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

[Gabe Johnson]

On 5/18/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
> Ken Arromdee wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 18 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>Here's a question: do we have a source for the fact that a given fact
> >>>>is the spoiler? Or is it just an editor deciding?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>That question is like asking "do we have a source for the fact that something
> >>>is notable enough to have an article?"  Meta decisions don't require sources.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>No, not at all - by analogy to living biographies, where we do need
> >>sources for facts being important, rather than merely documented.
> >>
> >>
> >Not in the same sense.  We need sources as evidence for importance, but we
> >don't require that a source actually say "this fact is important".  Importance
> >is something we deduce from sources, not something which must be explicitly
> >stated in them.
> >
> You aren't addressing the question though.  It was about the fact that a
> given fact is a spoiler, or that it does in fact spoil someone's
> enjoyment.  The question said nothing about "importance" or
> "notability".  Referring to these throws in red herrings for the sole
> purpose of having a question that was easier to answer than the one that
> was actually asked.
>
> When you say that these plot outlines, or other facts about the work of
> fiction, will spoil someone's enjoyment of the work how do you know
> that?  The whole idea that it will happen seems like nothing more than
> wishful thinking fan-cruft.
>
> Ec
>
>

Use common sense. ~~~~