[WikiEN-l] {{spoiler}} vs. writing a goddamn encyclopedia

[Ray Saintonge]

Gallagher Mark George wrote:

>G'day Delerium,
>  
>
>>Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>I've just done [[All Quiet on the Western Front]] and [[The Birth of a 
>>>      
>>>
>>>Nation]] (1915 movie).  It all makes me wonder.  On a site where there 
>>>      
>>>
>>>is so much concern about marketting and spam it seems completely 
>>>contrary to have spoiler warnings.  Spoiler warnings are a _marketting_ 
>>>      
>>>
>>>tool; they want to make people curious enough to see the movie, watch 
>>>      
>>>
>>>the programme, read the book.
>>>      
>>>
>>This seems like a pretty ridiculous supposition of bad faith.  Are you 
>>seriously alleging that Wikipedia is being spammed by people who have a 
>>financial interest in promoting sales of the novel _All Quiet on the 
>>Western Front_ (published 1929), rather than by editors who in good 
>>faith think (even if wrongly) that the information is better presented 
>>with spoiler tags?
>>    
>>
>No, he's saying quite the opposite.  (I'm sure Ray is quite capable of speaking for himself, but I want to see if I'm right in my understanding of what he said).
>
>I see it as, "Our less clueful brethren busy pushing {{spoiler}} on everyone wouldn't be so enthusiastic if they saw it as merely an advertising technique rather than a necessity.  We shouldn't buy into the film industry's games."
>
This is indeed closer to what I had in mind.  Marketting works best when 
the targets of the marketting don't realize that they are being used.  
While I did make a reference to spam as a close cousin to marketting 
techniques being used, I would not read what I said as a direct 
accusation of spamming.  Spamming, IMHO, requires a conscious effort to 
market with persistence. 

To say that there is a supposition of bad faith stretches things a bit 
far.  That would require that the spoiler-wallahs have an understanding 
of their own activities in excess of their own capacity to understand.  
I would  be surprised if any of those putting up spoilers have any 
financial interest in this kind of promotion.  Why should the companies 
pay them to do what they are willing to do for nothing.  If I want to 
buy a Manchester United jersey, why should I pay a premium?  I would 
argue that I deserve a deiscount since wearing it would be to advertise 
the club! 

Initially a video game or movie or book is promoted by whatever hype can 
be generated.  Doing so successfully and as quickly as possible puts 
more money into the pockets of those who already have too much. (how 
this ties in with copyrights is an argument for another time.)  This is 
a short term benefit for the companies.  Once the enthusiastic public 
has flocked to be the first ones to know the "secrets" it is already old 
news.  I suspect that the value of the tactic is generally exhausted in 
less than one week.

Those who have been hoodwinked by the companies' marketting strategies, 
and have been dumb enough to wait all night in a line-up to get the 
first tickets begin to see a value in the strategy of not revealing the 
plot, and start imposing their values in all manner of circumstances 
where the plot is already  broadly known in the public.  What happens to 
[[Romeo and Juliet]] or to [[King Kong]]  will give us no trouble when 
there is a question of finding reliable secondary sources.  Perhaps the 
rule of thumb should be:  If there is even a single reliable secondary 
source that does not use spoiler warnings we should not use spoiler 
warnings.

Ec