On 6/23/06, Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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

On 6/23/06, Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: 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. -- Kirill Lokshin

Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote: On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:49:09 -0400, "Kirill Lokshin" wrote: "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.

Zero <megamanzero521(a)Yahoo.com> 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 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(a)Yahoo.com> wrote: On 6/24/06, Geni wrote: :) -Zero --------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

On 6/24/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: However we also host it which costs money. -- geni

On 6/23/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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 -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mindspillage | G/AIM:LucidWaking mindspillage or mind|wandering on irc.freenode.net | email for phone The good traveller has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving -- Lao-Tzu Wikia: creating communities - http://www.wikia.com

Zero <megamanzero521(a)Yahoo.com> wrote:Steve wrote: 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.

Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: On 6/23/06, Zero wrote: 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 6/23/06, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> 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. -- -george william herbert gherbert(a)retro.com / george.herbert(a)gmail.com

On 6/24/06, Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> 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 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

On 6/24/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) <alphasigmax(a)gmail.com> wrote: That was great. Garion

Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: On 6/24/06, Garion wrote: 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(a)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 there’s much more to come.

Zerot <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote: On 6/24/06, Zero wrote: You haven't provided any evidence that they interfere with our chief goal. 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, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)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', 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, Steve Bennett <stevagewp(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. :) 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

On 6/25/06, Garion1000 <garion1000(a)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. -- Mark [[User:Carnildo]]

Zero <megamanzero@521com> wrote: On 6/25/06, Zero wrote: following "silly labels": article's talk page or at Requests for expansion, then remove this message on the talk page. 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. capitalized due to technical restrictions. special characters in this article. 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(a)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.

Zero &lt;megamanzero521(a)gmail.yahoocom&gt; wrote: On 6/25/06, Steve wrote: . 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. 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. 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(a)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.

On 6/25/06, Zero &lt;megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: 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? And apparently also I think that any template derived from a myspace.com-like site would be appropriate at Wikipedia? universal- to give information" to 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. themselves on a personal 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 6/24/06, Zero &lt;megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: 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. Yes, wikipedia isn't myspace.com. So what's your point? Steve

On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.) -- Kirill Lokshin

On 6/23/06, Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; 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. -- Kirill Lokshin

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 &lt;megamanzero521(a)Yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Zero wrote: 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 &lt;megamanzero521(a)Yahoo.com&gt; wrote: 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 &lt;megamanzero521(a)Yahoo.com&gt; wrote:Steve wrote: 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.

Steve Bennett &lt;stevagewp(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On 6/24/06, Zero wrote: their enjoyment of reading us shows are deemed "spoilable" given article from that which doesn't. 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! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

Zero &lt;megamanzero(a)Yahoo.com&gt; wrote: On 6/23/06, Ryan wrote: 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.