[WikiEN-l] Spoiler Boilerplates

Sun Jun 25 19:45:22 UTC 2006

Zero wrote:
> This is the common view: "Other websites do it as "courtesy" and thus
> should be accepted about the Encyclopedia because people like it".

We're not doing it simply because other websites do it, and the
argument for why we're doing it is not "because other websites do
it".  What we've got here is correlation, not causation.  We do
it because it's a good idea, which is the same reason they do it.
When people make the argument "but all the other websites are
doing it", all they're saying is, "so it's not a preposterous idea".

> In view of "not all encyclopedias are the same", you lost me there.

It's simply the case that Wikipedia is more than just a an
encyclopedia.  Not only is it not paper, it also shares some
attributes of the more dynamic, information-sharing websites.
It's new and different; not all the old rules apply.

> That's an interesting comparison. I suppose you'll say then that the
> implementation of a template derived from the ideal of a networking
> site is appropriate in any encyclopedia.

No need to drag in the slippery-slope or strawman arguments.
We're calling these like we see 'em, really.

> We build an encyclopedia, not selctively dictate who might or might
> not view it on a personal whim.

But we're *not* dictating anything!  And that's why it's *not*
censorship.  In fact, what it *is*, is *providing additional
information* -- metainformation.  We're telling the reader,
"Oh, by the way, this next bit is something you might not want
to read -- your choice -- if you don't want any spoilers."

(If I wanted to get silly, I could accuse you of censorship for
trying to deny me my right to warn my readers in this way. :-) )