On 16/12/2007, joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu
<joshua.zelinsky(a)yale.edu> wrote:
Quoting David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>:
> 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.
That's understandable. I did earlier back propose a general poll advertised at
the top of pages for readers. Would that satisfy you?
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.
That's a good point.
David, could you possibly explain what disadvantage you see to having spoiler
tags where they are suppressed unless someone chooses otherwise?