[WikiEN-l] {{Spoiler}} insanity

[Todd Allen]

Charlotte Webb wrote:
> On 5/16/07, doc <doc.wikipedia at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>   
>> The solution is:
>> 1) Low tolerance for people turning up on articles they don't want to
>> contribute to, to enforce some style.
>>     
>
> WP:OWN
>
>   
>> 2) A method for the community to rubberstamp a guideline developed by a
>> small group, if it effects anything more than a small section of the
>> encyclopedia.
>>     
>
> WP:CREEP
>
> In abbreviated form, those will be the rebuttals to your solution.
> Whether they would be valid ones I don't know yet. Suppose I would
> have to read the small print.
>
> While I agree we would probably be better off without {{spoiler}} tags
> anywhere, I can't say the same for infoboxes. The real problem there
> is inconstant formatting from one template to the next, and that there
> are too many specialized ones, and in some cases nobody can agree on
> which one should be used (see Paderewski). Ideally it wouldn't matter.
>
> For now the best approach would probably be to limit the ability of
> wikiprojects to annex articles of debatable relevance. Probably I'm as
> annoyed by talk page banners as you are by infoboxes.
>
> —C.W.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
>   
1. WP:OWN is a perfectly valid objection there. Anyone who edits an
article (in good faith and without vandalizing, of course) is a
contributor to that article. There's already some nasty, pernicious "Oh,
you've only edited this article once, so you've got no real say in what
goes into it" attitude going around. Quite often, the talk page of a
given article can be just as cliquish, insular, and unfriendly to
newcomers (especially newcomers who bring new ideas) as those backwater
policy and guideline pages. We need less of that attitude, not more.


2. Now this, is a good idea. That's not CREEP, it -prevents- CREEP, by
insuring that policies and guidelines really are enacted with consensus
-of the community-, not just with consensus of whoever happened to be
watching an obscure page that day. (Of course, that also means we're
going to need to recognize that "consensus" doesn't necessarily mean
"unanimity", and doesn't even mean "We won't have to drag a few people
along kicking and screaming." If we don't do that, we'll never get
-anything- done.)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070516/951c89e3/attachment.pgp