On 5/30/07, Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007, David Gerard wrote:
It is limited to three sites; the trouble is that a zero tolerance
policy still
has the problems of a zero tolerance policy. There are some reasons
why we
might want to link to even those three sites. They may be rare
reasons, but
they are not nonexistent reasons. Removing the link from Wikipedia
Signpost
and removing the links from the attack sites discussion are bad ideas,
and a
zero tolerance policy leaves no room for such unusual cases.
Perhaps if we mandate {{spoiler}} tags around each mention ... ;-p
By the anti-spoiler crowd's reasoning, we could just refuse to ban links to attack sites on the grounds that deciding whether something is an attack site constitutes original research.
What ? Using {{spoiler}} is original research in a large number of cases because there is no solid point of reference for what someone could consider surprising, let alone an unwanted surprise. (If there are sources which explicitly classify things as spoilers, it's a different story; for instance, iMDB has done a great job by sectioning its trivia and goofs into non-spoiler and spoiler sections, so there is some objective reference for what constitutes a spoiler.)
On the other hand, we have firm criteria for what would be an attack site - a site devoted to outing the identities of anonymous Wikipedians, or a site devoted to libeling Wikipedia editors is unambiguously such a site. Determining what a spoiler is is often nowhere as easy.
Johnleemk