[WikiEN-l] Actual data on spoiler warning uses by the public

[Andrew Gray]

On 16/12/2007, Peter Ansell <ansell.peter at gmail.com> wrote:

> > That's true. The sample size is very small. But considering that one argument
> > made in favor of spoiler removal was that the spoiler-removal was favored by
> > the public this preliminary data doesn't seem to back that up at all and if
> > anything shows the other direction.
>
> Is there anyway to avoid having always visible spoiler warnings, while
> allowing users who care about such things to either set a preference
> to collapse spoiler sections or to be able to set a user.css or
> user.js function to hide those sections?

The obvious problem is that we then move the debate into "should they
default to on or off?", which will be no less acrimonious.

(Consider: having them default to displaying the section, leaving
spoiler warnings an "opt-in" method, means that the articles are going
to look the same to a passing user as they would *with no spoiler
warnings at all*. Hmm. Maybe if you had a "click here to hide spoilers
in the rest of the article" button in the top of the page, and did
some CSS show/hide trick with that... is that workable?)

I mean, what we're arguing over is the utility to "the outside world",
the general reading public, millions of them - and consider the cases
for a casual reader...

----

a) Readers who are happy to read spoilers
b) Readers who aren't

i) No visible spoiler warnings [either all removed, or new version
defaulting to off]
ii) Spoiler warnings visible
iii) Spoiler warnings "active" and thus spoiler-marked text hidden

a-i is completely happy - the text is unsullied by any consideration
of spoilers - whilst b-i is thoroughly unhappy - the spoilers are
there unmarked.

a-ii is mildly annoyed - the text is interrupted and marked up for
things they don't care about - whilst b-ii is moderately pleased -
they have some spoiler warnings, albeit discreet and not always
efficient ones

a-iii is thoroughly unhappy - half the article's missing and they have
to faff around to get it back - whilst b-iii is delighted - no
spoilers!

----

(That'd have looked better with a nice diagram)

Intriguingly, it looks like "having the old-style spoiler warnings" is
interpretable as the compromise position. That can't quite be right...

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk