Somewhere around six months ago, I made the relatively obvious point that spoiler warnings were unencyclopedic and silly, and furthermore were being used to screw up article leads and violate NPOV. This led to a series of events that, over the course of about two weeks, had spoiler tags nearly completely deprecated from Wikipedia and the spoiler policy heavily rewritten to no longer encourage their use.
Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14 (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.
What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations. Everybody sane who looked at the situations recognized that. But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.
This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate. It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?
-Phil
Perhaps a certain amount of inconsistency and even nonsense is a sign that this is in fact an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Who would realistically expect to find such a project producing a perfectly clean work?
On 11/14/07, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Somewhere around six months ago, I made the relatively obvious point that spoiler warnings were unencyclopedic and silly, and furthermore were being used to screw up article leads and violate NPOV. This led to a series of events that, over the course of about two weeks, had spoiler tags nearly completely deprecated from Wikipedia and the spoiler policy heavily rewritten to no longer encourage their use.
Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14 (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.
What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations. Everybody sane who looked at the situations recognized that. But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.
This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate. It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/11/2007, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a certain amount of inconsistency and even nonsense is a sign that this is in fact an encyclopedia that everyone can edit. Who would realistically expect to find such a project producing a perfectly clean work?
Yeah. This is a live working draft - although articles will *tend* to get better with time, any given article may be in a HORRIBLE condition at any moment. This is not a finished product. (Arguably, it's barely started - [[WP:WIP]].)
Don't forget to put at least one good red link in every article you edit today, by the way ;-)
- d.
On Nov 14, 2007, at 7:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah. This is a live working draft - although articles will *tend* to get better with time, any given article may be in a HORRIBLE condition at any moment. This is not a finished product. (Arguably, it's barely started - [[WP:WIP]].)
Don't forget to put at least one good red link in every article you edit today, by the way ;-)
Sure - and the possibility of utterly insane things is important - particularly in the article space. Which is why I'm less annoyed about the 2004 election controversy articles than, well, the spoiler wars. On the other hand, though, the utter amount of time-wasting in the policy space is a problem, and I think it's why so much of our policy reads like it was written for obsessively tenacious killbots - in too many cases, it was.
-Phil
On Nov 14, 2007 6:58 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 7:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah. This is a live working draft - although articles will *tend* to get better with time, any given article may be in a HORRIBLE condition at any moment. This is not a finished product. (Arguably, it's barely started - [[WP:WIP]].)
Don't forget to put at least one good red link in every article you edit today, by the way ;-)
Sure - and the possibility of utterly insane things is important - particularly in the article space. Which is why I'm less annoyed about the 2004 election controversy articles than, well, the spoiler wars. On the other hand, though, the utter amount of time-wasting in the policy space is a problem, and I think it's why so much of our policy reads like it was written for obsessively tenacious killbots - in too many cases, it was.
-Phil
In politics, this is why the US joke about Congress being the opposite of Progress is so popular.
Policy space is politics in Wikipedia. We're dealing with maintaining a community view of what it is that we're doing, and clearly not everyone agrees on every point.
Any political process resembles making sausage. It's why most government separate out executive and judicial (policy enforcement) from legislative (policymaking) functions to the degree practical.
People try to set themselves up as dictators-for-life on open content or open source projects every now and then. The only ones that work mostly let communities run themselves and intervene a bit here and there with minimal dictator-for-life powers, like Jimmy and Linus.
George Herbert wrote:
In politics, this is why the US joke about Congress being the opposite of Progress is so popular.
AFAIK that concept originated it "The Foolish Dictionary" published in 1904.
Any political process resembles making sausage.
Sausages make a great hiding place for mystery meat.
It's why most government separate out executive and judicial (policy enforcement) from legislative (policymaking) functions to the degree practical.
The executive as policy enforcement also need to be separate from the judicial as policy moderation.
Ec
two words I hope to never hear used in conjunction again on the mailing list...dynamite and enema. Lovely imagery. Lovely.
But speaking seriously now, what you can do is grin and bear it. Open discourse is just that, and as much as it produces loud mouthed cranks with an ax to grind, it facilitates useful collaboration. That's the nature of the beast. If commentators really and truly become substantially disruptive to the encyclopedic process, one of two things happens(or should): we ignore them. or they get banned. Other than that, putting up with debates that never seem to fade is just part of the game. Not to mention that what seems like mindless annoyance to you seems useful and important to others. If you don't support open discourse for everyone, you don't support it at all.
On Nov 14, 2007 6:58 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 7:41 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Yeah. This is a live working draft - although articles will *tend* to get better with time, any given article may be in a HORRIBLE condition at any moment. This is not a finished product. (Arguably, it's barely started - [[WP:WIP]].)
Don't forget to put at least one good red link in every article you edit today, by the way ;-)
Sure - and the possibility of utterly insane things is important - particularly in the article space. Which is why I'm less annoyed about the 2004 election controversy articles than, well, the spoiler wars. On the other hand, though, the utter amount of time-wasting in the policy space is a problem, and I think it's why so much of our policy reads like it was written for obsessively tenacious killbots - in too many cases, it was.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
If you don't support open discourse for everyone, you don't support it at all.
You're mostly just restating the basic paradox here. Yes - we want an open discourse-based project. On the other hand, an extended six month saga of forum shopping a doomed cause is not useful - it's counter- productive, engenders bad faith and assumptions thereof, increases wikistress, and sucks time and air away from the business of improving articles.
Endless toleration of idiots (where "idiot" is defined as "inability or refusal to contribute desireable content") is not the goal of any productive system, no matter how open the discourse. The trick is figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control.
In the article space we mostly have a system in place to identify POV pushers and other idiots and isolate them through blocks, social censure, and reversion until they get annoyed and leave. Equivalent behaviors in the policy space are far more accepted, and for good reason - we have our basic content principles well spelled out (NPOV, Verifiability, etc). It's a lot harder to reduce the policy space to first premises and then isolate those who do not adhere to them.
This is, incidentally, why inclusionism/deletionism debates never end and often get so contentious - we don't have the same well-defined definition of what a useful contributor is on deletion debates that we do in the article namespace.
All of which is to say, I think the problem is rather more complex than people are making it out to be, and has a significant component that persists even after the two obvious statements ("Shoot the idiots" and "open discourse is important") are made.
-Phil
You make your point well. Then, if the object is "figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control." then it seems to me that the best way of accoomplishing this is to make forum shopping a firm criterion for closure of discussion. Is it still an essay? Why don't we propose it as a guideline?
On Nov 14, 2007 8:56 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
If you don't support open discourse for everyone, you don't support it at all.
You're mostly just restating the basic paradox here. Yes - we want an open discourse-based project. On the other hand, an extended six month saga of forum shopping a doomed cause is not useful - it's counter- productive, engenders bad faith and assumptions thereof, increases wikistress, and sucks time and air away from the business of improving articles.
Endless toleration of idiots (where "idiot" is defined as "inability or refusal to contribute desireable content") is not the goal of any productive system, no matter how open the discourse. The trick is figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control.
In the article space we mostly have a system in place to identify POV pushers and other idiots and isolate them through blocks, social censure, and reversion until they get annoyed and leave. Equivalent behaviors in the policy space are far more accepted, and for good reason - we have our basic content principles well spelled out (NPOV, Verifiability, etc). It's a lot harder to reduce the policy space to first premises and then isolate those who do not adhere to them.
This is, incidentally, why inclusionism/deletionism debates never end and often get so contentious - we don't have the same well-defined definition of what a useful contributor is on deletion debates that we do in the article namespace.
All of which is to say, I think the problem is rather more complex than people are making it out to be, and has a significant component that persists even after the two obvious statements ("Shoot the idiots" and "open discourse is important") are made.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
whoops, I forgot it's a part of Canvassing guidelines already.
On Nov 14, 2007 9:03 PM, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
You make your point well. Then, if the object is "figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control." then it seems to me that the best way of accoomplishing this is to make forum shopping a firm criterion for closure of discussion. Is it still an essay? Why don't we propose it as a guideline?
On Nov 14, 2007 8:56 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:37 PM, Steven Walling wrote:
If you don't support open discourse for everyone, you don't support it at all.
You're mostly just restating the basic paradox here. Yes - we want an open discourse-based project. On the other hand, an extended six month saga of forum shopping a doomed cause is not useful - it's counter- productive, engenders bad faith and assumptions thereof, increases wikistress, and sucks time and air away from the business of improving articles.
Endless toleration of idiots (where "idiot" is defined as "inability or refusal to contribute desireable content") is not the goal of any productive system, no matter how open the discourse. The trick is figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control.
In the article space we mostly have a system in place to identify POV pushers and other idiots and isolate them through blocks, social censure, and reversion until they get annoyed and leave. Equivalent behaviors in the policy space are far more accepted, and for good reason - we have our basic content principles well spelled out (NPOV, Verifiability, etc). It's a lot harder to reduce the policy space to first premises and then isolate those who do not adhere to them.
This is, incidentally, why inclusionism/deletionism debates never end and often get so contentious - we don't have the same well-defined definition of what a useful contributor is on deletion debates that we do in the article namespace.
All of which is to say, I think the problem is rather more complex than people are making it out to be, and has a significant component that persists even after the two obvious statements ("Shoot the idiots" and "open discourse is important") are made.
-Phil
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 15/11/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
You make your point well. Then, if the object is "figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control." then it seems to me that the best way of accoomplishing this is to make forum shopping a firm criterion for closure of discussion. Is it still an essay? Why don't we propose it as a guideline?
Because then any admin can trivially get what they want again a non admin by playing the you are complaining in the wrong place game. Mind you they already do that.
Steven Walling wrote:
You make your point well. Then, if the object is "figuring out ways of isolating idiocy that don't amount to iron fist control." then it seems to me that the best way of accoomplishing this is to make forum shopping a firm criterion for closure of discussion. Is it still an essay? Why don't we propose it as a guideline?
Framing the discussion in terms of "isolating idiocy" does not advance the governance issues. The majority of editors are not so overtly idiotic. The need is for an approach that recognizes that the decision of the day may still only reflect the majority of those who happened to participate within a prescribed time frame. Many of us who may disagree with a given policy proposal may not even hear about it until the debate is closed. That's the reality of a very large community. It does little good to tell these people, "Too bad, you should have been paying attention." If the pro spoiler warning faction is indeed nothing but a tiny minority it needs to be made apparent to all just as any change to the situation needs to be made apparent to all.
If we have a good policy mechanism to reflect the clear will of the community, and that tracks subtle changes in the community's will, the idiots will soon find themselves on the long tail of opinion.
Ec
On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Philip Sandifer wrote:
You're mostly just restating the basic paradox here. Yes - we want an open discourse-based project. On the other hand, an extended six month saga of forum shopping a doomed cause is not useful - it's counter- productive, engenders bad faith and assumptions thereof, increases wikistress, and sucks time and air away from the business of improving articles.
In other governance systems, particularly consensus ones, there is often a notion of membership, or members in good standing, and a notion of precedent. This is important so that participation is not gamed -- like in the OOXML standardization games that have now wrecked the committee -- and discussion does not continually rehash touchy issues. Clearly, this is a difficult issue for an open content community like Wikipedia. However, in other consensus-oriented communities there is often a threshold that old issues will not be revisited unless there is a significant change in opinion or new information comes to light that would've significantly affected the earlier discussions. Is there no such norm in Wikipedia?
Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Wednesday 14 November 2007, Philip Sandifer wrote:
You're mostly just restating the basic paradox here. Yes - we want an open discourse-based project. On the other hand, an extended six month saga of forum shopping a doomed cause is not useful - it's counter- productive, engenders bad faith and assumptions thereof, increases wikistress, and sucks time and air away from the business of improving articles.
In other governance systems, particularly consensus ones, there is often a notion of membership, or members in good standing, and a notion of precedent. This is important so that participation is not gamed -- like in the OOXML standardization games that have now wrecked the committee
Standardization has a superficial appeal because it, theoretically at least, makes everything predictable, orderly and easy to use. That's why we put blinders on horses. The dark side of standardization is in the way it resists change.
Ec
On Nov 14, 2007 6:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14 (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this.
Need to have an editor-in-chief, or at least a committee, that is willing and able to make decisions about such things. Arb com won't do it. Jimbo usually won't do it. True consensus is generally impossible to reach.
Whether or not "preventing this" is important enough to give up on consensus is debatable; but I'd say the fact that some sort of authority is required to "prevent this" is not.
Voting on issues like this is also a possibility, but there would still need to be an authority to determine whether or not the vote passed.
What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations.
What do you consider a consensus? If unbanned users disagree with a position and are willing to fight over its implementation, you don't have a true consensus. Are all the people fighting against these positions banned users? Or by "consensus" do you just mean "significant majority"?
On Nov 14, 2007 5:01 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007 6:48 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14
(with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this.
Need to have an editor-in-chief, or at least a committee, that is willing and able to make decisions about such things. Arb com won't do it. Jimbo usually won't do it. True consensus is generally impossible to reach.
Whether or not "preventing this" is important enough to give up on consensus is debatable; but I'd say the fact that some sort of authority is required to "prevent this" is not.
Voting on issues like this is also a possibility, but there would still need to be an authority to determine whether or not the vote passed.
What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations.
What do you consider a consensus? If unbanned users disagree with a position and are willing to fight over its implementation, you don't have a true consensus. Are all the people fighting against these positions banned users? Or by "consensus" do you just mean "significant majority"?
I actually disagree that there's consensus in the classical sense on spoilers.
It's clear that more admins with bigger guns support their removal. But I don't think that anyone ever achieved true "this is really bad" consensus across any significant part of the project.
In a sense, "they brought bigger guns, and a bulk of the people didn't bother to fire back at that point" is a consensus, but I don't think it's the happy smiling agreement you were looking for.
I, for one, disagree that spoiler tags are a dumb thing. And I have admin bit, and I could crank up a good argument over it here and elsewhere. I decided it wasn't important enough to fight over, even though I believe the arguments behind removing them are somewhere between specious and bogus.
If you intend to assert that nobody with influence and power supports the existence of spoiler tags, I disagree politely. If you insist, I can disagree loudly and robustly falsify the claim, but I'd rather just stand on "you got away with it, but that's all."
On Nov 14, 2007 8:14 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
I, for one, disagree that spoiler tags are a dumb thing. And I have admin bit, and I could crank up a good argument over it here and elsewhere. I decided it wasn't important enough to fight over, even though I believe the arguments behind removing them are somewhere between specious and bogus.
Well, if everyone felt that way, I'd call that a consensus. You don't have to agree to consent, you just have to decide that it isn't important enough to fight over.
But apparently there are a number of users who disagree with the majority and think it *is* important enough to fight over.
If you intend to assert that nobody with influence and power supports the existence of spoiler tags, I disagree politely.
Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that. On the contrary, actually. While I personally hate spoiler tags (I even argued for their removal approximately one year before Phil sent that email six months ago), I understand that there are lots of reasonable people who disagree with me.
I'd love it if someone would just come out and make a decision. I'm going to use the traffic light analogy again. I don't care if Red means Stop and Green means Go or if Red means Go and Green means Stop - I just care that one is picked and used consistently.
(Maybe a better analogy would involve a reference to [[Lilliput and Blefuscu]].)
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:14:40 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that more admins with bigger guns support their removal. But I don't think that anyone ever achieved true "this is really bad" consensus across any significant part of the project.
As I recall the most energetic remover was Tony Sidaway, who is not an admin.
Guy (JzG)
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:14:40 -0800, "George Herbert" george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's clear that more admins with bigger guns support their removal. But I don't think that anyone ever achieved true "this is really bad" consensus across any significant part of the project.
As I recall the most energetic remover was Tony Sidaway, who is not an admin.
Up to a point. Tony was an admin, often does adminish stuff and is certainly friendly with a great number of admins. And just because he was the "most energetic remover" doesn't mean that it was only him.
On 15/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Up to a point. Tony was an admin, often does adminish stuff and is certainly friendly with a great number of admins. And just because he was the "most energetic remover" doesn't mean that it was only him.
To be fair, remember I was probably second most energetic remover, with tens of thousands to my credit.
- d.
On Nov 15, 2007 8:42 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Up to a point. Tony was an admin, often does adminish stuff and is
certainly
friendly with a great number of admins. And just because he was the
"most
energetic remover" doesn't mean that it was only him.
To be fair, remember I was probably second most energetic remover, with tens of thousands to my credit.
I intended to send you a pseudo-nasty email about that at some point, but I'll just stick my tongue out and go "Phbhttt".
On 11/14/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What do you consider a consensus? If unbanned users disagree with a position and are willing to fight over its implementation, you don't have a true consensus.
That was my first thought. How many people had zero clue that nixing spoilers was even being discussed until the spoilers were actually being removed?
Isn't this how the Earth got destroyed in "Hitchhikers Guide"?
Philip Sandifer wrote:
So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?
Do you really want to drive them away? That doesn't appeal to me.
It would seem to me that the only long-term options are to come to consensus or to exile people. That consensus can be of the agree-to-disagree variety, naturally. For minority views, it usually has to be. But I don't see any middle ground between that and giving the boot to people who care a bit too much.
Personally, I'd prefer finding new ways to build consensus. I know that you have some strong views that are only held by a minority. What makes you willing to shelve them and accept that the consensus is against you for now? Maybe we can find something in that to apply to others.
William
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Philip Sandifer wrote:
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.
The way you can prevent this is to stop abusing the system to delete spoiler tags. Admins have closed polls, ran what were de-facto bots, used circular reasoning, and generally not gone through any reasonable process in order to delete spoiler warnings. Your own claim that there is consensus is part of the problem--"consensus" gained by people not reverting thousands of partly automatic edits manually (and being threatened with bans for edit-warring if they do) manually is not consensus.
On Nov 15, 2007 11:48 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Philip Sandifer wrote:
What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this. I've been fighting with the same people over issues with reliable sourcing for well over a year, for instance, and yet those fights still continue despite, seemingly, a substantial shift in opinion away from the former hardline positions (things that included overbroad statements about blogs "never" being reliable sources). [[2004 United States presidential election controversy and irregularities]] has been in need of a dynamite enema since, well, 2004, and has been the subject of an arbcom case, but so far nobody has quite managed to kill the blasted thing and its legion of OR sub-articles.
The way you can prevent this is to stop abusing the system to delete spoiler tags. Admins have closed polls, ran what were de-facto bots, used circular reasoning, and generally not gone through any reasonable process in order to delete spoiler warnings. Your own claim that there is consensus is part of the problem--"consensus" gained by people not reverting thousands of partly automatic edits manually (and being threatened with bans for edit-warring if they do) manually is not consensus.
*perks up*
Who was threatened with edit-war bans over this?
On 15/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007 11:48 AM, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
The way you can prevent this is to stop abusing the system to delete spoiler tags. Admins have closed polls, ran what were de-facto bots, used circular reasoning, and generally not gone through any reasonable process in order to delete spoiler warnings. Your own claim that there is consensus is part of the problem--"consensus" gained by people not reverting thousands of partly automatic edits manually (and being threatened with bans for edit-warring if they do) manually is not consensus.
*perks up* Who was threatened with edit-war bans over this?
No-one that I know of. However, several fans of spoilers got 3RR blocks.
- d.
On 15/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Who was threatened with edit-war bans over this?
Actually, I don't know. Searching gives me a lot of references to people supposedly edit-warring by putting back spoiler tags, but specific punishments are rarely mentioned. But accusations of edit-warring carry the implicit threat of punishment.
But whether it's being banned or blocked, it's pretty much the same problem: users *cannot* put spoiler warnings back in because they could be punished for edit-warring and contradicting consensus, when at the same time the fact that nobody puts them back is used to *prove* consensus, which is a classic catch-22.
Not to mention that users really can't restore 45000 warnings manually, and it's much easier to automate the removal than it is to automate the restoration.
(And let's not mention such incidents as getting the AWB complaint summarily dismissed, or all attempts to take polls getting closed because the poll might prove there isn't consensus.)
Spoiler warnings were removed by abuse of power, abuse of the rules, and abuse of logistics. Of *course* users are going to be mad about this for longer than they're going to be mad about standard Wikipedia administrative actions. This shouldn't be surprising at all; in fact, the very fact that users are unaccepting for an unusually long time should be a clue that there's something different about this case.
On 15/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Actually, I don't know. Searching gives me a lot of references to people supposedly edit-warring by putting back spoiler tags, but specific punishments are rarely mentioned. But accusations of edit-warring carry the implicit threat of punishment.
Accusations of 3RR carry the explicit threat of being blocked for violating 3RR. The appropriate remedy, surely, is "don't do that then."
But whether it's being banned or blocked, it's pretty much the same problem: users *cannot* put spoiler warnings back in because they could be punished for edit-warring and contradicting consensus, when at the same time the fact that nobody puts them back is used to *prove* consensus, which is a classic catch-22.
No, that's not the case - people were blocked for violating 3RR and that's it. If you wish to claim otherwise, I look forward to your evidence diffs.
Spoiler warnings were removed by abuse of power, abuse of the rules, and abuse of logistics. Of *course* users are going to be mad about this for longer than they're going to be mad about standard Wikipedia administrative actions. This shouldn't be surprising at all; in fact, the very fact that users are unaccepting for an unusually long time should be a clue that there's something different about this case.
As demonstrated by the interest in your complaint in every venue you took it to, i.e. none.
- d.
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Actually, I don't know. Searching gives me a lot of references to people supposedly edit-warring by putting back spoiler tags, but specific punishments are rarely mentioned. But accusations of edit-warring carry the implicit threat of punishment.
Accusations of 3RR carry the explicit threat of being blocked for violating 3RR. The appropriate remedy, surely, is "don't do that then."
Not really. Then it becomes a battle of rule lawyers and who has the better communications network.
On 15/11/2007, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Accusations of 3RR carry the explicit threat of being blocked for violating 3RR. The appropriate remedy, surely, is "don't do that then."
Not really. Then it becomes a battle of rule lawyers and who has the better communications network.
No, it remains the case that the way not to get blocked for edit-warring is not to edit-war.
Play the long game. Leave the ardent edit warrior to their own devices. Come back in due course. Most editors only stay active six to eighteen months. We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
- d.
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, it remains the case that the way not to get blocked for edit-warring is not to edit-war.
Play the long game. Leave the ardent edit warrior to their own devices.
In effective overturning something after 6 months is near impossible.
Come back in due course. Most editors only stay active six to eighteen months. We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
The rational thing to do then becomes to speed up the burnout. Ignoring the normal decision making process and sooner or latter you will run into someone prepared to do likewise. I could have made the spoiler issue end very differently with less than half a dozen users.
On Nov 15, 2007 4:10 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
No, it remains the case that the way not to get blocked for edit-warring is not to edit-war.
Play the long game. Leave the ardent edit warrior to their own devices.
In effective overturning something after 6 months is near impossible.
Come back in due course. Most editors only stay active six to eighteen months. We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
The rational thing to do then becomes to speed up the burnout. Ignoring the normal decision making process and sooner or latter you will run into someone prepared to do likewise. I could have made the spoiler issue end very differently with less than half a dozen users.
-- geni
It's not "could have made". The issue is not settled until either:
* A working "actual agreement" consensus is achieved on-wiki, or...
* Everyone who is pro-spoiler-warnings and able to fight the multilevel policy fight (such as a few of us here) choses explicitly rather than implicity to simply let it go.
The email that started this posed the question falsely, by assuming that it was settled. The definition of consensus that includes "but nobody who can make a fight for it stick has gone after the problem... yet" is a dangerous presumption.
It's particularly dangerous because it leads to people thinking that they have the actual working agreement consensus and can start taking extraordinary measures against those seen as troublemakers against that false consensus.
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not "could have made". The issue is not settled until either:
A working "actual agreement" consensus is achieved on-wiki, or...
Everyone who is pro-spoiler-warnings and able to fight the multilevel
policy fight (such as a few of us here) choses explicitly rather than implicity to simply let it go.
While there are ways to overturn it at this stage most of them would require a fair bit of luck and/or would be extremely hard to do.
On Nov 15, 2007 4:36 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
It's not "could have made". The issue is not settled until either:
A working "actual agreement" consensus is achieved on-wiki, or...
Everyone who is pro-spoiler-warnings and able to fight the multilevel
policy fight (such as a few of us here) choses explicitly rather than implicity to simply let it go.
While there are ways to overturn it at this stage most of them would require a fair bit of luck and/or would be extremely hard to do.
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus.
Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
- d.
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
On 2007.11.16 01:53:04 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com scribbled 0 lines:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
-- geni
I think his point here is a No True Scotsman point: 'If people *really* wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back' [emphasis added].
Sure, there may be real costs to trying to restore spoilers but hey - if you let tedious-bot-reverts/edit-warring/warnings/blocks/bans deter you from adding and maintaining spoiler warnings, then you obviously didn't *really* want spoilers. As we've just established that no one actually cares about or wants spoilers, it logically follows from WP:BOLD that it's perfectly alright to do anything in furtherance of removing spoiler tags.
-- gwern
On Nov 15, 2007 6:30 PM, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
On 2007.11.16 01:53:04 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com scribbled 0 lines:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We
have a
"last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
-- geni
I think his point here is a No True Scotsman point: 'If people *really* wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back' [emphasis added].
Sure, there may be real costs to trying to restore spoilers but hey - if you let tedious-bot-reverts/edit-warring/warnings/blocks/bans deter you from adding and maintaining spoiler warnings, then you obviously didn't *really* want spoilers. As we've just established that no one actually cares about or wants spoilers, it logically follows from WP:BOLD that it's perfectly alright to do anything in furtherance of removing spoiler tags.
I believe this to be an unreasonable exaggeration of his point.
On Nov 15, 2007 5:53 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We
have a
"last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
I am not restrained from action due to any fear to myself of what might happen.
I have to date classified this (I believe) wrong action as insignificant enough that I am not willing to put time and effort into overturning it. I have no doubt that I could change that and act effectively and reasonably without my being banned, yelled at overly badly, brought up for Arbitration, etc, though it's likely someone somewhere would call me silly names on ANI.
I've made a value judgement that spoiler warnings being in Wikipedia is, to me, less valuable than the other things I am continuing to put effort in to. So far, to date.
I have also made a value judgement that avoiding the appearance of a false consensus on this issue IS important to me, so I'm speaking my mind here.
I hope that the implication that people are in fear over this issue is wrong. If it is in fact true and well founded, with threats that can be pointed to in diffs, then I think we legitimately have a problem here.
I have not yet seen any evidence of that and assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:53 PM, geni wrote:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
Nothing about the six month spoiler debate has led me to believe that the proponents of spoiler warnings have any particular desire to avoid conflict.
-Phil
On Nov 15, 2007 6:52 PM, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 15, 2007, at 8:53 PM, geni wrote:
On 16/11/2007, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus. Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
No. People may want them but they don't want that level of conflict. Victory through fear. Yes it's effective in the short term.
Nothing about the six month spoiler debate has led me to believe that the proponents of spoiler warnings have any particular desire to avoid conflict.
-Phil
Admitting here that I didn't slavishly follow the debate, but...
This argument seems to generally have been exceptionally "clean" and devoid of noticably policy-violation behavior on any side.
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but you've been painting a picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my recollection of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
It's extremely dangerous for you to form a mental picture of a bunch of rogue opposers and attempt to act on that, under the circumstances. Your suggestion that started this all off is the sort of thing that's caused little circles of admins on IRC to go do amazingly stunningly bad things in the past.
If I just missed some unethical / policy-busting opposition then I am open to being properly informed, but this thread has been disturbing. Please take this as polite feedback that you need to re-assess where you're coming from on the issue.
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This argument seems to generally have been exceptionally "clean" and devoid of noticably policy-violation behavior on any side.
About all there was was some 3RR blocks on advocates of spoilers.
The advocates of spoilers were sure the action of removal of spoilers was a violation of *something*, but shopped it to every venue they could, including an MFD, a policy RFC, arbitration twice, mediation - during which Ken seriously proposed putting back all 45,000 spoilers, presumably including the ones on [[The Three Little Pigs]], [[Hamlet]] and [[Anagram]] - and even the AutoWikiBrowser permissions talk page ... and failed to interest anyone in their cause. I suggest this is because they didn't and don't have a case.
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but you've been painting a picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my recollection of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
Coming here and making false claims of ban threats in the abovedescribed processes is not just sore losing, but odious.
- d.
On Nov 15, 2007 7:36 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
This argument seems to generally have been exceptionally "clean" and
devoid
of noticably policy-violation behavior on any side.
About all there was was some 3RR blocks on advocates of spoilers.
The advocates of spoilers were sure the action of removal of spoilers was a violation of *something*, but shopped it to every venue they could, including an MFD, a policy RFC, arbitration twice, mediation - during which Ken seriously proposed putting back all 45,000 spoilers, presumably including the ones on [[The Three Little Pigs]], [[Hamlet]] and [[Anagram]] - and even the AutoWikiBrowser permissions talk page ... and failed to interest anyone in their cause. I suggest this is because they didn't and don't have a case.
We can agree to disagree on that point, I hope...
For someone who feels that they're fundamentally a good thing, putting them all back is the logical thing to do.
Though "all" has some rational exceptions for things which are not truly current, I guess.
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but you've been painting a picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my
recollection
of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
Coming here and making false claims of ban threats in the abovedescribed processes is not just sore losing, but odious.
Those were also retracted after people looked and didn't find.
Phil's post which started all of this rather explicitly and literally called the set of people opposing the removals "lunatics" and "totally insane". After which he then proceeded to argue that some viewpoints should simply be excluded from future policy discussions.
Some people went hyperbolic following that, but it's hard to argue that there wasn't provocation.
I don't want to bag on Phil. I think Phil did a relatively fine thing by venting about his frustration here and not elsewhere. In some senses, wikien-l is a far better place to vent than on-wiki or some other venues I can think of, despite the S/N complaints others have been making today. It's far easier to test the "feeling of the community" on some issues here than on the larger wiki, and AGF concerns are less in play here among those who are known.
The point, that the disagreement still lingers, is valid...
But the nature of the discussion has led to a moderate amount of drama here for no progress towards resolution.
George Herbert wrote:
Phil's post which started all of this rather explicitly and literally called the set of people opposing the removals "lunatics" and "totally insane". After which he then proceeded to argue that some viewpoints should simply be excluded from future policy discussions.
Some people went hyperbolic following that, but it's hard to argue that there wasn't provocation.
This is a big problem with using examples. It shifts the attention away from what the example is meant to represent. The hyperbole is expressed about the example of spoiler warnings, not the underlying issue of the whole decision making process.
Ec
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Gerard wrote:
The advocates of spoilers were sure the action of removal of spoilers was a violation of *something*, but shopped it to every venue they could, including an MFD, a policy RFC, arbitration twice, mediation - during which Ken seriously proposed putting back all 45,000 spoilers, presumably including the ones on [[The Three Little Pigs]], [[Hamlet]] and [[Anagram]] - and even the AutoWikiBrowser permissions talk page ... and failed to interest anyone in their cause. I suggest this is because they didn't and don't have a case.
No, the problem is that people who wanted to remove spoiler warnings liked to quote extreme cases like the Three Little Pigs. These cases are only a small minority of all warnings that were removed. I would have no problem with restoring, say, 44000 spoiler warnings while not restoring ones on the Three Little Pigs and the equivalent, but of course if you're going to do that you'd restore them all anyway and then take out the few that really should stay removed.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:53:27 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
No, the problem is that people who wanted to remove spoiler warnings liked to quote extreme cases like the Three Little Pigs. These cases are only a small minority of all warnings that were removed.
You think. I thought they were pretty representative. The term "indiscriminate" most accurately describes the use of these tags.
Regardless, {{current fiction}} is simply *better*. It documents something objectively provable (it is fiction, it is current) not something which is inherently vague.
Guy (JzG)
On Nov 15, 2007, at 10:02 PM, George Herbert wrote:
Phil, I understand that you're tired of it, but you've been painting a picture of an unethical opposition here which does not match my recollection of events or any evidence I've seen posted anywhere.
For what its worth, the opposition was generally ethical. Foolish, needlessly tenacious, time-wasting, prone to personal attacks, and generally not worth six months, yes. But ethical, and seemingly in good faith.
-Phil
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Gerard wrote:
Indeed. If people really wanted spoiler warnings, they'd be back.
Does the word "logistics" mean anything to you?
It's easy to find spoiler warnings to remove them: search for the template. It's even easier when you can partly automate the task.
It's difficult to add a spoiler warning back. There's nothing you can search for, and the users who want to add them back have no access to tools that would make this easier.
It's so much easier to remove spoiler warnings than add them that that alone would probably keep them from coming back even without the threat of punishment for edit warring.
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
It's difficult to add a spoiler warning back. There's nothing you can search for, and the users who want to add them back have no access to tools that would make this easier.
This isn't really true. There's a relatively small list ("cabal") of people that took them out, and over a relatively narrow time window, looking through their contribution list and undoing them can very probably still be done in most cases, even now, either with automated bot tools, or manually; if this is wished.
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Ian Woollard wrote:
It's difficult to add a spoiler warning back. There's nothing you can search for, and the users who want to add them back have no access to tools that would make this easier.
This isn't really true. There's a relatively small list ("cabal") of people that took them out, and over a relatively narrow time window, looking through their contribution list and undoing them can very probably still be done in most cases, even now, either with automated bot tools, or manually; if this is wished.
I'm on a dialup connection and am incapable of doing it anyway, but even then, I'd have no idea how to do this using any kind of tools.
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd get punished for edit warring, and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest of endurance.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd get punished for edit warring, and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest of endurance.
I'll add that doing this would have to be preceded by reverting the spoiler warning template and any relevant policies. Trying to do that would result in an edit war in which the spoiler opponents would be considered innocent and the spoiler proponents would be considered guilty, on the grounds that status quo protects the current version and that a consensus is necessary to change it.
Seems to me removal of the spoilers was non consensus and is a position only being maintained by technical difficulties of reverting and threats. This is so not good.
My position is that spoilers *should* be included if identification of information as a spoiler is verifiable to a notable and reliable source.
The removal was performed in such a way as to indicate that spoilers should not ever be included; and that position is at odds with the fundamental core principles of the wikipedia.
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd get punished for edit warring, and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest
of
endurance.
I'll add that doing this would have to be preceded by reverting the spoiler warning template and any relevant policies. Trying to do that would result in an edit war in which the spoiler opponents would be considered innocent and the spoiler proponents would be considered guilty, on the grounds that status quo protects the current version and that a consensus is necessary to change it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That is saying we should report whatever a reviewer says, rather than whatever of it is encyclopedic. If 5 reviewers put spoilers in 5 different places, do we include all of them?
On 11/19/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me removal of the spoilers was non consensus and is a position only being maintained by technical difficulties of reverting and threats. This is so not good.
My position is that spoilers *should* be included if identification of information as a spoiler is verifiable to a notable and reliable source.
The removal was performed in such a way as to indicate that spoilers should not ever be included; and that position is at odds with the fundamental core principles of the wikipedia.
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd get punished for edit warring, and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest
of
endurance.
I'll add that doing this would have to be preceded by reverting the spoiler warning template and any relevant policies. Trying to do that would result in an edit war in which the spoiler opponents would be considered innocent and the spoiler proponents would be considered guilty, on the grounds that status quo protects the current version and that a consensus is necessary to change it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, David Goodman wrote:
That is saying we should report whatever a reviewer says, rather than whatever of it is encyclopedic. If 5 reviewers put spoilers in 5 different places, do we include all of them?
Only if we're quoting the reviewers' entire reviews. Since our article is probably not going to be exactly like each reviewer's article, even in structure (let alone in actual words), we need not put spoiler warnings in the exact same places, if "the exact same places" is even meaningful considering that it's a review and not an encyclopedia article.
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, David Goodman wrote:
That is saying we should report whatever a reviewer says, rather than whatever of it is encyclopedic. If 5 reviewers put spoilers in 5 different places, do we include all of them?
Only if we're quoting the reviewers' entire reviews. Since our article is probably not going to be exactly like each reviewer's article, even in structure (let alone in actual words), we need not put spoiler warnings in the exact same places, if "the exact same places" is even meaningful considering that it's a review and not an encyclopedia article.
An interesting theory that they would have to be exactly the same. One not backed up, in any way, by the core policies of the wikipedia however.
Ultimately, disagreements among sufficiently knowledgeable people come about due to lack of shared values. If you don't agree with the core values of the wikipedia, why are you here?
If a notable reviewer writing in a reliable source points to some set of information in their piece and labels it 'spoiler' and that information is also contained in the wikipedia then that information verifiably and notably is. Under the core values it is not wrong to tag or otherwise label that information as such in the wikipedia.
How: "the NYT terminated its review at this point? " why is that encyclopedic information? --we link to the review if anyone wants to see such details as where the NYT stopped. I can see that a mention of what scenes were in the producer's trailer might be relevant.
On 11/19/07, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, David Goodman wrote:
That is saying we should report whatever a reviewer says, rather than whatever of it is encyclopedic. If 5 reviewers put spoilers in 5 different places, do we include all of them?
Only if we're quoting the reviewers' entire reviews. Since our article is probably not going to be exactly like each reviewer's article, even in structure (let alone in actual words), we need not put spoiler warnings in the exact same places, if "the exact same places" is even meaningful considering that it's a review and not an encyclopedia article.
An interesting theory that they would have to be exactly the same. One not backed up, in any way, by the core policies of the wikipedia however.
Ultimately, disagreements among sufficiently knowledgeable people come about due to lack of shared values. If you don't agree with the core values of the wikipedia, why are you here?
If a notable reviewer writing in a reliable source points to some set of information in their piece and labels it 'spoiler' and that information is also contained in the wikipedia then that information verifiably and notably is. Under the core values it is not wrong to tag or otherwise label that information as such in the wikipedia.
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Nov 19, 2007 5:39 PM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Ultimately, disagreements among sufficiently knowledgeable people come about due to lack of shared values. If you don't agree with the core values of the wikipedia, why are you here?
Lack of agreement that comes down to core values is one of the ways true trolls self-identify.
This issue, however, is regarding less core values.
The rest of the Internet has agreed on spoiler tags on stuff. Wikipedia, of course, does not need to do it the way everyone else does. Wikipedia is not at all like most of the rest of the Web in terms of our information goals.
However, the overwhelming prevalence of doing it that way "out there" argues that those of you who want to remove the tags here at least need to extend good faith more consistently than you sometimes have, and perhaps should work harder to try and put together a policy to put through consensus review rather than trying to sneak it in the back door.
Your apparent assumption of bad faith regarding Ken in the email I'm responding to here is rather disturbing.
the removal was not to say that spoilers should never be included, it was that spoilers should be expected in sections named "Plot" and were redundant. Removing spoilers would violate wikipedia is not censored.
On Nov 19, 2007 10:07 AM, Ian Woollard ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me removal of the spoilers was non consensus and is a position only being maintained by technical difficulties of reverting and threats. This is so not good.
My position is that spoilers *should* be included if identification of information as a spoiler is verifiable to a notable and reliable source.
The removal was performed in such a way as to indicate that spoilers should not ever be included; and that position is at odds with the fundamental core principles of the wikipedia.
On 19/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Ken Arromdee wrote:
Of course, were anyone to try this, they'd get punished for edit warring, and even if *that* problem was overcome, it would simply become a contest
of
endurance.
I'll add that doing this would have to be preceded by reverting the spoiler warning template and any relevant policies. Trying to do that would result in an edit war in which the spoiler opponents would be considered innocent and the spoiler proponents would be considered guilty, on the grounds that status quo protects the current version and that a consensus is necessary to change it.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- -Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly imperfect world things would be a lot better.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:07:05 +0000, "Ian Woollard" ian.woollard@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me removal of the spoilers was non consensus and is a position only being maintained by technical difficulties of reverting and threats. This is so not good.
It's not clear to me that including them was consensus either. There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens? The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my view.
In any event, the result is better for the encyclopaedia: a {{current fiction}} template is objectively verifiable in a way that the concept of a spoiler is not.
Guy (JzG)
On 19/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
It's not clear to me that including them was consensus either. There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
Doubtful. A group acting on that scale leaving no traceable evidence at all? I think not.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens? The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my view.
Random new users or the like.
In any event, the result is better for the encyclopaedia: a {{current fiction}} template is objectively verifiable in a way that the concept of a spoiler is not.
"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the work of fiction"
Is not a useful statement and merely accelerates the trend of people thinking every single article needs some kind of "this article is less than ideal" tag. I mean "proseline" what is that meant to archive.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:09:49 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the work of fiction"
{{sofxit}}
Why do we demand unanimity in favour of removal, when there is clearly a complete lack of unanimity for inclusion? The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Where is the consensus for use of the vaguely-defined term "spoiler"?
Guy (JzG)
JzG wrote:
Why do we demand unanimity in favour of removal, when there is clearly a complete lack of unanimity for inclusion? The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Where is the consensus for use of the vaguely-defined term "spoiler"?
We're never going to get consensus where it matters on this issue. The spoiler warnings are on behalf of readers we don't know personally and will never hear from. We have a relatively minuscule number of editors arguing in favor of the warnings on behalf of those readers, and a slightly larger -- but still minuscule on the scale of our readership -- number of editors saying they look "unprofessional" and are unnecessary in an encyclopedia. But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable, nor indeed a complaint from an end reader saying that an un-warned spoiler was objectionable. So we'll probably never know.
(Which I guess is one reason the debate will never end. I feel bad posting to the thread at all, given that a problem with this list is that it's bursting at the seams with people saying the same things over and over again in numerous threads that won't die.)
On Nov 19, 2007 5:40 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable,
I'm an "end reader", and I've complained about the spoiler tags before.
I have in the past edited Wikipedia, but that doesn't make me not a reader.
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Nov 19, 2007 5:40 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable,
I'm an "end reader", and I've complained about the spoiler tags before.
I have in the past edited Wikipedia, but that doesn't make me not a reader.
As long as we're playing the anecdote game I've heard complaints from at least two non-Wikipedian friends about the lack of spoiler warnings. As one put it "Where'd all the spoiler warnings go?" However, I'm not sure they would have had this attitude but for the fact that there was what amounts to a change; that it, they expected to see spoiler tags and be able to use that advantage because they had seen them before and were not used to now lack of them. I have no idea how common this is.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:48 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Anthony wikimail@inbox.org:
On Nov 19, 2007 5:40 PM, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable,
I'm an "end reader", and I've complained about the spoiler tags before.
I have in the past edited Wikipedia, but that doesn't make me not a
reader.
As long as we're playing the anecdote game I've heard complaints from at least two non-Wikipedian friends about the lack of spoiler warnings. As one put it "Where'd all the spoiler warnings go?" However, I'm not sure they would have had this attitude but for the fact that there was what amounts to a change; that it, they expected to see spoiler tags and be able to use that advantage because they had seen them before and were not used to now lack of them. I have no idea how common this is.
I personally have not heard anyone outside Wikipedia complain about the removal, FWIW. I personally supported the removal, but not necessarily its implementation on such a wide and automated scale.
I also still don't understand the objections to marking up potentially spoiler-ish content semantically to allow those who fear spoilers not to see them.
Johnleemk
On Nov 19, 2007 7:11 PM, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I also still don't understand the objections to marking up potentially spoiler-ish content semantically to allow those who fear spoilers not to see them.
Marking them up could be just as easily done as a separate project. I see little point to cluttering up the wikitext for no benefit.
OTOH, if you have a patch available, which is opt-in, and can get 100 (*) people to say they'd be interested in opting-in, then I guess the benefit is enough to clutter up the wikitext a bit.
(*) 100 users seems reasonable to clutter up the wikitext. 1 wouldn't be. Neither would 10 be, IMHO.
On 19/11/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
As long as we're playing the anecdote game I've heard complaints from at least two non-Wikipedian friends about the lack of spoiler warnings. As one put it "Where'd all the spoiler warnings go?" However, I'm not sure they would have had this attitude but for the fact that there was what amounts to a change; that it, they expected to see spoiler tags and be able to use that advantage because they had seen them before and were not used to now lack of them. I have no idea how common this is.
What swung it for me was that - amongst complaints from the reading public about each and every other detail you could think of about our content - I never once saw a complaint that we'd had a lack of spoilers. (Though enquiring about such produced one or two.) On the scale of concerns about Wikipedia content, it was not visible.
- d.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:40:31 -0500, Steve Summit scs@eskimo.com wrote:
We're never going to get consensus where it matters on this issue. The spoiler warnings are on behalf of readers we don't know personally and will never hear from.
And - here's a radical thought - did anyone ever ask them? Is there even a mechanism for doing so? I'd say not.
Whatever, though, you are right. I was trying to say new things, but probably only saying old things with not very new words.
Guy (JzG)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Steve Summit wrote:
But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable, nor indeed a complaint from an end reader saying that an un-warned spoiler was objectionable. So we'll probably never know.
Oh, sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive3#Are_spoilers_ac...
Spoilers are an issue for me, yes. Here's an example. In episode 11 of Jericho, the town holds its election for mayor. The outcome of that election is an important plot point for the entire series. I have not yet seen that episode, but I've already had that plot point spoiled for me, because someone decided that Template:Jerichonav should display the identity of the mayor. This template appears in every Wikipedia article related to the show, so the only way to avoid seeing the spoiler is to not use Wikipedia to read about Jericho. Pat Berry 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive4#Zero_Documented...
Following the link:
I personaly made the mistake of reading the ending on this article when I did not want to, and while one could argue that I was simply careless or stupid, I ask, if saying that a section of the article is about the story is enough of a warning, why is there a spoiler warning template at all? Why do most other game article use it in an almost identical context? Why change the previous policy: is something on Wikipedia hurt by a spoiler warning? Is simple, minor (alleged) redundancy such a crime if it prevents (what I will call for lack of a better term) injury to a reader? I think this needs to be reexamened, and if you do think that a spoiler is truly unnessisary, they you should probably remove the spoiler warning in all instances of its occurance and perhaps disable the template itself. For now I am not personnaly planning to add a spoiler warning as I do not want an edit war more than anyone else, but I really think it should have one and the subject definately needs evaluation.
Quoting Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Steve Summit wrote:
But we've never heard (that I know of) a complaint from an end reader saying that the warnings were objectionable, nor indeed a complaint from an end reader saying that an un-warned spoiler was objectionable. So we'll probably never know.
Oh, sheesh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive3#Are_spoilers_ac...
Spoilers are an issue for me, yes. Here's an example. In episode 11 of Jericho, the town holds its election for mayor. The outcome of that election is an important plot point for the entire series. I have not yet seen that episode, but I've already had that plot point spoiled for me, because someone decided that Template:Jerichonav should display the identity of the mayor. This template appears in every Wikipedia article related to the show, so the only way to avoid seeing the spoiler is to not use Wikipedia to read about Jericho. Pat Berry 03:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This is an argument against the Jericho template construction, not an argument for spoiler warnings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler/archive4#Zero_Documented...
Following the link:
I personaly made the mistake of reading the ending on this article when I did not want to, and while one could argue that I was simply careless or stupid, I ask, if saying that a section of the article is about the story is enough of a warning, why is there a spoiler warning template at all? Why do most other game article use it in an almost identical context? Why change the previous policy: is something on Wikipedia hurt by a spoiler warning? Is simple, minor (alleged) redundancy such a crime if it prevents (what I will call for lack of a better term) injury to a reader? I think this needs to be reexamened, and if you do think that a spoiler is truly unnessisary, they you should probably remove the spoiler warning in all instances of its occurance and perhaps disable the template itself. For now I am not personnaly planning to add a spoiler warning as I do not want an edit war more than anyone else, but I really think it should have one and the subject definately needs evaluation.
This is just as much an argument for not having any spoiler warnings, or a general argument for consistency. This does not appear to be a general argument for spoilers. Although it does back up the earlier comment made by George (I think) that people expect spoiler warnings on the internet.
On Nov 19, 2007 2:21 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:09:49 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of the work of fiction"
{{sofxit}}
Why do we demand unanimity in favour of removal, when there is clearly a complete lack of unanimity for inclusion? The onus is on the person seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Where is the consensus for use of the vaguely-defined term "spoiler"?
Guy (JzG)
There is a wide mailing-list, Usenet, web board, and so forth consensus to use spoiler tags.
It's considered a normal part of internet culture.
That is not to say that Wikipedia must slavishly follow aspects of internet culture which may be orthogonal or opposed to the core Wikipedia project goals...
But that's where it's coming from. And the case that the tags are in fact orthogonal or opposed to the core project goals is poorly argued.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:25:03 -0500, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
What did the spoiler template read at the time it was deleted?
<div class="notice metadata spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler|Note]]:''' ''Significant plot details {{#if:{{{1|}}}|about {{{1}}}}} follow.''</div><noinclude>
Which usually rendered as "significant plot details follow".
In a section usually titled ==Plot==
Guy (JzG)
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Anthony wrote:
What did the spoiler template read at the time it was deleted?
I don't recall the exact wording, but it was pretty useless for a while, since long before actually deleting it, the anti-spoiler-warning crowd edited it so as to remove the words "spoiler" and "warning".
Quoting Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Anthony wrote:
What did the spoiler template read at the time it was deleted?
I don't recall the exact wording, but it was pretty useless for a while, since long before actually deleting it, the anti-spoiler-warning crowd edited it so as to remove the words "spoiler" and "warning".
It said "Significant plot details follow". I think one would need to be a bit slow to not realize that that meant spoilers.
Full text: <div class="notice metadata spoiler">'''[[Wikipedia:Spoiler|Note]]:''' ''Significant plot details {{#if:{{{1|}}}|about {{{1}}}}} follow.''</div><noinclude> {{documentation}} <!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens?
Probably someone who thinks that there are people who don't know the details of that Shakespeare play and might be reading or seeing it for the first time in the future.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:20:46 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Probably someone who thinks that there are people who don't know the details of that Shakespeare play and might be reading or seeing it for the first time in the future.
...and doesn't understand that scholarly treatments of Shakespeare don't include spoiler warnings.
Guy (JzG)
JzG wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:20:46 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Probably someone who thinks that there are people who don't know the details of that Shakespeare play and might be reading or seeing it for the first time in the future.
...and doesn't understand that scholarly treatments of Shakespeare don't include spoiler warnings.
But Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia. So that doesn't necessarily follow.
Quoting Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:20:46 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Probably someone who thinks that there are people who don't know the details of that Shakespeare play and might be reading or seeing it for the first time in the future.
...and doesn't understand that scholarly treatments of Shakespeare don't include spoiler warnings.
That claims relevancy isn't immediately obvious to me. Scholarly works aren't designed for general audiences and are (almost by definition) aimed at people already familiar with the work in question. The more serious objection to this sort of thing seems at least to me that most Shakespeare was material where the general audience would have already known the basic plot. So if anything the author wanted the spoilers spoiled.
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Scholarly works aren't designed for general audiences and are (almost by definition) aimed at people already familiar with the work in question.
Exactly.
The more serious objection to this sort of thing seems at least to me that most Shakespeare was material where the general audience would have already known the basic plot.
If that's so, then don't put spoiler warnings on Shakespeare.
I really wouldn't mind much if spoiler warnings had only been removed from cases like nursery rhymes or Shakespeare. I might argue it, since not every Shakespeare play is as well known as Hamlet, but it's at least a good point.
But these inevitably get brought up in the context of removing all spoiler warnings. And most spoiler warnings are *not* nursery rhymes or Shakespeare. The bad examples are being used as an excuse to remove the not-so-bad ones.
On Nov 19, 2007 6:28 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens? The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my view.
The old version of the spoiler guideline, before mid-May, was written and interpreted so as to support this wide proliferation. There was even a small flap on the talk pages of various articles about Shakespeare plays, fairy tales and the like. Entrenched custom, I think.
On Nov 20, 2007 3:30 PM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 6:28 PM, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens? The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my view.
The old version of the spoiler guideline, before mid-May, was written and interpreted so as to support this wide proliferation. There was even a small flap on the talk pages of various articles about Shakespeare plays, fairy tales and the like. Entrenched custom, I think.
For the most part I don't think editors read the guidelines, they just read the text of the template. The key mistake was making a template which said "plot details follow". People see that and think they're supposed to put it in front of anything which contains plot details. Yes, that includes Shakespeare.
On Nov 21, 2007 2:19 AM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
For the most part I don't think editors read the guidelines, they just read the text of the template. The key mistake was making a template which said "plot details follow". People see that and think they're supposed to put it in front of anything which contains plot details. Yes, that includes Shakespeare.
Yes, possibly. We even found it in articles about non-fictional subjects.
JzG wrote:
...There were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens?
Please tone it down. (I was about to say "knock it off", but that'd probably have been too strong.)
The anti-spoiler-warning brigade has won. The tags are all removed, the template is deleted, the few lone voices still wanly lobbying for the warnings are gradually being marginalized, soon to be branded as kooks or trolls. There's no need to rub it in with language like "patently absurd" and "who in their right mind". (I'm in my right mind, and although I'm not enough of an English Lit expert to know off the top of my head of a Shakespeare play that might be deserving of a spoiler tag, if there were one, I'd have nothing against it.)
I'm not usually one to go around looking for perceived Personal Attacks to bristle at, but J's remarks above really could be taken as one.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, George Herbert wrote:
We have no policy that says that we can't have spoiler warnings. We have a "last edit standing" consensus.
Those are by definition unstable and unenforcable.
We have a "you can't revert 45000 edits, and if you try you'll get punished for edit-warring anyway" consensus (which doesn't resemble the usual form of consensus, of course.)
On Nov 15, 2007 3:16 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 15/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Spoiler warnings were removed by abuse of power, abuse of the rules, and abuse of logistics. Of *course* users are going to be mad about this
for
longer than they're going to be mad about standard Wikipedia
administrative
actions. This shouldn't be surprising at all; in fact, the very fact
that
users are unaccepting for an unusually long time should be a clue that there's something different about this case.
As demonstrated by the interest in your complaint in every venue you took it to, i.e. none.
This conversation is prima facie evidence to the contrary...
I don't know that there's been a factual abuse of power here, but there is concern over the end results.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:03:29 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
whether it's being banned or blocked, it's pretty much the same problem: users *cannot* put spoiler warnings back in because they could be punished for edit-warring and contradicting consensus, when at the same time the fact that nobody puts them back is used to *prove* consensus, which is a classic catch-22.
There's a god example: there was a spoiler tag in Catch-22. Despite the fact that the supposed spoiler is discussed in every independent reference to the book. And as for the one in The Three Little Pigs (I kid you not)...
The fact is that spoiler tags were a terrible idea. {{current fiction}} documents an objectively provable fact, that this fiction is current (so if you haven't read the book, don't read the article). Who says what's a spoiler and what isn't? My copy of Halliwell doesn't have spoiler warnings.Spoiler warnings are for review shows and fansites.
Guy (JzG)
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
whether it's being banned or blocked, it's pretty much the same problem: users *cannot* put spoiler warnings back in because they could be punished for edit-warring and contradicting consensus, when at the same time the fact that nobody puts them back is used to *prove* consensus, which is a classic catch-22.
There's a god example: there was a spoiler tag in Catch-22. Despite the fact that the supposed spoiler is discussed in every independent reference to the book.
You just think that's clever because I used the idiom "catch-22", but it's a terrible example; I never read the book, don't know the ending, and would actually be helped by a spoiler warning on it.
And as for the one in The Three Little Pigs (I kid you not)...
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
- d.
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I don't think anyone is defending the spoiler warnings ahead of plot summaries either. However, given that, I'm having trouble thinking of what sort of spoiler uses the defenders are still in favor of. Examples might be helpful.
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:53 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I don't think anyone is defending the spoiler warnings ahead of plot summaries either. However, given that, I'm having trouble thinking of what sort of spoiler uses the defenders are still in favor of. Examples might be helpful.
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
1) Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non- obvious that plot sections contain spoilers 2) Recoding Wikipedia to have spoiler tags that can be hidden or shown via user preference (as opposed to via an ugly monobook setting, presumably) 3) Polling about spoiler warnings in the site notice. 4) Returning to the use of handmade spoiler tags because the TfD result is obviously a consensus to do it that way, and anyway then people can't find them via "what links here" 5) Including spoiler warnings whenever a reviewer can be found who uses a spoiler warning because then it's sourced information and it can't be removed
When I describe the utter repetitive frustration of dealing with this for six months, I am not exaggerating. Policy formation should not be that tortuous.
-Phil
Quoting Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
On Nov 16, 2007, at 11:53 AM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I don't think anyone is defending the spoiler warnings ahead of plot summaries either. However, given that, I'm having trouble thinking of what sort of spoiler uses the defenders are still in favor of. Examples might be helpful.
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
- Recoding Wikipedia to have spoiler tags that can be hidden or shown
via user preference (as opposed to via an ugly monobook setting, presumably)
Hmm, I don't see what is wrong with this option. I mean, the developers have much higher priorities, but I don't see what is fundamentally bad about this idea.
- Polling about spoiler warnings in the site notice.
Obviously not such a good idea, that would be a complete free-for all. However, it might actually give us some better idea about what the actual consensus is (which I'm not convinced is clear yet)
- Returning to the use of handmade spoiler tags because the TfD
result is obviously a consensus to do it that way, and anyway then people can't find them via "what links here"
Also clearly bad.
- Including spoiler warnings whenever a reviewer can be found who
uses a spoiler warning because then it's sourced information and it can't be removed
This is just wikilawyering as phrased. But it wouldn't be such a bad idea to use reviews as a rule of thumb for whether something should have a spoiler. That would give a clear line for when to use spoiler tags (and would cut down presumably on ones like Hamlet and the Three Little Pigs (although I've seen at least one review of something where it mentioned that Romeo and Juliet die as a "spoiler"- but I think that was intended to be a joke).
When I describe the utter repetitive frustration of dealing with this for six months, I am not exaggerating. Policy formation should not be that tortuous.
Well, yes it should be. See the whole notion of Madisonian gridlock. If we don't have consensus we don't have consensus.
But what I'd really like to see is if someone who is a proponent of spoiler warnings could give us a few examples of where they'd want spoiler warnings where the warnings were not simply bracketing a plot section. Is anyone up to that?
On Nov 16, 2007 12:54 PM, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
I don't really agree with the argument, but I don't think it's *clearly* bad. It definitely is non-obvious that plot sections contain *spoilers*. Not all plot details are spoilers, even if the old spoiler tag suggested they were.
Personally I'd be willing to have spoiler tags if they said something like "Wikipedia contains spoilers". What I had a big problem with was a plot section which said something like "Warning: plot details follow". I understand where such a phrasing came from, though. The old "Warning: spoilers follow" was difficult to apply objectively, and as such isn't a good solution.
I wish there were more people willing to work toward a consensus rather than asserting that there is a consensus while admitting that there clearly is much disagreement.
On 16/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I'd be willing to have spoiler tags if they said something like "Wikipedia contains spoilers".
There's one linked on every page. I suppose we could make it blink in red.
- d.
On Nov 16, 2007 6:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I'd be willing to have spoiler tags if they said something like "Wikipedia contains spoilers".
There's one linked on every page. I suppose we could make it blink in red.
Make what blink in red, the link?
On Nov 16, 2007 7:09 PM, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 16, 2007 6:38 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/11/2007, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
Personally I'd be willing to have spoiler tags if they said something like "Wikipedia contains spoilers".
There's one linked on every page. I suppose we could make it blink in red.
Make what blink in red, the link?
Hmm, assuming you were talking about "Disclaimers", that seems to be only a link to a link to something mentioning spoilers.
C'mon, you can see how virtually no one actually reads that, right?
On 11/16/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I wish there were more people willing to work toward a consensus rather than asserting that there is a consensus while admitting that there clearly is much disagreement.
That's becoming more and more difficult due to WP's size. You have numerous groups of people editing pages who have no clue that in another corner of WP, people they don't know are debating a new policy that will affect their articles. They remain clueless until the "Vogons" drop out of the sky to enforce it.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A spoiler is not "any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section to contain no spoilers at all.
On 17/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A spoiler is not "any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section to contain no spoilers at all.
That would generally make for an inadequate plot section.
This prolonged "debate" makes me feel like a customer in Monty Python's pet shop.
On Nov 17, 2007 3:46 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A spoiler is not "any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section to contain no spoilers at all.
That would generally make for an inadequate plot section.
True, it would generally (*) make for an inadequate plot section, however that view is neither obvious nor even held by all people.
I disagree with Ken's other two points. I don't think the calendar analogy is at all valid; and I don't think spoiler warnings should ever be placed anywhere other than at the top because determining by consensus where the spoilers begin and end would be far too difficult for the benefit. But I think it's reasonable to believe that a significant portion of people would find benefit to a prominent notice that Wikipedia makes no attempt to hide or remove spoilers; and I don't think there would be any real harm at all to having the notice, except maybe to the egos of some who have been fighting against spoiler tags. Of course, it looks like we're working toward that. The {{current fiction}} tag says that the article might "focus primarily on details about the plot". Isn't that enough to warn people not to read the article if they don't want to hear the spoilers?
(*) Actually, I'd say it'd only occasionally make for an inadequate plot section. For most fictional works it's probably sufficient for an encyclopedia to talk about the social aspects of the work without going into plot details. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find spoilers in many Britannica articles (someone with a copy should confirm or deny this). However, Wikipedia precedent is very inclusive of details and it'd be even harder to remove those excessive details than to remove the spoiler tags.
People read WP about fiction not just for information about something they are about to read to see, but for information about what they will never see, either for time or for interest. I want to know just a little about some kinds of media to know what people are talking about, but I certainly do not want to spend the time to see them. Book and movie reviews, intended to encourage reading or viewing by sustaining the suspense, do not belong in encyclopedias. .
On 11/17/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 3:46 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A spoiler is not "any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section to contain no spoilers at all.
That would generally make for an inadequate plot section.
True, it would generally (*) make for an inadequate plot section, however that view is neither obvious nor even held by all people.
I disagree with Ken's other two points. I don't think the calendar analogy is at all valid; and I don't think spoiler warnings should ever be placed anywhere other than at the top because determining by consensus where the spoilers begin and end would be far too difficult for the benefit. But I think it's reasonable to believe that a significant portion of people would find benefit to a prominent notice that Wikipedia makes no attempt to hide or remove spoilers; and I don't think there would be any real harm at all to having the notice, except maybe to the egos of some who have been fighting against spoiler tags. Of course, it looks like we're working toward that. The {{current fiction}} tag says that the article might "focus primarily on details about the plot". Isn't that enough to warn people not to read the article if they don't want to hear the spoilers?
(*) Actually, I'd say it'd only occasionally make for an inadequate plot section. For most fictional works it's probably sufficient for an encyclopedia to talk about the social aspects of the work without going into plot details. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find spoilers in many Britannica articles (someone with a copy should confirm or deny this). However, Wikipedia precedent is very inclusive of details and it'd be even harder to remove those excessive details than to remove the spoiler tags.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That argument doesn't work completely, since the people who don't intend to read the original material will simply continue reading past the spoiler alert.
Quoting David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com:
People read WP about fiction not just for information about something they are about to read to see, but for information about what they will never see, either for time or for interest. I want to know just a little about some kinds of media to know what people are talking about, but I certainly do not want to spend the time to see them. Book and movie reviews, intended to encourage reading or viewing by sustaining the suspense, do not belong in encyclopedias. .
On 11/17/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007 3:46 AM, James Farrar james.farrar@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/11/2007, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity*
advanced by
advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because
it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
Ok, this argument is clearly bad.
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A
spoiler is not
"any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section
to contain
no spoilers at all.
That would generally make for an inadequate plot section.
True, it would generally (*) make for an inadequate plot section, however that view is neither obvious nor even held by all people.
I disagree with Ken's other two points. I don't think the calendar analogy is at all valid; and I don't think spoiler warnings should ever be placed anywhere other than at the top because determining by consensus where the spoilers begin and end would be far too difficult for the benefit. But I think it's reasonable to believe that a significant portion of people would find benefit to a prominent notice that Wikipedia makes no attempt to hide or remove spoilers; and I don't think there would be any real harm at all to having the notice, except maybe to the egos of some who have been fighting against spoiler tags. Of course, it looks like we're working toward that. The {{current fiction}} tag says that the article might "focus primarily on details about the plot". Isn't that enough to warn people not to read the article if they don't want to hear the spoilers?
(*) Actually, I'd say it'd only occasionally make for an inadequate plot section. For most fictional works it's probably sufficient for an encyclopedia to talk about the social aspects of the work without going into plot details. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find spoilers in many Britannica articles (someone with a copy should confirm or deny this). However, Wikipedia precedent is very inclusive of details and it'd be even harder to remove those excessive details than to remove the spoiler tags.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, James Farrar wrote:
It *isn't* obvious that plot sections contain spoilers. A spoiler is not "any plot element". It's entirely possible for a plot section to contain no spoilers at all.
That would generally make for an inadequate plot section.
This is a situation where the appropriate reply is legitimately "Says you!?" You haven't made any arguments for this rather dubious proposition, and you've even foreclosed the possibility of counterexamples by adding the word "generally".
On 16/11/2007, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
I'm glad you asked. Among the arguments *in all sincerity* advanced by advocates of spoiler warnings:
- Returning spoiler warnings to all plot sections, because it is non-
obvious that plot sections contain spoilers
It is apparently non-obvious that they should. Perhaps if you put the things back people would be more likely to write a complete plot summery.
- Recoding Wikipedia to have spoiler tags that can be hidden or shown
via user preference (as opposed to via an ugly monobook setting, presumably)
Are you seriously suggesting I should use monobook on wikipedia. Bad enough the source pretty much forces you to use it.
- Polling about spoiler warnings in the site notice.
I've seen worse uses of site notice.
- Returning to the use of handmade spoiler tags because the TfD
result is obviously a consensus to do it that way, and anyway then people can't find them via "what links here"
Seems reasonable. TFD results are on a version of the template not the idea. Same as AFD is a vote on the existing versions(s) of the article. IF you are relying on the software working in a certain way to fight policy battles I would suggest your methods are fundamentally against the principles of consensus.
- Including spoiler warnings whenever a reviewer can be found who
uses a spoiler warning because then it's sourced information and it can't be removed
Eh? Just a specific version of a generic tactic.
When I describe the utter repetitive frustration of dealing with this for six months, I am not exaggerating. Policy formation should not be that tortuous.
Since it will impact several thousand editors and several million readers it should be rather more tortuous. Would keep policy bloat down a bit.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, David Gerard wrote:
If the whole thing was limited to removing spoiler warnings from nursery rhymes, I wouldn't complain. The typical article with a spoiler warning removed is not about a nursery rhyme, and you have to know this.
No, the *typical* spoiler warning was one that warned that the ==Plot summary== might reveal important details about the plot.
I've repeatedly covered several reasons why spoiler warnings do belong in plot sections:
-- a consistent user interface would imply not removing the warning just because the user can figure it out; I compared it to a calendar which names every day of the week even though it's mostly redundant. "Let me get this straight, you have to *label* the day after Sunday as being Monday? Wouldn't anyone over the age of 6 already know that?" -- the warning is usually meaningful anyway--because not every plot summary reveals spoilers. It reveals details, but not all details are spoilers. -- the spoiler warning can be placed somewhere other than at the top to tell the reader *where* in the plot synopsis the spoiler is; the user cannot get that information from the name "plot summary".
Needless to say, none of this has anything to do with nursery rhymes. Only a small minority of spoiler warnings were on nursery rhymes. Plot sections are not just like nursery rhymes, and using nursery rhymes as an example when you really mean there are spoilers on plot sections is highly misleading.
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:57:22 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
There's a god example: there was a spoiler tag in Catch-22. Despite the fact that the supposed spoiler is discussed in every independent reference to the book.
You just think that's clever because I used the idiom "catch-22", but it's a terrible example; I never read the book, don't know the ending, and would actually be helped by a spoiler warning on it.
You're missing the point. An encyclopaedia aspires to an academic tone, not that of an entertainment medium. Even book review shows no longer shy from discussing the "spoilers" in catch-22, and anyone reading the article should expect to find the plot detailed.
If you don't want to know, don't read *anything* written about Catch-22, because it's been around so long that virtually every source of any merit will discuss the crucial plot details.
Or you could stop where the header says "plot" or "synopsis".
Incidentally, I do recommend Catch-22, it is some of the best satire ever written.
Guy (JzG)
On 14/11/2007, Philip Sandifer snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me, at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy articles are abominations. Everybody sane who looked at the situations recognized that. But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.
This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate. It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?
You can start by treating people with decency and respect and not calling people who may happen to have different values, or be at a different place on a learning curve, as insane.
-Phil
Philip Sandifer wrote:
But unfortunately, everybody sane also demonstrated a general lack of willingness to participate in the same debates for months on end. And so the actual discussions have been deadlocks as a handful of tenacious proponents of the losing side continue stamping their feet.
This is a major tarpit, and is one of the ways in which dreadfully stupid things are allowed to profligate.
Wow! I like the expression. Has anyone more recent than Milton used it as a verb?
It makes policy formation and the engagement of remotely tricky and nuanced situations a horrid timesink that is unsuitable for sane conduct. So what can we do? How can we streamline our policy formation problems to drive away the policy equivalents of lunatic POV pushers? Again, noting that the usual problems - consensus can change, so forcibly closing debates doesn't work, often contributors who are totally insane on one point are wonderful on every other article they edit, etc. So what can we do?
The danger to collaboration is that most people go into a debate with a will to win. If they end up in the minority they see themselves as losers. What we bring into a debate are a lot of hard-wired preconceptions about decision making founded in a competitive system. We allow somewhat less than perfect politicians to be our role models. Until we can recognize that we do this we are doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes, including impatience to have decisions made and done with so that we can go on with something else.
The wiki's population is a fluid one. The people here to-day are no longer the ones who adopted these rules in the first place. They might have adopted different rules; we can't say for sure. Instead they are trapped in a monolithic structure that they know not how to change.
One of the most frustrating tags that I see in policy and process pages effectively says "the discussion has been closed, please do not add any further comments." If I want to open the discussion anew I must start from square one. This institutionalizes an incredibly strong bias in favour of the status quo A newbie or someone who did not know the debate was happening doesn't have a chance.
I think that no debate should ever be closed. To be sure if certain thresholds of support are met it can be implemented, but people can keep expressing their support or opposition If then the support falls below another threshold the policy is simply no longer applicable. This can even apply to AfDs. A collaborative system needs to respect group wisdom, and the fact that group wisdom will vary over time. If having spoiler warnings really is such a dumb idea it becomes important to trust that there will never be enough support to reach the reversal threshold.
How we establish thresholds remains an open question. Suffice it to say that adoption and reversal thresholds cannot be the same, or we would be building in a fundamental instability.
We really need to look at different ways of doing things.
Ec