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

[joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu]

Quoting David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com>:

> On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu <joshua.zelinsky at yale.edu> wrote:
>
>> Instead of accusations from the pro-spoiler side it would be
>> interesting to hear
>> from the anti-spoiler side. David or Guy would either of you object to
>> this sort
>> of compromise?
>
>
> I would consider spoiler warnings in plot summaries ridiculous. In
> addition, determining what's a spoiler is basically original research.

I'm not sure how relevant the OR issue is. It is a serious point but it is
arguably just a formatting decision.
>
> In addition, {{spoiler}} is dead as a dead thing. We have
> {{currentfiction}}, which does a slightly better job of the same
> thing.
>
> I suspect someone going through to put 45,000 fresh spoiler warnings,
> in whatever form, on articles is not going to fly.

Well, er not going to fly because people won't let them and had the template
deleted.

> That is: there's not a credible position to "compromise" with, despite
> much repetition.

This seems to sound almost like "We won. Why bother compromising?" 
Which I have
to find less than compelling. I wonder how large would the public sample be
before you'd agree that some sort of compromise?

I have to say I find the fact that the public seems to prefer the spoiler
warnings along with Geni's points to be good arguments. Now, what data I'd
really be interested in is whether people are using Wikipedia less due to the
lack of spoiler warnings. Not sure how to test that at all.