On Oct 7, 2008, at 5:35 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
You are making these decisions, and they are part-and-parcel of "editing" they are not "original research" because you are not *creating* new "statements-of-fact". Instead you are summarizing other people's statements into a much smaller space.
I'm well aware that they're not original research; however, I don't consider a spoiler warning to be original research either. I'm more wondering if anyone thinks that spoiler warnings are original research but other types of editing-based comments aren't, and if so, how this can be justified.
Look, here's the real issue.
Spoiler warnings are immature and idiotic, and make us look like a Power Rangers fansite. They are wholly extraneous to our primary purpose. They help nobody, and make us look like a joke.
NPOV warnings are not.
That was always the core of the issue with spoiler warnings - they made articles worse, not better. Other issues came up in the debate, but in the end, spoiler warnings were deprecated because they were stupid, and that is the main reason why everyone who wanted them gone wanted them gone.
-Phil