
the reader. When one embarks upon the knowledge pot known as an
I don't think that's true. Encyclopaedias have editors, who make all kinds of "editorial decisions". They're certainly not open-slather "all information is good information" repositories.
encyclopedia (wherever or however it may be) those lads take it upon
themselves
to make the decision to enlighten themselves in any capacity. As neutral editors, I don't see how that decision become our concern. We build an encyclopedia, not selctively dictate who might or might not view it
on a personal
whim. - Zero
How a spoiler or porn-warning template amounts to "dictating who might or might not" read our encyclopaedia is beyond me. In all likelihood, by including obscene material, we are more likely to be cutting off whole classes of readers for whom the material is too risky - school classrooms, for instance. The same applies, to a lesser extent, for spoilers - the very people most likely to read our articles on books or movies are those likely to avoid doing so out of fear of being "spoilt".
Your arguments about censorship just seem totally misplaced here.
Steve
On 6/25/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
To whom's decision...? It is censorship. It thrives upon the ideal of a person perhaps not engaging in the action by merit of another group selectively in the belief they think it might be "cover-worthy", which is never the case in any encyclopedia.
How on earth is it censorship? No information is removed from the article.
If information is there, but someone choses not to read it, as they want to "be suprised" by the piece of fiction or film or whatever, that is them using their own judgement. Not anyone imposing censorship on them from outside.
All the Spoilers warnings are is a warning flag. Calling them censorship is callous abuse of the english language.
On 6/24/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Its somewhat similar to the premise of a mother giving her lad a jacket in the wintertime without asking him if he desired one. Do we really assume our readers are that stupid...? If you see a header called "Plot" and there's three pharagraphs below it, then its obvious what lies within. This template is incredibly redundant.
Yes, you totally expect the plot. But, how would you know if the surprise ending is going to be revealed? How would you know that there *is* a surprise ending? Currently, you end up skipping the entire section (or the article) just to be sure.
It's really not redundant. Some films and books contain events that "spoil" the book once they're revealed. Some don't.
If there were previously some sort of a mass request where millions of readers requested this nonsense, advocating it assisted them in the informative reading of an encyclopedia, then I could possbily understand. Currently, it gives the entirely wrong impression of what an encyclopedia is and what its attempting to convey. This isn't a networking site.
Yes, wikipedia isn't myspace.com. So what's your point?
Steve
On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for). It costs us nothing to add a template to an article about a movie noting that the surprise ending is revealed; and while most readers may not care, there are some that, desiring to avoid reading such materials, will thank us for our foresight in providing such a warning.
And it would be so nice if we would say "THE ENDING IS REVEALED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH"
The boat sinks.
"YOU CAN START READING AGAIN"
As opposed to stamping "Somewhere in this article, the plot of this film may be discussed" indiscriminately on all film or TV articles. Which is worth zero to anyone.
Steve
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect, though, that it matters to our *readers* (you know, those people we're supposed to be writing this thing for). It costs us nothing to add a template to an article about a movie noting that the surprise ending is revealed; and while most readers may not care, there are some that, desiring to avoid reading such materials, will thank us for our foresight in providing such a warning.
And it would be so nice if we would say "THE ENDING IS REVEALED IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH"
The boat sinks.
"YOU CAN START READING AGAIN"
As opposed to stamping "Somewhere in this article, the plot of this film may be discussed" indiscriminately on all film or TV articles. Which is worth zero to anyone.
Indeed. Some people tend to cover too much of the article with such tags; in most cases, there should only be a paragraph or two that really needs them.
(There are, of course, extreme cases, such as [[Darth Vader]], but these tend to be quite rare and can be handled as exceptions to the general rule.)
On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
(There are, of course, extreme cases, such as [[Darth Vader]], but these tend to be quite rare and can be handled as exceptions to the general rule.)
That's such a famous case, and honestly, since when did the plot of Star Wars affect anyone's enjoyment of it? Similarly, I don't see how you can "spoil" the plot of a Friends episode.
The cases that bug me more are long books, where knowing the ending would really put you off reading it. Or certain films like Fight Club, the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable etc...it's not so much "knowing how the film ends", but "knowing the secret that totally changes your interpretation of the film".
Steve
On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
The cases that bug me more are long books, where knowing the ending would really put you off reading it. Or certain films like Fight Club, the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable etc...it's not so much "knowing how the film ends", but "knowing the secret that totally changes your interpretation of the film".
Given that the consensus forming around the new fiction MoS guideline (can't recall what the exact name was) to reduce plot summary in favor of more real-life information, this should begin to be less of a problem. Certainly, even for something like the Sixth Sense, it should be possible to discuss casting, production, critical reception, and so forth without needing to reveal anything; only the section dealing with the plot itself -- and possibly only a part of that -- would be eligible for these tags.
On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
Given that the consensus forming around the new fiction MoS guideline (can't recall what the exact name was) to reduce plot summary in favor of more real-life information, this should begin to be less of a problem. Certainly, even for something like the Sixth Sense, it should be possible to discuss casting, production, critical reception, and so forth without needing to reveal anything; only the section dealing with the plot itself -- and possibly only a part of that -- would be eligible for these tags.
I think any discussion of a film with a "surprise ending" would be seriously remiss if it *didn't* discuss that ending. Hell, The Empire Strikes Back was notable *because* of the surprise.
I haven't seen any articles about films or books where the plot summary was excessively detailed. It's mostly TV episodes where that happens - mostly because of a total lack of anything else to say about them.
Steve
That's such a famous case, and honestly, since when did the plot of Star Wars affect anyone's enjoyment of it? Similarly, I don't see how you can "spoil" the plot of a Friends episode.
The cases that bug me more are long books, where knowing the >>ending would really put you off reading it. Or certain films like Fight Club, the Sixth Sense, Unbreakable etc...it's not so much "knowing how >>the film ends", but "knowing the secret that totally changes your interpretation of the film". - Steve
Steve, how are we as editors to know this..? As I do recall in a previous encounter concerning a lad I went to school with, he and I posessed very different views on what a "spoiler" was.
As neutral editors, we also have a differing capacity on content is a plot twist or what is considered the climax. It is only reasonable to conclude this is what happens. This template simply smacks of what intrepretation is left to the editor.
Second, what does this have to do with the well-being of the encyclopedia..? This is quite a presumption. "Well, as a neutral editor of wikipedia, I happen to believe this spoils me, so I'll make the unfounded assumption and believe that to be the same for the article, its content and the readers." Excuse me..? What edvidence is there to support this...? Perhaps there is support for this by comments from our readers that wikipedia is the place for a brief read..? Or a quick gander across three sentences..? Or a look at the pretty pictures..? That's not an encyclopedia at all. Why would read an encyclopedia if you didn't want information...?
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Zero wrote:
how are we as editors to know this..? As I do recall in a previous encounter concerning a lad I went to school with, he and I posessed very different views on what a "spoiler" was.
As neutral editors, we also have a differing capacity on content is a plot twist or what is considered the climax. It is only reasonable to conclude this is what happens. This template simply smacks of what intrepretation is left to the editor.
But all sorts of interpretation is left to editors -- what facts to present, how best to present them, in which order, etc.
I'm sorry you don't like the spoiler templates. But the simple fact is that most people *do*. We had a poll on this a little while back and the results were something like 7:1 in favor of keeping them. Many, many editors expressed the very strong opinion that spoiler warnings are "obviously" a good thing.
I say this not to suggest that you're wrong for having a contrary opinion (which is of course your and everyone's right) but to make the point that to most people it's reasonably obvious where a spoiler template ought to go, and what sorts of thing constitute spoilers worthy of protection.
(Now, to be sure, I don't know if the people in that poll were voting as editors or as readers. On the one hand we don't have any way of polling our readers per se, but on the other hand, since we're the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, *every* reader is an editor, and vice versa.)
Since there's a small but vocal minority which is very strongly opposed to the spoiler tags, clearly what we need is some custom CSS magic which will turn them off for readers who think they're ugly or unprofessional-looking or who otherwise don't want to see them.
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote: Zero wrote:
how are we as editors to know this..? As I do recall in a previous encounter concerning a lad I went to school with, he and I posessed very different views on what a "spoiler" was.
As neutral editors, we also have a differing capacity on content is a plot twist or what is considered the climax. It is only reasonable to conclude this is what happens. This template simply smacks of what intrepretation is left to the editor.
But all sorts of interpretation is left to editors -- what facts to present, how best to present them, in which order, etc.
I'm sorry you don't like the spoiler templates. But the simple fact is that most people *do*. We had a poll on this a little while back and the results were something like 7:1 in favor of keeping them. Many, many editors expressed the very strong opinion that spoiler warnings are "obviously" a good thing.
I say this not to suggest that you're wrong for having a contrary opinion (which is of course your and everyone's right) but to make the point that to most people it's reasonably obvious where a spoiler template ought to go, and what sorts of thing constitute spoilers worthy of protection.
(Now, to be sure, I don't know if the people in that poll were voting as editors or as readers. On the one hand we don't have any way of polling our readers per se, but on the other hand, since we're the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, *every* reader is an editor, and vice versa.)
Since there's a small but vocal minority which is very strongly opposed to the spoiler tags, clearly what we need is some custom CSS magic which will turn them off for readers who think they're ugly or unprofessional-looking or who otherwise don't want to see them.
Poll..? I assume that's in reference to the template on its nomination to TFD somewhat a time back. No, that's not liking it, its many new editors fooled into thinking this has a purpose at the time of their arrival on the encyclopedia. A quick check depicted many of these editors had not participated in wikipedia discussion, had not amassed close of the thousand editting mark and had not a clue of what they were talking about.
One editor noted "Are you crazy...? This template has been along for awhile !" Chuck, the deletion nominator queried him on how that had any relevance to its usefulness. Curiously, none of the editors in keep (even the experienced ones) could rebute him and answer how the template assisted the encyclopedia, its value or even how the template achieved its "goal" from the outset.
As I recall making a comment earlier on the wikipeida talkpage, none of the defensive editors could answer ethier. "I'm sorry, but most people like them". I don't paticularly concern myself too much in the practice of the matter on an emotional level, but I am very inclined to question the relevance. As of my most recent e-mail, I asked how the template assisted the encyclopedia or its goals or if there were any edvidence of its informative capacity. The questions still haven't been answered. -Zero
--------------------------------- Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
Zero wrote:
Poll..? I assume that's in reference to the template on its nomination to TFD somewhat a time back.
That sounds about right.
No, that's not liking it, its many new editors fooled into thinking this has a purpose at the time of their arrival on the encyclopedia. A quick check depicted many of these editors had not participated in wikipedia discussion...
Hang on a sec. A minute ago you were complaining that the decision to keep the spoiler templates was being paternalistically made by a bunch of editors who didn't necessarily know what "readers" wanted. Now you're complaining that the people participating in the poll didn't have enough experience to make them "real editors" -- but I guess that makes them readers.
It's simple: six out of seven poll respondents said, "We like the spoiler templates. They're useful. Keep them." What more do you want?
One editor noted "Are you crazy...? This template has been along for awhile !" Chuck, the deletion nominator queried him on how that had any relevance to its usefulness. Curiously, none of the editors in keep could rebute him
Perhaps the "Are you crazy?" editor didn't happen back to see the question. Perhaps people thought it was too obvious to need answering.
As I recall making a comment earlier on the wikipeida talkpage, none of the defensive editors could answer ethier. "I'm sorry, but most people like them".
Yup. Most people do.
As of my most recent e-mail, I asked how the template assisted the encyclopedia or its goals or if there were any edvidence of its informative capacity. The questions still haven't been answere
Okay, since you insist: How do spoiler tags assist the encyclopedia? Answer: Readers who (for whatever reason) want to read about a movie they have not yet seen, or a book they have not yet read, and who do not want to inadvertently learn of any "spoiler" plot details, appreciate the presence of these tags. This is not a merely hypothetical concern; there's good evidence that there are real Wikipedia readers who fall into this category.
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:
Okay, since you insist: How do spoiler tags assist the >encyclopedia? Answer: Readers who (for whatever reason) want to read about a movie they have not yet seen, or a book they have not yet read, and who do not want to inadvertently learn of any "spoiler" plot details, appreciate the presence of these tags. This is not a merely hypothetical concern; there's good evidence that there are real Wikipedia readers who fall into this category.
So you're not going to explain how this nonsense assists the encyclopedia..? -Zero
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Next-gen email? Have it all with the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
Zero wrote:
[scs wrote:]
Okay, since you insist: How do spoiler tags assist the encyclopedia? Answer: Readers who (for whatever reason) want to read about a movie they have not yet seen, or a book they have not yet read, and who do not want to inadvertently learn of any "spoiler" plot details, appreciate the presence of these tags. This is not a merely hypothetical concern; there's good evidence that there are real Wikipedia readers who fall into this category.
So you're not going to explain how this nonsense assists the encyclopedia..?
Sorry for being thick, but I honestly thought I just did.
What did you mean by "assist the encyclopedia"? Did you mean "assist in the editing and creation process", or, "add to the sum of qualities that make the encyclopedia useful to readers"?
Zero megamanzero521@Yahoo.com wrote:Steve wrote:
So you're not going to explain how this nonsense assists the encyclopedia..?
Sorry for being thick, but I honestly thought I just did.
What did you mean by "assist the encyclopedia"? Did you mean "assist in the editing and creation process", or, "add to the sum of qualities that make the encyclopedia useful to readers"?
Oh I'd appreciate an explanation on both, although I'm inclined to believe there's none for the latter and its nelligible for the former. If spoilers were as useful as thought, then it would have inserted as a point in the style guidlines and made a policy quite awhile ago. I happen to think the German wikipedia (Deutch Wiki) have this situation in much more sensible posistion. -Zero
--------------------------------- Sneak preview the all-new Yahoo.com. It's not radically different. Just radically better.
On 6/24/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
As I recall making a comment earlier on the wikipeida talkpage, none of the defensive editors could answer ethier. "I'm sorry, but most people like them". I don't paticularly concern myself too much in the practice of the matter on an emotional level, but I am very inclined to question the relevance. As of my most recent e-mail, I asked how the template assisted the encyclopedia or its goals or if there were any edvidence of its informative capacity. The questions still haven't been answered. -Zero
The template assists the encyclopaedia and its goals as follows: * It builds trust in our readership - trust that we value them and their enjoyment of reading us * It would allow us to collect information on which movies/books/tv shows are deemed "spoilable"
It is informative as follows: * It describes the specific presence and nature of a spoiler within a given article * It permits a separation of the plot, separating that which spoils from that which doesn't. * It allows readers who do not wish to be "spoilt" to read the whole rest of the article without fear.
Steve
Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote: On 6/24/06, Zero wrote:
As I recall making a comment earlier on the wikipeida talkpage, none of the defensive editors could answer ethier. "I'm sorry, but most people like them". I don't paticularly concern myself too much in the practice of the matter on an emotional level, but I am very inclined to question the relevance. As of my most recent e-mail, I asked how the template assisted the encyclopedia or its goals or if there were any edvidence of its informative capacity. The questions still haven't been answered. -Zero
The template assists the encyclopaedia and its goals as follows:
- It builds trust in our readership - trust that we value them and
their enjoyment of reading us
- It would allow us to collect information on which movies/books/tv
shows are deemed "spoilable"
It is informative as follows:
- It describes the specific presence and nature of a spoiler within a
given article
- It permits a separation of the plot, separating that which spoils
from that which doesn't.
- It allows readers who do not wish to be "spoilt" to read the whole
rest of the article without fear. -Steve
"Read the article without fear"....? What on earth are you talking about...?
"Trust in our readership"...? As if sweating day and night making them articles of good quality weren't trustworthy enough! -Zero
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messengers low PC-to-Phone call rates.
On 6/23/06, Zero megamanzero521@yahoo.com wrote:
Obviously we all work toward building a great encyclopedia. But what do these have to do with that quality...? I'm quite confused by this. Days of discussion and not user in support of the template in question can provide one. Was there some demand by readers to implement this...? This seems quite utterly out of the boundries of a neutral editor at wikipedia to decide upon.
More importantly, why waste time arguing about this at all, when we could be out writing articles?
Ryan
Zero megamanzero@Yahoo.com wrote: On 6/23/06, Ryan wrote:
More importantly, why waste time arguing about this at all, when we >could be out writing articles? - Ryan
Sure. I'm doing clean-up on various articles on a number of tabs as I follow various e-mails. Also see [[Special:Contributions/Megaman Zero]]; they speak for themselves. -Zero
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.