[WikiEN-l] Reflections on the end of the spoiler wars

[George Herbert]

On Nov 14, 2007 5:01 PM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2007 6:48 PM, Philip Sandifer <snowspinner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Six months later, the spoiler debate is still carrying on with the
> > same half-dozen or so people vehemently opposing their removal. These
> > arguments have been presented in every forum imagineable - arbcom
> > twice, an RfC, several deletion debates, the mailing list, etc. The
> > number of remaining forums is growing so slim that people were, in all
> > seriousness, suggesting advertising the discussion on the watchlist
> > sitenotice alongside the arbcom elections. This is, obviously, beyond
> > the pale. Hopefully, the debate is now in its final throws as JzG has
> > deleted the spoiler template following a TfD. Obviously it's on DRV at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_14
> >   (with a breathtakingly bad-faith assuming nomination), but God
> > willing it will stay deleted and this discussion will finally end.
> >
> > What interests me, though, is the question of how we can prevent this.
>
> Need to have an editor-in-chief, or at least a committee, that is
> willing and able to make decisions about such things.  Arb com won't
> do it.  Jimbo usually won't do it.  True consensus is generally
> impossible to reach.
>
> Whether or not "preventing this" is important enough to give up on
> consensus is debatable; but I'd say the fact that some sort of
> authority is required to "prevent this" is not.
>
> Voting on issues like this is also a possibility, but there would
> still need to be an authority to determine whether or not the vote
> passed.
>
> > What is surprising in all of these cases is that it has seemed, to me,
> > at least, that consensus formed for a position quite quickly - spoiler
> > tags were stupid, sourcing guidelines needed to have enough
> > flexibility to not break articles, and the 2004 election controversy
> > articles are abominations.
>
> What do you consider a consensus?  If unbanned users disagree with a
> position and are willing to fight over its implementation, you don't
> have a true consensus.  Are all the people fighting against these
> positions banned users?  Or by "consensus" do you just mean
> "significant majority"?
>

I actually disagree that there's consensus in the classical sense on
spoilers.

It's clear that more admins with bigger guns support their removal.  But I
don't think that anyone ever achieved true "this is really bad" consensus
across any significant part of the project.

In a sense, "they brought bigger guns, and a bulk of the people didn't
bother to fire back at that point" is a consensus, but I don't think it's
the happy smiling agreement you were looking for.

I, for one, disagree that spoiler tags are a dumb thing.  And I have admin
bit, and I could crank up a good argument over it here and elsewhere.  I
decided it wasn't important enough to fight over, even though I believe the
arguments behind removing them are somewhere between specious and bogus.

If you intend to assert that nobody with influence and power supports the
existence of spoiler tags, I disagree politely.  If you insist, I can
disagree loudly and robustly falsify the claim, but I'd rather just stand on
"you got away with it, but that's all."


-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com