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

[Peter Ansell]

On 16/12/2007, Andrew Gray <shimgray at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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...
>

I suggest default to off as a compromise moving from the current
position half-way back to the other position, (although not changing
the current default visual status quo). As you show, its a
controversial decision, but that shouldn't default to no action
instead of one in which those who care about a specific issue,
spoilers, are not able in any way to have their concerns addressed.

It was a big issue on the mailing list and the wiki, and apart from
the one forum link to start this thread, doesn't seem to be a big
issue to casual readers.

A solution which requires a user.css action to opt-in to displaying
spoilers is focused on wiki users, and leaves casual users who so far
haven't said a whole lot, it seems, out of touch, although if they
have an account they can utilise the system just as easily.

Peter