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

[Peter Ansell]

On 17/12/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Original research is *always* going to be in wikipedia. This is the
most minor degree of original research I can imagine. Every article
has generalisations based on sources, which are original research if
you extend the definition to include determining which parts of a
fiction related article are spoilers.

> In addition, {{spoiler}} is dead as a dead thing. We have
> {{currentfiction}}, which does a slightly better job of the same
> thing.

Apparently it isn't, given the discussion so far in this thread. Its
militant opponents may insist that there is no support for spoilers
but results tend to speak for themselves.

> I suspect someone going through to put 45,000 fresh spoiler warnings,
> in whatever form, on articles is not going to fly.

Deletionism is a fantastical philosophy! I suppose the owners of the
articles won't respond well?

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

Compromise relies on people setting aside their personal difficulties
in view of solutions. If noone is prepared to back down then things
won't happen I guess. But it would be nice to have a compromise since
it is pretty clear that the debate is not entirely one way everywhere.

Peter