On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
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.
Well, yeah. If there's a credible pro-spoiler position, it should probably be brought up there.
Or on the TFD for {{current fiction}}.
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 disagree that the fact that I don't find the repeated pleading for spoilers convincing is somehow evidence of bad faith on my part.
I wonder how large would the public sample be before you'd agree that some sort of compromise?
Personally? I'd need to see something of convincing methodology. A thread on the XKCD forums isn't it for me.
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.
Well, yeah. But (as noted on said XKCD forum) people don't complain that Cliff's Notes doesn't contain spoiler warnings either. Wikipedia is far closer to Cliff's Notes in purview than IMDB.
- d.