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

[geni]

On 19/11/2007, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman at spamcop.net> wrote:
> It's not clear to me that including them was consensus either. There
> were so many, and in so many patently absurd places, that it does
> look rather as if someone or group of people originally set out to
> do what David and Phil did, only in reverse.
>

Doubtful. A group acting on that scale leaving no traceable evidence
at all? I think not.

> I mean, who in their right mind would include spoiler tags when
> writing an article about a Shakespeare play, the Iliad or Dickens?
> The kinds of editors who write those articles are typically not the
> kind of people who would even think about a spoiler warning, in my
> view.
>

Random new users or the like.

> In any event, the result is better for the encyclopaedia: a
> {{current fiction}} template is objectively verifiable in a way that
> the concept of a spoiler is not.
>

"It may lack a real-world perspective and critical commentary, and
focus primarily on details about the plot, characters, and ending of
the work of fiction"

Is not a useful statement and merely accelerates the trend of people
thinking every single article needs some kind of "this article is less
than ideal" tag. I mean "proseline" what is that meant to archive.
-- 
geni