Do you now that according to The Independent we have "approved Wikipedia committee members"? The Independent managed to call an IP user so. [1] May anyone contact and correct them?
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-spri...
--vvv
On 29 August 2010 02:14, Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
Do you now that according to The Independent we have "approved Wikipedia committee members"? The Independent managed to call an IP user so. [1] May anyone contact and correct them? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-spri...
Mike Peel commented and was going to call them today.
- d.
On 29 Aug 2010, at 09:51, David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 02:14, Victor Vasiliev vasilvv@gmail.com wrote:
Do you now that according to The Independent we have "approved Wikipedia committee members"? The Independent managed to call an IP user so. [1] May anyone contact and correct them? http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/wikipedia-spri...
Mike Peel commented and was going to call them today.
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of basic fact-checking should have shown up the non-existance of a "Wikipedia committee" (and, of course, the existence of the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit...).
I've been trying to get in touch with them about this, but haven't managed to get a response yet (I've left a message on the talk page, emailed them, and left a voicemail message.)... That's probably not surprising considering that it's a Sunday.
Mike Peel
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of basic fact-checking should have shown up the non-existance of a "Wikipedia committee" (and, of course, the existence of the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit...).
Having a space to fill in the silly season, and fundamentally really not giving a hoot what it's filled with or whether it even makes sense. This is why Wikipedia media coverage peaks in August.[citation needed]
- d.
On 29 Aug 2010, at 13:04, David Gerard wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of basic fact-checking should have shown up the non-existance of a "Wikipedia committee" (and, of course, the existence of the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit...).
Having a space to fill in the silly season, and fundamentally really not giving a hoot what it's filled with or whether it even makes sense. This is why Wikipedia media coverage peaks in August.[citation needed]
The good news is that the Telegraph article on this topic is much better: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/7970312/Agatha-Christies-fami...
Mike Peel
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 1:04 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 12:09, Michael Peel email@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm really puzzled how they managed to get the description of the Wikimedia community so wrong, considering that talked to them on the phone about this on Friday afternoon and thought that I'd explained this to them. A bit of basic fact-checking should have shown up the non-existance of a "Wikipedia committee" (and, of course, the existence of the "online encyclopedia that anyone can edit" bit...).
Having a space to fill in the silly season, and fundamentally really not giving a hoot what it's filled with or whether it even makes sense. This is why Wikipedia media coverage peaks in August.[citation needed]
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play should be included in the article or not? I haven't seen it, btw, so if people could avoid revealing the ending that would be good! :-)
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this. I suppose it is an argument for spoilers if those involved request it. There is something similar going through the courts at the moment regarding the identity of the Stig, the test driver on the BBC program Top Gear.
Could there be a BLP-like exception for spoilers, adding one if those who wrote or produce the thing being spoiled request it? Obviously, the ending or spoiler would still be discussed within the article, but you could add a section saying "XYZ have requested that the ending not be spoiled, so this notice serves as a spoiler notice that the article reveals and discusses the ending" (modified as needed).
Seem courteous, but can Wikipedia be courteous?
Carcharoth
On 29 August 2010 17:16, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies.
Could there be a BLP-like exception for spoilers, adding one if those who wrote or produce the thing being spoiled request it? Obviously, the ending or spoiler would still be discussed within the article, but you could add a section saying "XYZ have requested that the ending not be spoiled, so this notice serves as a spoiler notice that the article reveals and discusses the ending" (modified as needed). Seem courteous, but can Wikipedia be courteous?
Speaking as an arbitrator, how would you square such a thing with NPOV?
- d.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 17:16, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Does no-one want to discuss whether the ending of the Mousetrap play This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this.
Mandy Rice-Davies applies.
Is it safe to look that up?
Could there be a BLP-like exception for spoilers, adding one if those who wrote or produce the thing being spoiled request it? Obviously, the ending or spoiler would still be discussed within the article, but you could add a section saying "XYZ have requested that the ending not be spoiled, so this notice serves as a spoiler notice that the article reveals and discusses the ending" (modified as needed). Seem courteous, but can Wikipedia be courteous?
Speaking as an arbitrator, how would you square such a thing with NPOV?
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the spoiler.
Carcharoth
On 29 August 2010 18:06, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Mandy Rice-Davies applies.
Is it safe to look that up?
"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he."
He's not even the author, he's a descendant on the gravy train.
Speaking as an arbitrator, how would you square such a thing with NPOV?
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the spoiler.
What you're talking about here is leaving complete information out, or twisting the article content, due to a complaint from a financial interest.
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter?
- d.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter?
Sure, there may be a financial interest, but there can be an altruistic motivation as well. I agree we are an encyclopedia and need to include the ending, but I'm not convinced that spoiler *notices* are a NPOV issue because NPOV applies to the article text, not to disclaimers. For both the Stig issue and this one, there is (or will be, depending on a court case) coverage of this in reliable sources, so presumably the articles now mention this in some fashion, and that will serve as a de facto spoiler warning within the text of the article (as long as it appears before the ending or identity is revealed). In both cases, there has been independent commentary and coverage of the "secrecy" aspect of this, so saying within the article that XYZ have objected to the ending/identity being reveled, is a requirement of NPOV.
Carcharoth
On 29 August 2010 18:44, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter?
Sure, there may be a financial interest, but there can be an altruistic motivation as well. I agree we are an encyclopedia and need to include the ending, but I'm not convinced that spoiler *notices* are a NPOV issue because NPOV applies to the article text, not to disclaimers. For both the Stig issue and this one, there is (or will be, depending on a court case) coverage of this in reliable sources, so presumably the articles now mention this in some fashion, and that will serve as a de facto spoiler warning within the text of the article (as long as it appears before the ending or identity is revealed). In both cases, there has been independent commentary and coverage of the "secrecy" aspect of this, so saying within the article that XYZ have objected to the ending/identity being reveled, is a requirement of NPOV.
You've mischaracterised the present issue: they want the ending kept secret, not in the article at all.
Also, my question did not posit press coverage, so please do answer the actual question, as to what you would do if the issue were an OTRS request to leave information out of the encyclopedia, versus NPOV. As an arbitrator, your thinking on this matter is actually a relevant consideration.
- d.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:50 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 29 August 2010 18:44, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter?
Sure, there may be a financial interest, but there can be an altruistic motivation as well. I agree we are an encyclopedia and need to include the ending, but I'm not convinced that spoiler *notices* are a NPOV issue because NPOV applies to the article text, not to disclaimers. For both the Stig issue and this one, there is (or will be, depending on a court case) coverage of this in reliable sources, so presumably the articles now mention this in some fashion, and that will serve as a de facto spoiler warning within the text of the article (as long as it appears before the ending or identity is revealed). In both cases, there has been independent commentary and coverage of the "secrecy" aspect of this, so saying within the article that XYZ have objected to the ending/identity being reveled, is a requirement of NPOV.
You've mischaracterised the present issue: they want the ending kept secret, not in the article at all.
Also, my question did not posit press coverage, so please do answer the actual question, as to what you would do if the issue were an OTRS request to leave information out of the encyclopedia, versus NPOV. As an arbitrator, your thinking on this matter is actually a relevant consideration.
That could get confusing in a thread titled "Wikipedia committee member". Since this is not actually an arbitration matter, I am going to leave this until it actually becomes the subject of an arbitration case (if ever). Until that point, such issues need to be resolved by community discussion. And I'd like to add that I don't appreciate being repeatedly asked to speak "as an arbitrator" on a mailing list where I participate more as an editor than anything else. Hopefully others will be able to answer your question for you.
Carcharoth
Carcharoth wrote:
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the spoiler.
You've noted that "requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count," and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach?
You referred to this as a "BLP-like exception," but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes).
David Levy
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the spoiler.
You've noted that "requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count," and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach?
You referred to this as a "BLP-like exception," but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes).
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them.
Carcharoth
Now that you mention it, I've avoided the article in the exact same way. Without the spoiler talk, I probably would have visited already. Although it's something like an irritable mental gesture... it's not like I have any plans to see the play anytime in the foreseeable future, and I haven't read any Agatha Christie since I was a teenager.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:34 PM, David Levy lifeisunfair@gmail.com wrote:
Carcharoth wrote:
Surely if the ending is still described in the article (as I was careful to say), NPOV wouldn't be affected? All I'm saying is that if there was a specific OTRS request that could be verified to be from the relevant people, then it could be acted on. Requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count. It would have to be a specific request from the "subject" of the spoiler.
You've noted that "requests from Wikipedia editors and readers to add spoiler notices wouldn't count," and this only accentuates the problem. How would providing special treatment to a representative of an article's subject constitute a neutral approach?
You referred to this as a "BLP-like exception," but I see nothing analogous. We address legitimate complaints by ensuring that biographies of living persons comply with our normal content standards. We don't honor requests to include special text (such as a warning that the article includes material that its subject dislikes).
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them.
Carcharoth
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before).
Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached consensus to the contrary). This is very different from the idea of providing special editorial control to representatives of articles' subjects.
David Levy
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called "Identity of the murderer"... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this.
That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called "Price wars and other controversies". This allows me to bypass the "Synopsis" section, including the subsections "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary".
Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader.
I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the "Release date" section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&oldid=375574290#... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows
*A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check.
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called "Identity of the murderer"... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this.
That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called "Price wars and other controversies". This allows me to bypass the "Synopsis" section, including the subsections "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary".
Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader.
I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the "Release date" section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&oldid=375574290#... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows
*A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV Guide (or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a teaser? You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic article about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to the right place.
We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to present information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone clearly made a mistake.
-Brock
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called "Identity of the murderer"... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this.
That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called "Price wars and other controversies". This allows me to bypass the "Synopsis" section, including the subsections "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary".
Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader.
I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the "Release date" section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&oldid=375574290#...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows
*A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Access to information in an efficient manner *includes* providing readers with choice. Writing an encyclopedia also includes consideration of the readers. There is a balance to be struck between editorial discretion and what a reader might want. If you go too far to rigid editorial control, you lose readers. If you go to far to pandering to readers, you lose credibility. It is not one or the other, but a balance between the two (and no, please don't point to Wikipedia's popularity as meaning we've got it right so far - Wikipedia's popularity arose for a mixture of reasons, and in fact the massive popularity serves to obscure some things that readers find wrong with Wikipedia).
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you aren't looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV Guide (or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a teaser? You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic article about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to the right place.
We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to present information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone clearly made a mistake.
-Brock
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called "Identity of the murderer"... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this.
That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called "Price wars and other controversies". This allows me to bypass the "Synopsis" section, including the subsections "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary".
Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader.
I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the "Release date" section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&oldid=375574290#...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows
*A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In a wide range of articles we make fairly tight decisions what is relevant to present an encyclopedic article, and what is not strictly needed. Guidelines on plot summaries emphasize they should not be over-detailed.
I have no problem at all with the concept that we can have an encyclopedic article on a book or play that states "the final scene is a classical denouement for a thriller and contains a twist ending" without needing to reveal all, and I have no problem with the idea that to do so is not "weak" or "censorship" but a strict consideration of what we need to say, for a neutral informative encyclopedic article, with the rest beyond that shaded by avoidance of harm.
There will be many cases where we need to provide details that some would prefer not to read, because they go to the heart of the article or the topic's full description. I don't think this is one of them.
FT2
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.comwrote:
Access to information in an efficient manner *includes* providing readers with choice. Writing an encyclopedia also includes consideration of the readers. There is a balance to be struck between editorial discretion and what a reader might want. If you go too far to rigid editorial control, you lose readers. If you go to far to pandering to readers, you lose credibility. It is not one or the other, but a balance between the two (and no, please don't point to Wikipedia's popularity as meaning we've got it right so far - Wikipedia's popularity arose for a mixture of reasons, and in fact the massive popularity serves to obscure some things that readers find wrong with Wikipedia).
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Brock Weller brock.weller@gmail.com wrote:
I can't believe this idea is being seriously presented. We are an Encyclopedia. That is one of the Five Pillars ([[WP:5P]]). The job of a comprehensive encyclopedia is to facilitate access to information in an efficient manner. Putting extra barriers in front of that means you
aren't
looking at it as a comprehensive encyclopedia, which we are, but as TV
Guide
(or Playbill, in this case) which we are decidedly not. You want a
teaser?
You want a hook? Go read a preview. You want to read an encyclopedic
article
about the subject/play/episode/whatever? Congratulations, you've come to
the
right place.
We aren't here to protect you from the big bad world, we're here to
present
information. If that information is made harder to get, then someone
clearly
made a mistake.
-Brock
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
That is very helpful. I wonder if there is room to suggest this in some guideline somewhere on how editors should set up the titles of sections in articles to aid not just readers reading through the article from beginning to end, but to aid readers looking at the contents and selecting (or omitting) bits they don't want to read. You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
Carcharoth
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Shane Simmons avicennasis@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask?
Reading the article as it appeared on 26 July 2010, [1] there is an entire section called "Identity of the murderer"... If I did not want to learn the identity of the murderer, I would have skipped over this section.* That's what I did for years before I became an editor. If I suspected a section would contain spoilers, I skipped it. When looking up books I plan to read, I still do this.
That's one of the reasons for sections - they can allow readers to quickly find just the info they are looking for. I can look up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows [2], and if I didn't want a spoiler but wanted to read about pricing problems, there is a section in the Table of Contents, right at the top, called "Price wars and other controversies". This allows me to bypass the "Synopsis" section, including the subsections "Plot introduction" and "Plot summary".
Perhaps this is not the way everyone reads, but I think context clues can give their own warning to the reader.
I'm also not sure if there are any articles out there that have spoilers under a section you might not expect them to be. For example, I wouldn't expect to find a spoiler under the "Release date" section. But I also can't think of a good reason why it would be there anyways, and it should probably be moved to the plot section(s).
Just my two cents. :) -User:Avicennasis
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mousetrap&oldid=375574290#...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows
*A quick glance did not show this information to be listed in any other section, however I did not read the whole article word for word to double-check.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 30 August 2010 17:58, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
Carcharoth
We already have something similar on the mobile site, for different reasons admittedly. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mousetrap I'm sure it would be easy enough to make an option or a gadget on the main site, if anyone really wanted it
Pete / the wub
On 31 August 2010 13:11, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On 30 August 2010 17:58, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
We already have something similar on the mobile site, for different reasons admittedly. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mousetrap I'm sure it would be easy enough to make an option or a gadget on the main site, if anyone really wanted it
A gadget to fold sections called "Plot", "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" would do the trick. Though not for [[The Mousetrap]], which has the spoiler in another section entirely (well down the page).
- d.
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 13:11, Peter Coombe thewub.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On 30 August 2010 17:58, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
You could even (though this is a bit silly) provide the option for people to "hide" sections and then read the whole page and not have to beware of scrolling down too far. It wouldn't be a default option, I don't think, but people could have some optional overlay that would give them the option to select (or omit) bits of the article to create a customised article for them to read.
We already have something similar on the mobile site, for different reasons admittedly. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mousetrap I'm sure it would be easy enough to make an option or a gadget on the main site, if anyone really wanted it
A gadget to fold sections called "Plot", "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" would do the trick. Though not for [[The Mousetrap]], which has the spoiler in another section entirely (well down the page).
You could put a hidden marker that would be mark it as a "plot" section. Like the hidden anchor tags that people put when someone changes a section title but still wants incoming links to the previous title of that section to work (sadly, not done as often as it should be).
Carcharoth
On 31 August 2010 13:50, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:43 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
A gadget to fold sections called "Plot", "Plot summary" or "Synopsis" would do the trick. Though not for [[The Mousetrap]], which has the spoiler in another section entirely (well down the page).
You could put a hidden marker that would be mark it as a "plot" section. Like the hidden anchor tags that people put when someone changes a section title but still wants incoming links to the previous title of that section to work (sadly, not done as often as it should be).
Sounds like a Simple Matter of Programming. Anyone want to get coding?
- d.
The idea that we should hide or withhold obviously pertinent information - like the plot of a novel, movie, play, etc. in an article about same - has always struck me as anti-encyclopedia. Personally, I often look up articles on these subjects just to find out details of the plot... are you considering my needs as a reader when you make the paternalistic decision to scrub these articles of "spoilers"? I'm frustrated to find, on a regular basis, articles of this type stripped of all but the most general plot information - reduced, essentially, to the marketing blurbs put out by whoever publishes the content. Often you can find the plot information in the article history, and I've restored several of them, but who knows how many readers have come to the article hoping to see the plot and been disappointed by its absence? Encyclopedia articles ought to be comprehensive, and we rightly shoot down proposals aimed at the opposite.
~Nathan
I do not think many people are advocating removing information like the plot of a novel, movie or play.
A vocal minority has successfully argued that information should be removed from articles indicating that certain parts of the article may contain information that would spoil one's enjoyment of the novel, movie or play.
Whether a part of an article is a spoiler or not (and it's certainly not a black & white issue) is an interesting bit of metadata to add. There's a variety of ways to display this information in an articles -- collapsible paragraphs, a "spoiler warning" alert, white on white text, etc. Any of these display methods could have a "enough with the spoiler warnings" or "don't hide plot points from me anymore" -- that's just a UI point.
Of course, it's a little late for that now. All that information was removed. Too bad.
Michel Vuijlsteke
On 31 August 2010 15:53, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that we should hide or withhold obviously pertinent information - like the plot of a novel, movie, play, etc. in an article about same - has always struck me as anti-encyclopedia. Personally, I often look up articles on these subjects just to find out details of the plot... are you considering my needs as a reader when you make the paternalistic decision to scrub these articles of "spoilers"? I'm frustrated to find, on a regular basis, articles of this type stripped of all but the most general plot information - reduced, essentially, to the marketing blurbs put out by whoever publishes the content. Often you can find the plot information in the article history, and I've restored several of them, but who knows how many readers have come to the article hoping to see the plot and been disappointed by its absence? Encyclopedia articles ought to be comprehensive, and we rightly shoot down proposals aimed at the opposite.
~Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 31 August 2010 15:16, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
I do not think many people are advocating removing information like the plot of a novel, movie or play.
No, they're just doing it. Thinking they're doing the right thing. This is problematic.
Whether a part of an article is a spoiler or not (and it's certainly not a black & white issue) is an interesting bit of metadata to add. There's a variety of ways to display this information in an articles -- collapsible paragraphs, a "spoiler warning" alert, white on white text, etc. Any of these display methods could have a "enough with the spoiler warnings" or "don't hide plot points from me anymore" -- that's just a UI point. Of course, it's a little late for that now. All that information was removed. Too bad.
How do you objectively and neutrally determine what is and isn't a spoiler?
- d.
On 31 August 2010 16:51, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 August 2010 15:16, Michel Vuijlsteke wikipedia@zog.org wrote:
Whether a part of an article is a spoiler or not (and it's certainly not
a
black & white issue) is an interesting bit of metadata to add. There's a variety of ways to display this information in an article -- collapsible paragraphs, a "spoiler warning" alert, white on white text, etc. Any of these display methods could have a "enough with the spoiler warnings" or "don't hide plot points from me anymore" -- that's just a UI point. Of course, it's a little late for that now. All that information was removed. Too bad.
How do you objectively and neutrally determine what is and isn't a spoiler?
You don't. Just like you can't objectively and neutrally determine if someone is fit to be an administrator, or if a picture is really "beautiful, stunning, impressive, or informative" enough to be featured.
It's a call you make. You do something you believe will get a consensus. Most of the time there won't be much discussion: "Crowe was dead himself the whole time" and "Tyler Durden is the narrator's alter ego" probably could have a spoiler warning; "The Titanic sinks" and "Jesus dies on the cross but not really" probably don't need one. If you do get discussion, there's oodles of mechanisms to resolve things.
Anyway. That particular data has been removed, the discussion has been held, no point in revisiting it, I guess. Sorry for bringing it up at all.
Michel Vuijlsteke
Michel Vuijlsteke wrote:
On 31 August 2010 16:51, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
How do you objectively and neutrally determine what is and isn't a spoiler?
You don't. Just like you can't objectively and neutrally determine if someone is fit to be an administrator, or if a picture is really "beautiful, stunning, impressive, or informative" enough to be featured.
It's a call you make. You do something you believe will get a consensus. Most of the time there won't be much discussion: "Crowe was dead himself the whole time" and "Tyler Durden is the narrator's alter ego" probably could have a spoiler warning; "The Titanic sinks" and "Jesus dies on the cross but not really" probably don't need one. If you do get discussion, there's oodles of mechanisms to resolve things.
A likely edge case would be "'Rosebud' is the name of the childhood sled of Kane."
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
A likely edge case would be "'Rosebud' is the name of the childhood sled of Kane."
I'd disagree. The whole Rosebud thing is rather a MacGuffin [1]. The mystery of Kane's final word is just a hook that motivates the journalist to review Kane's life story. The revelation at the end is marvellous but if you knew what was coming the journey would arguably not be greatly spoiled.
Contrast that with the twist at the end of The Sixth Sense (albeit an inferior film to Kane) where the twist causes you to review everything you have seen before and allows you to view the film again, with the new knowledge of what you're witnessing, in a totally different light. A spoiler for Sixth Sense effectively wipes out one distinct viewing experience. That's not nearly so true with Kane.
But perhaps we should not discuss individual spoilers; we'll end up upsetting people inadvertently.
Ah, so that's where they went:
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/08/spoiler_alert_warnings_find_am....
I think the default should be what we get now, completely open and everyone sees everything. But there should be nothing stopping people adding stuff to give readers options on how they view the content using customised interfaces. Within reason, of course. If things are properly semantically labelled, it is easier to give people that choice.
About plot summaries, I agree that scrubbing plots is counter-productive, but poor plot summaries are bad as well. Writing about fiction is something that needs to be done well, not just to provide a synopsis. And withholding information should never be done unless there is a good reason. Trouble is, such discussions get bogged down because people look at the extremes and think (rightly in some cases) that even allowing a little bit of flexibility would be starting down a slippery slope.
Carcharoth
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
The idea that we should hide or withhold obviously pertinent information - like the plot of a novel, movie, play, etc. in an article about same - has always struck me as anti-encyclopedia. Personally, I often look up articles on these subjects just to find out details of the plot... are you considering my needs as a reader when you make the paternalistic decision to scrub these articles of "spoilers"? I'm frustrated to find, on a regular basis, articles of this type stripped of all but the most general plot information - reduced, essentially, to the marketing blurbs put out by whoever publishes the content. Often you can find the plot information in the article history, and I've restored several of them, but who knows how many readers have come to the article hoping to see the plot and been disappointed by its absence? Encyclopedia articles ought to be comprehensive, and we rightly shoot down proposals aimed at the opposite.
~Nathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, David Levy wrote:
Indeed, that's a different matter altogether. It's reasonable to argue that Wikipedia articles should contain spoiler warnings for the benefit of readers (though the English Wikipedia community has reached consensus to the contrary). This is very different from the idea of providing special editorial control to representatives of articles' subjects.
Using tools that are bots in all but name even when the tool is not supposed to be used for controversial subjects, is not "reaching consensus".
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Carcharoth wrote:
Actually, I'd like to read the article about the play without finding out the ending. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? (And yes, I know this is a completely different argument to the one I used before). With other things, I just read the articles anyway, and don't care about knowing the ending in advance (or I avoid them, as I did when the last Harry Potter book came out). But for some reason, here I find myself (as a reader of Wikipedia) wanting to be able to read the other parts of the article and would likely have read the article after reading the newspaper story if I hadn't found out in advance (from the newspaper story) that the article contained a spoiler. Put it this way: my finding out that this article contains a spoiler means I have avoided reading it - how many other people have avoided reading it for the same reasons? If that is a feature and not a bug, fair enough, but I find it strange that what articles I read on Wikipedia is being decided by what a newspaper article has to say about them.
To put it bluntly, Wikipedia used to have spoiler warnings but they were removed by a massive abuse of process (and exploiting of loopholes in the process), compounded by silence from the few people able to fix it.
I complained at the time, but essentially nobody else did, so it was forced through.
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
This is not an invitation to revive the whole spoiler debate, but this situation is slightly different in that those involved in putting the play on and the descendants of the author are speaking out against this. I suppose it is an argument for spoilers if those involved request it. There is something similar going through the courts at the moment regarding the identity of the Stig, the test driver on the BBC program Top Gear.
As I understand it, Stig's contract with the BBC states he must not reveal his identity. The Foundation has not entered into any contracts with artists not to reveal their denouements.
Personally I mourned the loss of the spoiler tags. However, I now simply avoid articles on books/films that I might digest in future after reading a spoiler once. I learned by getting slapped on the nose and decided "I won't do that again".
However, I would like our article on Lost to tell me everything. I decided after series one that they probably wouldn't ever resolve all my outstanding questions about early events and I didn't want to sit through the dreadful drama only to end up horribly frustrated when I'd devoted tens of hours in a forlorn search for meaning. So I stopped watching it early in series two. However, I'd still like to know the entire plot, including spoilers, at some stage, just to see if I was wise not to trust them with my heightened sense of curiosity.
This doesn't rule out details being hidden behind something clickable, which I take no strong view on. But I do think that we should make the spoiler available somehow, partly because not divulging it strikes me as rather a commercially driven way to approach a work. If we leave the reader hanging it is more likely to drive our reader to the work in question so they can get resolution; that's not what we're here for.
Take, for example, someone doing research for a piece on film endings of a certain type (eg "ends with fatal car crash" or "murderer is revealed as a close relative"); they should be able to use Wikipedia to research such a piece rather than have us lead them tantalisingly close to something that might be of value to them but ultimately have them navigating sweatily to Amazon.com.
Wikileaks reveals that Snape killed Dumbledore
WILD WEST END, Baker Street, Sunday (NTN) — The online encyclopedia Wikileaks stands accused of revealing the ending of The Mousetrap, recklessly endangering the income of Agatha Christie’s descendants.
“My grandmother always got upset if the plots of her books or plays were revealed in reviews,” said Matthew Prichard, who personally put in the years of hard-working effort one would expect it to take to accumulate the stream of income from the play when it was given to him as a ninth birthday present, “and I don’t think that a site whose purpose is supplying encyclopedic information just going and supplying encyclopedic information is any different as far as my money is concerned. They should go and get real jobs, like decent working people. But it’s not a question of money, or anything like that.”
The article on The Mousetrap reveals that Vader is Luke’s father, Rosebud was Kane’s sled, Kristin shot J.R. and Snape in turn was killed by Barry Trotter. And something about a war in Afghanistan and shooting journalists.
The encyclopedia does, however, include a comprehensive spoiler warning, noting that they use the forward motion of a car to push it down, helping the tyres grip the road better — thus slowing it down, rather than speeding it up. Barryboys across east London pointed out the unreliability of Wikileaks as a source and questioned the veracity of the references.
http://newstechnica.com/2010/08/30/wikileaks-reveals-that-snape-killed-dumbl...
- d.