[WikiEN-l] Deleting over 45000 items

[William Pietri]

For the record, I don't have any strong opinions about spoiler warnings 
either way. However, this puzzled me:

Brock Weller wrote:
> We are a free-content
> encyclopedia above all else, and should remain encyclopedic. A spoiler
> warning is a rather juvenile artifact of culture. I could see it on usenet
> or forums, but if someone came to an encyclopedia, then they should expect
> information. We are not here to coddle people, we are here to be useful.
>   


What if our readers find it useful to be able to read about something 
without having it spoiled for them?

For example, long ago an otherwise forgettable writer named Merle 
Kessler gave away the secret at the heart of Citizen Kane as part of a 
minor joke. There was no warning. When I finally saw that movie, it was 
a restored print at the glorious [[Michigan Theater (Ann Arbor)]]. Every 
time Welles hinted at the central secret of the movie, all I could think 
was how amazing an experience it would have been -- had the movie not 
been ruined for me.

Now I could imagine wanting to know something about Citizen Kane before 
seeing it, but without having the central mystery given away. Happily, 
[[Citizen Kane]] does a good job of that through careful writing. The 
article makes clear that a mystery is central to the plot, and the plot 
summary only gives away the goods at the end. You are unlikely to hit 
the secret accidentally.

I think that careful work could  legitimately be called coddling our 
readers, and I think that's great. The internet already has plenty of 
information. What we have is a well-organized and useful service to our 
readers. Going out of our way not to spoil Citizen Kane for them strikes 
me as just as valuable as not spoiling their lunch by including the 
actual shock materials on our [[Shock site]] pages.


William