Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@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.