On 6/25/06, Zero <megamanzero521(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
And we will get there, I'm positive. But we have
quite a way to go. The most glaring dissapointment I have with the spoiler tag is it
wasn't developed with an encyclopedia in mind. Many users claim the offense of
"Oh but its nice and it will help not to spoil them". This isn't that kind
of website.Wikipedia is an uncensored, pure callaboration of knowledge unhindered by what
other social websites may do.
The spoiler tag, as well as any "warning, this page contains
pornographic images" tags, are totally unrelated to censorship.
Really. And I don't see what either of these tags has to do with
"other social websites" - we don't imitate, we make our own decisions
based on what seems reasonable.
You say" "well it doesn't help the
wikipedia, but the reader in a way similar to usenet". This is wrong. Anything
promoting such external social ideals lacking in edvidence to improve the encyclopedia
itself should of course be deleted on sight. -
I didn't mention usenet. And I'm afraid I don't understand your point
here. It seems to me that we are both using the ideal that "Wikipedia
is an encyclopaedia" to support opposing viewpoints. Maybe Wikipedia
should stop claiming to "be an encyclopaedia", and instead define
precisely what it wants to be, and where it wants to draw its limits.
Not all encyclopaedias are the same, so just claiming to be in that
general class of works isn't enough anymore.
Steve