Peter Ansell wrote:
On 16/12/2007, Todd Allen toddmallen@gmail.com wrote:
joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
Quoting Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com:
On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu joshua.zelinsky@yale.edu wrote:
See http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=6424&p=147306#p147306
In retrospect I'm not sure why no one did this before. The sample isn't exactly representative (since it is xkcd fora). But one interesting thing seems clear; the public prefers spoiler warnings on Wikipedia and uses them.
Well... thirty people on an internet forum prefer spoiler warnings and use them. I'm not entirely sure we can generalise from that to "the public" with any degree of confidence.
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.
If you check recent changes, it's also apparent that a large number of people are in favor of vandalism. That doesn't mean we should start allowing it.
How did you make the connection between spoiler warnings and vandalism? Seems like you are just putting up a straw man to knock down.
Peter
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I am not, per se, comparing spoiler warnings to vandalism. I am, however, stating (and will state more clearly here) that just because an option is popular with "the public" doesn't necessarily mean we should actually do it. Many things are popular but outside the scope, mission, and ideal of Wikipedia. That's fine, other sites can handle those. If you want spoiler-free plot summaries, rumors, and speculation, those are very popular. IMDB is a great place for you to look. If you want encyclopedic information, including a summation of the full plot, based on verifiable and sourced information only, that's what we do.