Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Contents
- 1 Increase visibility of general Disclaimer warning
- 2 RFC: Change prominence of site disclaimer link in default skin
- 3 Spoilers for TV episodes that have not been broadcast
- 4 What about spoilers for later episodes?
- 5 Spoilers warnings must be put back
- 6 Spoilers in the edit summary
- 7 A question for pro-Spoiler Warning editors
- 8 Does this guideline affect external links?
- 9 Change in policy
- 10 Why there's no more spoilers warning?
- 11 Filter for addition of spoiler warnings?
Increase visibility of general Disclaimer warning
OK, I must say I've started to change my opinion towards the 'no disclaimer' side. One thing though -- I've heard too many times the argument of "we already have a disclaimer page" -- yet before entering this discussion I have never seen the disclaimer link -- it's particularly small and badly placed (especially for a website with so much text on every page).
What would you guys think of moving that link to the left-hand side menu, above or below donate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 02:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, though perhaps putting it right under the 'About Wikipedia' makes a bit more sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- This is not something I'm against either. However, given that this would be a (albeit slight) interface change, I'd recommend we open an RfC for it. Since I don't remember exactly how to do that, I'll leave it to someone else. elektrikSHOOS 04:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this is a matter of skin design. I happen to have used the Cologne Blue skin almost since my first days in 2004, and the Disclaimers link on that skin is displayed on the top right of every single page right next to the links to the privacy policy and the printable version, but underneath the interwiki links for the page. I've no idea what the other skins do with that information, but obviously it's something for skin designers to handle. --TS 16:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I, too, would have no problem with making the disclaimer more visible/accessible. In the Vector skin, at least, it's in tiny type at the very, very bottom of everything, outside the "box" of the skin that most people probably don't scroll past the end of. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I posted something here (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board#Increase_visibility_of_.22Disclaimer.22_link_in_default_skin). Hopefully that was the right place, and something will happen. Gabiteodoru (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
RFC: Change prominence of site disclaimer link in default skin
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This seems to have died without a conclusive decision. --TS 01:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Extended. 03:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Proposal
Wikipedia does not tag spoilers in articles, and instead the content disclaimer for the site warns that Wikipedia may contain spoilers for works of fiction. In the default skin the link to the disclaimers is not very prominent. Should its prominence be increased, and if so in what way and by how much? --TS 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Increase prominence. I note that WP:SPOILER's main message is, "do not delete material solely because it is a spoiler." As background information, it also says, "Articles on the Internet sometimes feature a "spoiler warning" to alert readers to spoilers in the text, which they may then choose to avoid reading. Wikipedia has previously included such warnings in some articles on works of fiction. Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers." The WP:Content disclaimer does its job as a disclaimer but like much such "small print" risks going unseen by general users or casual readers of the encyclopedia. Suggest we display a brief, standard spoiler warning at the top of articles of the relevant types. This could be accomplished via the associated infobox templates for those types of article. PL290 (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support increase in prominence. It doesn't have to be moved front and center, but I think that moving it anywhere into the sidebar would be an improvement, given that most readers see the sidebar and (I tend to think) most don't make it all the way to the very bottom of the page to see it in its current place. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Support including it on the left sidebar. Regarding including the disclaimer at the top of the articles: There are pages that have "objectionable" content right at the top of the article, so you would see those at the same time as seeing the disclaimer (Vagina or Muhammad cartoon controversy).
- A related issue is that the English Wikipedia Main page has random articles posted, which may have content considered objectionable by some readers. Do you think that a link to the disclaimer needs to be visible BEFORE any objectionable can be accessed? If not, what would be the point of including in the disclaimer the phrase "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."? If yes, we would either need to have a disclaimer before any content appears (to follow NPOV), or disregard NPOV for the Main Page. Gabiteodoru (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have reservations about the practicalities and the motivation. How big and how prominent should the link to the disclaimers be? How likely is it that people who now complain that they were not warned that Wikipedia contains spoilers would have clicked on the link if it were displayed at the top right of the article page? Wikipedia regularly displays anatomical diagrams and photographs, links to offensive websites, descriptions of gruesome and repellent events, items that can trigger medical emergencies in susceptible individuals, information that can be used harmfully, and many, many pieces of undetected false information that could cause harm if relied on. And yet, we're seriously discussing altering the position of the site disclaimer because of this most trivial matter. It all seems very odd. --TS 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I should say that Tony Sidaway's concerns are quite similar to ones I have, and I doubt that moving the disclaimer will really resolve much of anything in the spoiler debate, but the fact is that it's badly placed currently, and it could only help, if only in the most miniscule way, to move it somewhere slightly more prominent. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The content disclaimer seems to be mainly for legal reasons, not so much spoiler warnings, and I find it to be in the proper place next to the privacy policy and about page. I also doubt that it would actually help. I'm afraid this is leading to (as already suggested) adding actual content disclaimers on wikipedia, which is pretty much the exact opposite of WP:NODISCLAIMERS, and soon wikipedia will have splash page were you have to click an "accept" button. Xeworlebi (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Here, for anybody who uses the default skin, is an example of a Wikipedia article (Hamlet, his uncle did it) in Cologne Blue skin, which happens to have the Disclaimers link at top right, but not particularly noticeable.
- The positioning in the other skins is as follows:
- Obviously the esthetics of these skins will not be to everybody's taste (people unused to Cologne blue have told me it makes them want to stab their eyes out with a red hot knife) but they give examples of what the disclaimer link looks like in a variety of settings. --TS 23:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- All arguments against putting spoiler warnings in article are based on two things: "In fact, all articles already have a disclaimer, linked at the bottom of this page and every page on Wikipedia." and NPOV. Well, if we're going to use ONE disclaimer, we might as well make it very visible. I'm not supporting disclaimers within every article text due to NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabiteodoru (talk • contribs) 23:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- Having looked more closely at the default skin, vector (Hamlet example), I think I begin to see what is being suggested by some editors. If we placed the Disclaimers link in the sidebar above the Main Page link I think it would be as prominent as one could ask for. People who go on to register an account and choose a different skin, one presumes, have had all the opportunity they might need to read the disclaimers. --TS 00:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support increase in prominence. People are less likely to feel "tricked" or punked or whatever by Wikipedia if they have a greater opportunity to see a disclaimer before they see the kinds of things they might get upset about.--greenrd (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- Likewise support this proposal. -- ۩ Mask 18:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I reluctantly support this proposal. While I can completely understand concerns of a slippery slope towards violating WP:NOTCENSORED, and rightfully so, we do have a general disclaimer for a reason, and it's too out-of-the-way right now to catch the attention of casual readers. While experienced editors may understand what Wikipedia is and is not, the rest of our readers may not, and it's important that they too have a clear understanding of what we are. elektrikSHOOS 20:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Conditional support: The navigation or interaction boxes in the sidebar are acceptable, but that's as far as it goes. Putting it in the infobox or anywhere else in the content area is absolutely not acceptable. Anomie⚔ 04:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any significant resistance to this idea. I suggest the next step is to consult the bot group and the people who design the skins. In principle the bot people won't mind (they use the API, not the html) but they should have notice because there may be some people who still scrape the html and they would need to change their code.
The skin people obviously would need to be consulted because that's what this is about. We're proposing to change the English Wikipedia version of a standard Mediawiki skin. --TS 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with your earlier point Tony, move it into a sidebar in vector. This is somewhat beyond just about spoilers though, and we're not talking about (at least im not talking about) putting disclaimers above articles. Just a link in the sidebar so we're not hiding our General Disclaimer. -- ۩ Mask 02:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm personally NOT in favor of putting disclaimers above articles. I'm in favor of a link to the general disclaimer in the sidebar below "About Wikipedia," nothing more. Anything else risks violating WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NDA. elektrikSHOOS 05:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't think I've ever read the disclaimer - if I have, it was a long time ago - and it's completely unrealistic to expect a casual user to click on such a link before getting "spoiled". I think spoiler tags should be used in articles. Gatoclass (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's not what this discussion is about. Spoiler tags are against WP:NODISCLAIMERS, for which WP:DISC/WP:SPOILER is an extension of. Xeworlebi (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, I notified the Bot Approvals Group (WT:BAG) a couple of days ago; this notification was moved to the correct place, the Bot owners' noticeboard (WP:BON) by another editor, and the general feeling there is that a change like this to a skin is unlikely to break anything but they're very pleased to have advance notice. It also emerged that perhaps scripters, whose software manipulates the appearance of a skin to add extra tools, should also be notified. So I put a notice at WikiProject User scripts (WT:US) and Wikipedia talk:Gadget (WT:Gadget) --TS 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... it hasn't happened yet... does anyone know if I should contact anyone next? Is it something I can do myself? Gabiteodoru (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- It will only happen if somebody who wants to do it goes and does it. It isn't difficult. As far as I can tell you just need to test a bit of javascript to add the link in the right place in the vector skin, and then when you're satisfied it works take it to wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and get it checked out, and then get agreement to put it into the vector.js for this site. A link back to here from Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) would help, too, just so we're sure it's okay with everybody who cares. The bot people are cool with it and as far as I can tell the script people don't care. --TS 01:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the file I would need to change located? Moving that link doesn't sound that hard... Gabiteodoru (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the one you want to have changed site-wide is MediaWiki:Vector.js, though of course you'd have to test it at User:Gabiteodoru/vector.js before you even thought of asking for it to be included there. --TS 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you are wanting it added into the sidebar (which seems to have the most support above), doesn't someone just have to edit MediaWiki:Sidebar? Anomie⚔ 02:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- There you go. Give that Wikipedian a fluffy bunny. --TS 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you are wanting it added into the sidebar (which seems to have the most support above), doesn't someone just have to edit MediaWiki:Sidebar? Anomie⚔ 02:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I believe the one you want to have changed site-wide is MediaWiki:Vector.js, though of course you'd have to test it at User:Gabiteodoru/vector.js before you even thought of asking for it to be included there. --TS 02:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Where's the file I would need to change located? Moving that link doesn't sound that hard... Gabiteodoru (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I posted a request for page change here as I'm not an administrator. MediaWiki:Vector.js gives me a page with only one commented line of code anyway. Fluffy bunny to Anomie! Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That may be a bit premature. Perhaps discussion at the Village Pump would be merited first. This change would be site-wide so it's better to discuss as widely as possible. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have added links to this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --TS 19:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 1
- Section break retroactively inserted by User:Patar knight.
- Question Does anyone have a mockup available? The proposal seems to lack specifics at present; what would "more prominent" exactly look like? I like the general idea, but cannot Support without an answer. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- Consensus seems to be to place the link in the sidebar above the Main Page link. I don't think it matters if it also appears in other skins, it's just that initially we were thinking of it in terms of adding code to vector.js which is the skin used by all who are not registered editors, and the programmability of sidebar content via the wiki hadn't been made known (at least, I didn't even suspect it existed, it's been a while).
- So if you look at MediaWiki:sidebar as it stands now (permalink) the text that needs to be added before the line referring to the main page is: "Disclaimerpage|Disclaimers" Disclaimerpage resolves to Wikipedia:General disclaimer on this site. "Disclaimers" would be interpreted as a bare word to be used as a link text in the sidebar. Since we're getting a bit technical here I'll post a notice pointing here from the relevant page of the Village pump. --TS 00:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I posted a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --TS 00:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- Oppose placing before the Main page link That's unduly prominent. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support As long as it is put in a good spot (perhaps under "Interaction", because although it's not really interaction, it's by the "Contact Wikipedia" link), this seems reasonable. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose total bull, anyone who thinks people are to take quicker notice and actually READ the disclaimers, by moving it to the sidebar, is dreaming in my opinion. People don't read until they have to, it has always been that way. You don't see Youtube moving their disclaimers in a link next to every video either do you ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose This is pandering to people who don't bother to learn how Wikipedia works before using it, and then never learn. How many times will an intelligent person see a spoiler by accident? I submit that the answer is once, at a maximum. The cleverest will realise that telling the WHOLE story is Wikipedia's duty. The next level will experience one spoiler. Having discovered what the policy is on spoilers, to see a second one will be their own choice, or mistake. We don't need disclaimers for human error. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Re the opposes on the grounds of the link being useless, should we then remove Main page as being redundant to the logo, and 77% of the other links in "nagivation" and "interaction" as being generally useless? I don't think the point here is to actually get people to read the disclaimers before reading the article, it's just to help cut down the whining by people who like to whine about spoilers. Anomie⚔ 02:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- But it doesn't hurt to try, does it? And at least some of that will be mitigated. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- Oppose - I think that this proposal is unessecary. So a few fans find that their enjoyment of some work of fiction diminished because they saw spoilers in an article... So what? In terms of relative "harm", spoilers are completely harmless compared to inaccurate content or BLP issues. I think that this proposal will encourage a culture that will eventually lead to the encyclopedia having banners, having popups, etc. all screaming, "WARNING! If you are a member of the following subcultures, etc., etc., Wikipedia might contain something that offends/scares/etc. you!!11" Additionally, what website has a link to a disclaimer in such a prominent location, let alone an encyclopedia? Did the late online Encarta have it? Does Britannica have it? Navigational links are valuable elements on a web page. They are more effective when there are less of them. A link to disclaimers that very few people will use is utterly useless in the grand scheme of things. Rilak (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- But while this is on the talk page for WP:SPOILER, the general disclaimer contains information on more than just the inclusion of spoilers in Wikipedia. It also contains stuff that every reader should learn like "OMGZ NOT EVERYTHING ON THE WIKI IS TEH TRUETH." I see no reason why a subtle inclusion of a link to the general disclaimer on the sidebar would do anything other than educate more casual readers about the nature of Wikipedia. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, I know that the disclaimer covers more than just "SPOILERZ!!11 IT HAZ SPOILERZ!!11", but generally a website should not force, or make prominent disclaimers. Look at corporate wensites. These guys have well-staffed legal departments full of lawyers who spend all day long looking for stuff that their employer might be liable for. And when it comes down to big bucks, the most unreasonable nonsense is sufficient grounds for ten extra pages of legalese in the disclaimers. So why is it that the general practice is to have all disclaimers, privacy policy, and non-encyclopedia legal formalities at the bottom of the page, if prominence is of such major concern? Because it is not of concern. We already have an About Wikipedia link. I am not a web designer, but common sense tells me that if a new user comes along, and doesn't know what Wikipedia is, he or she will more likely click on that than the disclaimers link. Rilak (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- We're not forcing or making anything super prominent. Having an additional link in the sidebar isn't going to have the same level of saturation as a flashing web banner. But we dont' want a flashing web banner. But it is a helluva better for anyone who wants to find the disclaimers than the very bottom of the page.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who wants to find the link for the disclaimers? Additionally, given that its standard practice to have one's copyrights, disclaimers and legal stuff at the bottom of the page, that is exactly where average people will look. How much of this "if we put the boring disclaimers link next to the hot links, people will click on it and be informed of our noble intent and values" is based on empirical evidence that people will do what this proposal says they will do? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Probably people who are interested in the reliability of Wikipedia, as those who want a smaller version of the "About Wikipedia" link would be interested in this. Journalists trying to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia would also be interested. What would probably end up happening though, is that a link to the disclaimers is added in the sidebar, but the old link in the bottom of the page would still be there. I haven't done any studies (I will comment on your post below), but if links in both locations are kept, that would be a good compromise between both sides, no? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- And these people are numerous? And they haven't got the ability to search for disclaimers, use the about us link, or notice it at the bottom of the page like most websites? If I were a journalist, and you thought that I was incapable of finding the disclaimers, and therefore require the link to be shoved in my face (what this proposal does in effect) I would be offended. Rilak (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Probably people who are interested in the reliability of Wikipedia, as those who want a smaller version of the "About Wikipedia" link would be interested in this. Journalists trying to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia would also be interested. What would probably end up happening though, is that a link to the disclaimers is added in the sidebar, but the old link in the bottom of the page would still be there. I haven't done any studies (I will comment on your post below), but if links in both locations are kept, that would be a good compromise between both sides, no? --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- Who wants to find the link for the disclaimers? Additionally, given that its standard practice to have one's copyrights, disclaimers and legal stuff at the bottom of the page, that is exactly where average people will look. How much of this "if we put the boring disclaimers link next to the hot links, people will click on it and be informed of our noble intent and values" is based on empirical evidence that people will do what this proposal says they will do? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- We're not forcing or making anything super prominent. Having an additional link in the sidebar isn't going to have the same level of saturation as a flashing web banner. But we dont' want a flashing web banner. But it is a helluva better for anyone who wants to find the disclaimers than the very bottom of the page.--Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- Support increased visibility somewhere in the sidebar. Having a (normal-sized) link in the sidebar for increased visibility is a good idea, but I don't think it should go above the "main page" link, since that's well the main page. Anywhere at the bottom of a relevant category at the side is fine with me. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support. The disclaimer has important info beyond just the spoiler warning and making it more prominent will help readers understand the limitations and proper uses of Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, support unobtrusively but not until other links make it there first. Wikipedia's not about hiding legalelse in footers. The Disclaimer is really informative and plainly written; more readers should come across it. Support in one of the sidebar menus. Speaking of which, would a Policy link kill? Ok, another time... Quiddity raised the fair point below that there are more important links we could add, namely WP:5P, and WP:FAQ. I agree. Maybe we should talk about them first. Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC) updated 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Support unlike most websites, our disclaimers are actually relevant to the general reader, so we shouldn't follow the general trend of making them as hard-to-notice as possible. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose partially based on lack of clarity in proposal.
-
- Which disclaimer: the WP:General disclaimer or the WP:Content disclaimer? The "General disclaimer" is the primary one, but it does not mention "spoilers" at all.
- Where is the draft mockup that everyone is "supporting"? I.e. Where within the stack of links, does everyone imagine this new link will appear? How will it be worded?
- There are a multitude of links that could be added to the sidebar, that would be more valuable than this: WP:5P, WP:INTRO, WP:FAQ, WP:CHEAT, WP:QUESTIONS, WP:SANDBOX, etc. The reasons they're not added, is we're trying to not clutter up the sidebar, which would overwhelm more readers.
- I hesitantly agree that the idea is worth discussing further, but I don't believe that this current RfC is in any way conclusive. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're right on there, but maybe to take your point and run with hit. We should put an faq/5p link in there. What website doesn't describe itself, it's core mission, and give a list of common queries in it's main menubar? Only this one, pretty much. If those were include, I'd gladly drop the disclaimer idea. Ocaasi (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
- Proposal's author -- allow me to describe my rationale for it: Wikipedia's mission is to make all of human knowledge accessible to anyone. But should it also try to offer the reader a pleasant experience when this does not conflict with its main purpose? If the answer is no, then I see no need for having Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and we should scrap it. If the answer is yes, and we do care that readers are unhappy because of video-recordings of ejaculations / cartoons of Muhammad / almost-child-porn album covers / plot endings, then we should warn them about it. Most people assume those things don't usually belong in an encyclopedia, and so if we care about their experience we should warn them. There is a large consensus that the Disclaimer link isn't visible enough to satisfy that function, and I believe increasing its visibility would be a step in the right direction. The exact proposal is to move the Disclaimer link from the bottom of the page to the first (or second) entry in the Interaction box (keeping the link to the same place, the general disclaimer). This, of course, only if we do agree that users' enjoyment matters -- if not, then I see no reason not to delete the content disclaimer. Please include in your opinion also what you think of removing the content disclaimer if you disagree with increasing the visibility of the disclaimer link. Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant. Thus, even if editors disagree that Wikipedia's purpose is to send milk and cookies through teh tubez for your reading pleasure, the disclaimers still need to be kept for legal reasons. Additionally, this discussion concerns the proposal to make the disclaimer more prominent, not removing outright. No editor who has objected to your proposal has said anything about the deletion of the disclaimer, and i fail to see how you have reached that conclusion. Rilak (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- How is the sentence "Wikipedia contains spoilers." protecting Wikipedia from litigation? Gabiteodoru (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- You were the person who said that the disclaimers are needed to make reader's experience more pleasant. My reply said that the purpose of disclaimers is not to make reader's expearience more pleasant, but to protect WP from litigation. I thought that I made my position very clear in my first reply to you, specifically, in the first sentence, which I shall now quote: "The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant." This was in response to your rationale, which stated in the second and third sentences: "But should[n't] it also try to offer the reader a pleasant experience when this does not conflict with its main purpose? If the answer is no, then I see no need for having Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and we should scrap it." (Emphasis is mine). Should my response to your allegations that I am leading this discussion astray, I am more than willing to provide links to diffs to my reply and your comment. Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Making a reader's experience more pleasant and protecting Wikipedia don't have to be mutually exclusive. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- So just because one no natural laws prevent the use a disclaimer to warn readers of the traumatic experience of encountering spoilers, one should? I find such arguments weak. Why would the average person click on a link called disclaimers? What is so attractive about the word "disclaimers"? It's about as attractive as a pig wearing lipstick. For those who may not be able to visualize what a pig wearing lipstick looks like, it's not something you are going to day dream about. So, if this proposal is going to add an element to the sidebar that is likely to do next to nothing, then why do it? Many editors who support this proposal, have said it does no harm, so what is the harm in trying? The harm is that if it isn't used, then it's clutter, and clutter needs to kept to a minimum for good usability. Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- You were the person who said that the disclaimers are needed to make reader's experience more pleasant. My reply said that the purpose of disclaimers is not to make reader's expearience more pleasant, but to protect WP from litigation. I thought that I made my position very clear in my first reply to you, specifically, in the first sentence, which I shall now quote: "The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant." This was in response to your rationale, which stated in the second and third sentences: "But should[n't] it also try to offer the reader a pleasant experience when this does not conflict with its main purpose? If the answer is no, then I see no need for having Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer and we should scrap it." (Emphasis is mine). Should my response to your allegations that I am leading this discussion astray, I am more than willing to provide links to diffs to my reply and your comment. Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- How is the sentence "Wikipedia contains spoilers." protecting Wikipedia from litigation? Gabiteodoru (talk) 11:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
- The purpose of a disclaimer is to protect an organization from litigation, not to make a reader's experience more pleasant. Thus, even if editors disagree that Wikipedia's purpose is to send milk and cookies through teh tubez for your reading pleasure, the disclaimers still need to be kept for legal reasons. Additionally, this discussion concerns the proposal to make the disclaimer more prominent, not removing outright. No editor who has objected to your proposal has said anything about the deletion of the disclaimer, and i fail to see how you have reached that conclusion. Rilak (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 2
- Section break retroactively inserted by User:Patar knight.
- I support making the general disclaimer enormously more visible, although my support has nothing to do with spoilers. Wikipedia has a problem with credibility, which is that there are casual internet users who believe Wikipedia rather more than they should. We need to tell casual browsers much more clearly that Wikipedia is an enormous collection of user-submitted content, which means (a) the Wikimedia Foundation is no more responsible for what Wikipedians say than a messageboard administrator is responsible for posts in their forum; and (b) Wikipedia articles aren't completely trustworthy. I've been saying for quite some time that I think the general disclaimer needs to be prominently linked, using a link in large, bold font, on every page in the encyclopaedia. If I had my way it'd be flashing red...—S Marshall T/C 12:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
-
- Then I guess that you would support a proposal that will, under no conditions, let a person access to WP content without having copied, by typing (not copy 'n paste) our disclaimer (to make sure they've read it, memorized it, and can recite it). After they've submitted it, a cookie will indicate that to WMF servers that they don't need to submit to this absurd process again, until the cookie is deleted or expires after 30 days. Additionally, a web cam should be required to browse WP to prevent users who haven't seen our disclaimers from browsing WP at a computer where another person has completed learning our disclaimers. The previous is absurd isn't it? Equally absurd is the percieved need to having the disclaimers link in a prominent location, and if need be, in a large, bold font, colored red and flashing at 60 Hz. As I am about to post this comment, I also wonder if I have just given some people ideas... Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that your comment is breaking the WP:BEANS guideline :P Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- One good thing that would bring would be a sudden drop in the number of journalists' articles which would present an anonymous IP editor as a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation. Hmm... It's worth looking into </sarcasm> --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- If a journalist thinks that anonymous IP editors are official spokespersons for the WMF, then he or she shouldn't be a journalist. Or maybe those journalists actually know that, but they want to diminish the WMF's reputation? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- It happened. [1] Read all about it. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- If a journalist thinks that anonymous IP editors are official spokespersons for the WMF, then he or she shouldn't be a journalist. Or maybe those journalists actually know that, but they want to diminish the WMF's reputation? Rilak (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- One good thing that would bring would be a sudden drop in the number of journalists' articles which would present an anonymous IP editor as a spokesperson for the Wikimedia Foundation. Hmm... It's worth looking into </sarcasm> --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- I believe that your comment is breaking the WP:BEANS guideline :P Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Then I guess that you would support a proposal that will, under no conditions, let a person access to WP content without having copied, by typing (not copy 'n paste) our disclaimer (to make sure they've read it, memorized it, and can recite it). After they've submitted it, a cookie will indicate that to WMF servers that they don't need to submit to this absurd process again, until the cookie is deleted or expires after 30 days. Additionally, a web cam should be required to browse WP to prevent users who haven't seen our disclaimers from browsing WP at a computer where another person has completed learning our disclaimers. The previous is absurd isn't it? Equally absurd is the percieved need to having the disclaimers link in a prominent location, and if need be, in a large, bold font, colored red and flashing at 60 Hz. As I am about to post this comment, I also wonder if I have just given some people ideas... Rilak (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Strong support here, but not based on Spoilers (although it's another good reason): The current disclaimer placement and size is ridiculous. Every time I've seen a "Read the disclaimer" post when somebody advocates for censorship, I really sort of emphatise with the advocate, even though I'm anti-censorship. It's ridiculous.--occono (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - I would like to make an interesting observation. In October 2010, Wikipedia:General disclaimer (the page that the disclaimers link at the bottom of every page goes to) had 98,481 views and was the 3,761st most viewed page on Wikipedia. Now, in my opinion, that's pretty good for such a boring, unexciting link. To put into context just how good this link peforms, the Pokemon article (the one with the thing above the "e") had 212,813 views in the same month and was the 651st most viewed page on Wikipedia. Now, the proponents of this proposal are saying that the disclaimers page is harder to find than Atlantis. I ask, how can that page recieve 98,481 views if it is indeed that difficult to find? Considering that the proponents have not offered one bit of evidence to support their position, or even an argument that isn't:
- "I don't like spoilers, therefore this proposal is good."
- "I don't care about the spoilers, but anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good."
- "I can't see that it will do any harm, therefore it is good."
...I must comment that this all resembles, in my opinon, wishful thinking. Rilak (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- As an early !voter in this, I don't recall saying that the disclaimer was "harder to find than Atlantis." Nor do I recall recommending large fonts, loud colors, or the blink tag, and I disagree with those who do (though I suspect they may have been utilizing a bit of artful hyperbole). What I recall saying is that the disclaimer is oddly placed, outside of the vector skin and way down at the bottom, to a point where many users may not even scroll as far as it in their article viewing, and that I suspected moving it somewhere more visible would make it, you know, more visible. And though I admit freely to having done no studies on the topic, I suspect that a) the disclaimer gets its pageviews in spite of its placement, not because it's easy to find and b) moving it somewhere more visible would make it get more pageviews, which would mean more informed readers. I could be totally misinterpreting, here, but my feeling is that you are so powerfully worried about starting down a slippery slope to "ZOMGSPOILERS" censorship that you may be overlooking the small fact that though this proposal ended up on WT:SPOILER, it doesn't actually say anything about spoilers in its current incarnation. The sole proposal here is the shifting of the location of a link - not the changing of the link's content, or our guidelines that deal with the link's use, or anything like that.
- Or to tl;dr, what part of "anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good" are you disagreeing with, exactly? keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 00:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- The Atlantis comment and other similar comments were all hyperbole, and believe that everyone in this discussion knows that. You asked what part of the second argument I object to. Firstly, I would like to say that monumental overreactions and failures start with one little "it can't hurt, so let's do it" moment. I am reminded of one case where large sums of money was spent to increase the prominence of a social issue, the logic being that if more people knew about it, the issue will somehow cease being an issue. Well, the end result of this adventure was good money wasted. I'm not saying that this proposal involves money, but surely you all must see the relevant parts. Some well-meaning person suggests we do this, without any evidence to support its effectiveness, and in the process, wastes resources, and achieves nothing — the problem is as bad as it always was. And before proponents of this proposal use the previous sentence to further their argument, I am not saying that spoilers is a problem, my position is that spoilers aren't a problem at all).
- So specifically, the problems with "anything that might inform new users about WP in theory is therefore good" are: "might", not will; "in theory", not in practice; and "anything... is therefore good" suggests that the position on the matter was reached not by examining need, cause, and solution, but by enthusiasm for WP (eg. "WP is the best encyclopedia in THE WORLD, and its goals are SO NOBLE, so let's do EVERTHING to promote WP, etc." The problem with enthusiasm is that things will be ignored, things will hastily thought through, etc. Right now, there are still outstanding questions that I have raised that haven't answered to my (and any possible lurkers' who share the same opinion on this proposal) satisfaction. Instead, I'm met with the same generic arguments I noted previously. Your statements regarding how "it's just moving a link, it's not like we're changing anything or stuff like that" comment, is the exact sort of comment that I'm concerned about (no offense intended).
- In regards to this proposal not saying anything about spoilers, the discussion under the previous heading was created to duscuss spoilers was it not? This discussion was the precursor to this RfC, is it not? So I ask, how can you say that this proposal isn't about spoilers? Doesn't the proposal by TS clearly state "spoilers" not once, but twice? (My hyperbole engine just failed here.)
- I would like to respond to your claims that the disclaimer link is "oddly placed" with: the disclaimers being placed at the bottom is exactly what most people do!!! (I'm sure that some proponents will groan upon reading this for the millionth time). Finally, I'm not opposing this because I am concerned about censorship in articles about fiction, but, along with previous concerns, because of the sort of backwards-bending, limb-extending-and-rotating-at-weird-angles accomodations that the "spoilers ruined my prime time TV watching" crowd want to force upon those not interested in fiction (the greater Wikipedia). Rilak (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- @Rilak: Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I mean to ask is: Does Wikipedia have any reason to believe that it would lose a lawsuit based on spoilers? Reasons to believe would be (IMHO) either past lawsuits focusing on this issue, or the existence of legislation in any jurisdiction that would suggest Wikipedia has such liability. I do not believe that any such reasons exist, and furthermore believe that, when the spoiler line was written in the disclaimer, the author's only reason to write it was to enhance the enjoyment of the reader. I think that if we decide that we are keeping that line purely for legal purposes, we should have some references to back up the need for it.
- On another note, I do agree with you on the issue of clutter, and agree that we should keep that in mind as the downside. And on yet another point, about the statistics, I dare to suggest that number of visits to the disclaimer page are irrelevant until put in the context of number of visits if the link would be in the information box (although even with in this context it's not the most ideal statistic). But I also want to ask you to take into account Chaoticfluffy's observation that although the proposal was made in the context of discussing spoilers, the current proposal does not touch them at all, although this decision may have further implications that may touch spoiler policy.
- To wrap up -- if the consensus is that disclaimers should only satisfy a legal purpose, and not an enjoyment purpose, then we should have in the disclaimer only sentences for which we have a somewhat good reason to believe we actually need it. If no such evidence is presented, then I think we should remove those sentences, and believe that the Spoiler warning in the disclaimer would need to go as well. Note that one of the main arguments that help in establishing the consensus on the spoiler warning policy is the presence of a spoiler warning on the content disclaimer page (this fact would be in itself an indicator that the content disclaimer page doesn't carry a legal-only role, as all spoiler discussions have never invoked legal liability yet made plentiful references to a page that you suggest has only legal-related content). If we do agree that the disclaimers have only legal value, and that the spoiler warning in the disclaimer does not have legal value and should therefore be removed, then I see it as the natural continuation of these actions to reopen the debate about spoiler warnings, with the anti- side being deprived of one of their main arguments. (P.S. I use the word 'believe' so much because I am a Bayesian.) Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- A better question to ask is: Does Wikipedia have any reason to believe that it might be be served a lawsuit because of spoilers? Given that there are many lawsuits that are initiated on unreasonable grounds, I say that if there are hoardes of angry fans (keyword: fans), then yes, it might be possible, however absurd the possibility of such legal action occuring. Disclaimers, AFAIK, try to prevent lawsuits from being started in the first place, although I suppose that they can be used in proceedings as evidence. Now, if there is is cruft in the disclaimers, eg. stuff not needed for legal purposes, then by all means get rid of it. Wrongly included content in a page with a legitimate purpose does not invalidate the whole page, which, if I am not mistaken, is what you seem to imply with your all-or-nothing position with disclaimers.
- Regarding the statistics, I don't believe that I have used them to support a position that they can't support. And your argument that there will be an increased disclaimers page audience is flawed because it assumes that people are interested in the disclaimers in the first place. I've raised this point before, and have seen not one bit of evidence in support of larger audiences from proponents. All I see are people eager to point out that Wikipedia has disclaimers saying that because of their private interests with disclaimers, everybody needs to see them. Playing Manos: The Hands of Fate in the same cinema as The Free Encyclopedia* isn't going to automatically cause the former to become a blockbuster, is it?. And once again, I believe this argument has been raised before (or to this effect), only to be repeated again and again by this proposal's proponents, while they fail to present evidence for demand.
- In response to the potention removal of the mention of spoilers in the disclaimers and similair content, that is fine by me. The removal of such content gives no support to proponents or opponents to this discussion as the increased prominence of disclaimers is not a problem. Really. If one reads your proposal, detailed at the beginning of this section, nothing is said about the need. If we were to look at the discussion that started this RfC, you just decided, one day, that the disclaimers link needs to be more prominent. Removal of spoiler-related cruft from the disclaimer also doesn't lead to discussion of reinstating the vile spoiler warning tags. If it isn't obvious to some people that Wikipedia that it is an encyclopedia, not a movie blog or fansite, then I fail to see the need for warnings in the first place. People demanding an encyclopedia to be whatever it is they wish it to be is not demand. Refer them to the appropriate venue if such demands are made.
- * Note: I am well aware that WP is not a social network, and I don't need to be "informed" that it isn't. Rilak (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify some misunderstandings first:
- I am not trying to imply that the presence of the spoiler disclaimer invalidates the whole page; rather I am saying that if consensus exists that disclaimers are there for legal purposes only (which from this discussion doesn't really seem to be the case, BUT we still have a small number of people discussing), then it shouldn't be there; and also that the fact that the disclaimer has beenreferenced in a non-legal discussion is good evidence that the current consensus isn't that the disclaimers are non-legal alone.
- Regarding statistics: I never said that increasing visibility would increase hits; I didn't even say that number of hits after increasing visibility is a relevant statistic; all I said was that having this statistic would help the statistic you suggested more relevant. But as neither of us is really using this as an argument, we can drop it.
- If the removal of the spoiler line from the disclaimer is agreed upon, that does give support to proponents of spoiler warnings, as the existence of that sentence in the disclaimer is a relevant argument -- I say relevant here because it was used multiple times in the discussion and in achieving consensus (see above). I'm not sure why you mention increased prominence here (your 3rd paragraph).
- And also a few comments:
- Asking either question (prevent or lose a lawsuit) is fine from my point of view.
- Every time there is a decision, someone makes it one day. I fail to see your point. I believe my proposal came out of previous discussion on this page and was well received by consensus in the discussion in which it appeared.
- "If it isn't obvious to some people that Wikipedia that it is an encyclopedia ..." -- this is a question of how nice you want to be to the audience (Respect for the public is a key Wikimedia value). I disagree with you here, but I do understand that this issue is more of a personal opinion than something that can be debated.
- I'm glad that we are able to agree on the fact that once the disclaimers page is accepted by consensus as legal-only, then the spoiler warning in the disclaimers would most likely be removed (I am rephrasing your words here, do correct me if I am wrong). This is an important idea I wanted to bring out. And given that you believe in the legal-only view, and I believe in the legal-and-more view, I don't think we will be able to find a common opinion, and propose to agree to disagree. Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'd like to clarify some misunderstandings first:
I'd like to restate the questions we're discussing in light of what has been discussed so far (if you feel this is not accurate in any way, please correct me):
- Question 1: Are the disclaimers for legal purposes only, or do they also have a secondary role (being nice to the readers, etc.) ?
- Question 2: If you believe that disclaimers have a secondary role, then I dare suggest that they are failing in fully achieving their role, and propose to increase the visibility of the link. Do you agree with this (moving it to the top of the information box)?
- Not-really-a-question 3: If you believe the disclaimers do not have a secondary role, then it seems to me you shouldn't have anything against removing the spoiler warning, and it would most likely end up being removed -- there appears to be a minimal consensus on this one. I take this as a given, but please voice opposition if there is any.Gabiteodoru (talk) 07:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- Regarding question one, in my view, based on present knowledge, the sole purpose of a disclaimer is for legal protection from litigation. The purpose of a disclaimer is not to inform the audience about what Wikipedia contains, eg. that Wikipedia is not censored and may contain material that some people consider to be offensive. This appears to be what the disclaimers are used for, and I believe that this is not appropriate. More inappropriate is this proposal, which is furthering thr misuse of the disclaimers.
- Regarding question two, since I do not think that disclaimers have a secondary role, this question is not applicable as a result.
- Regarding question three, I have no issue with spoiler warnings being removed from the disclaimers. Rilak (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't care, because I don't think it will have even the smallest practical effect on users. People go directly to the page they want, and they are not going to stop to read the disclaimer unless you make it a click-through page (i.e., you can't read any articles until you click "I agree"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose original proposal, support alt. proposal. Adding more links to the sidebar dilutes the prominence of the existing links and there are already quite a few. Alt proposal sounds like a better idea. Kaldari (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose both / all changes. This is a solution in search of a problem. meshach (talk) 20:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm not really sure what we gain from this. The only other idea I can think of is to make the yellow lines thicker, so that the section doesn't blend in with the rest of the page as much. But I doubt this too would make an iota of difference. In my opinion, the current placement is logical, and consistent with just about every other site that features such links. The people who want or need to see it will know where to find it. This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. And there doesn't really seem to be a significant number of complaints about spoilers to warrant any change. --Dorsal Axe 18:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A possible alternative to this proposal?
It seems to me that editing the pre-existing Wikipedia:About page, which already has a link in the sidebar, can achieve what this proposal hopes to achieve. Would anyone be willing to consider delaying concensus on this proposal to discuss the merits of editing Wikipedia:About? Rilak (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Strongly agree. Also note that the About page already contains some of the links mentioned above, such as Five Pillars. Also note, that the About page already has a relevant section, Wikipedia:About#Disclaimers, which can easily be refined, or moved within the page. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would also be fine with this. My concern is not so much what the title of the page that has the information is; I would just like for the information to be in place where readers are more likely to hit on it. Wikipedia:About seems like as good a place as the disclaimer page, and if it's already in the sidebar, so much the better. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- I also like this proposal. Great idea, Rilak! How about one of those 'in your face' colored boxes at the top of the about page telling you that it is highly recommended that you read the disclaimers before browsing + the link to the disclaimer page ... ? Gabiteodoru (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the positive responses. The question now is does this constitute as a concensus on looking at alternative means to deliver the information contained in the disclaimers, and if so, should there be a new discussion or RfC somewhere, at Wikipedia talk:About perhaps?
- Since we have a discussion here already, I think that I should elaborated a bit more about what edits that I think WP:About needs. Firstly, I think it needs to be simplified. It shouldn't consist of paragraphs and paragraphs of prose. People who want to find out Wikipedia will be better served if the sentences were short and succint. For example, we don't need to state that Wikipedia is a combination of the Hawaiian word "Wiki" and "pedia" in the first paragraph. That should be stated later on. Secondly, navigating WP:About needs to be made easier. I assume that a significant portion of people visiting that page want a question answered. I think they will be better served if each section was a subpage of WP:About, linked to with a menu consisting of icon with a short description pairs. For some sections, it may be worth considering replacing prose with points so that answers are easier to find. Are these good ideas? Rilak (talk) 01:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be suggesting a complete overhaul of the WP:About page. That would need ample discussion at the relevant talkpage, first.
- Your description also sounds a lot like you want to turn WP:About into WP:FAQ, to me. WP:About and FAQ are certainly addressing many of the same points, but they do so in different ways.
- I'd suggest that an update of WP:FAQ might be more helpful. Particularly, any sections that explain&link to the general/content disclaimers. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't know that WP had a FAQ! If I did, I would not have suggested the above. Regarding updating the FAQ, I don't think that it will achieve what supporters of the proposal want — increasing the visability of the disclaimers. Why? Well, how is a new user supposed to find the FAQ? Its not on the sidebar, and its linked to near the bottom of the page at WP:About. WP:About in my view, is far too detailed to serve as an About page for any website. It's the longest that I have ever seen and it looks it it was written with "let's make it as long as we can" in mind. It doesn't have to be that long, and being that long makes it less functional.
- I know that this RfC isn't the best place to discuss these issues, so I'm asking can we close this RfC as no concensus or similar so discussion can continue elsewhere? Rilak (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
- I would support an overhaul of Wikipedia:About nonetheless. There seems to be a bit of unnecessary crossover between the lead sections of that page, and the dedicated Wikipedia article. Could use a bit of restructuring too I suppose, and definitely a bit of trimming and refining. FAQs be damned, it's a still overwhelming to a casual reader or new user. --Dorsal Axe 17:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Spoiler warnings on Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy articles
According to some people, those articles should have spoiler warnings. What do you think about that? 207.69.137.6 (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- If such warnings are added, remove them. They simply don't belong on those article regardless of whether such warnings are allowed in general. In fact, it was this kind of silliness that got the warnings purged from Wikipedia to begin with. —Farix (t | c) 21:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Spoilers for TV episodes that have not been broadcast
Surely this should not be allowed? Can this be mentioned? AnemoneProjectors 19:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, it's allowed provided the information is reliable (such as when there is a preview that discloses some elements of the plot, or a writer or a member of the production company or broadcasting company authoritatively describes such a plot element in an interview). An example of this might be the Doctor Who Christmas Special 2010 which actor Matt Smith (The Doctor) has described as "loosely based on a 'Christmas Carol' with a time travelling twist." The BBC Press Office has also released a brief synopsis which is in our article. If more detail were authoritatively available, we would include that too. This information was known and in the article prior to the screening of a preview on November 19th. The show will be broadcast on Christmas Day. --TS 20:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- It's generally accepted to use official press releases, summaries, trailers, promos etc. for upcoming episodes, spoiler websites are generally not accepted as reliable sources so shouldn't be used anyway. Xeworlebi (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Another example: The Amazing Race 18 is currently being filmed right now, so there's a number of forum sources (unreliable) that have identified where and who's still in the show, but the only information in our article are from local papers (reliable) that simply identify that the show came through their city. --MASEM (t) 20:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- The reason I asked is because there's a big storyline coming up in Coronation Street where a number of characters will die. Apparently the information has leaked and now Wikipedia has spoiled the surprise for me, even though it was referenced. I didn't check the type of source it was because I didn't want to read too deeply into it, in the hope I could quickly forget what I had just read. There's a discussion on Talk:Coronation Street#WP:SPOILERS. AnemoneProjectors 20:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
- If the information can be verified through a reliable source, then it is fair game. It is actually inappropriate to remove the information on the bases that it is a "spoiler". (Who says it is a spoiler? How do you verify that it as a spoiler?) However, unverified information should be removed per WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 21:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I don't have a problem with information about characters arriving, leaving or being developed. I add that kind of "out-of universe" information all the time. It's the "in-universe" information I'm not happy being forced to read tonight. AnemoneProjectors 23:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Most of the time spoilers I see added to Wikipedia are unreferenced so I remove them. In this case I think the source is unreliable as the episode is followed by a live episode where the real victims are revealed. Anyway, I understand the rules. AnemoneProjectors 00:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
I think you're doing the right thing when you remove unsourced spoilers from fiction that isn't yet published. But let's get this straight: nobody is ever "forced to read" any part of Wikipedia. --TS 01:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Well I don't have to check my watchlist but if I didn't then some vandalism might not get removed or some hoaxes might not get deleted or some sockpuppets might not get blocked. So I check every edit :) AnemoneProjectors 01:11, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very, very grateful that you do so. Thank you. --TS 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- LOL. Yes, Wikipedia would be a complete mess without me :D AnemoneProjectors 03:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I'm very, very grateful that you do so. Thank you. --TS 01:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Related, there has been some back and forth on the Source Code (film) page concerning a spoiler for the movie's twist ending, and I've now removed the spoiler again on the grounds that no verifiable source could be cited for the ending of a movie that isn't due out for several months anywhere. This appears to be an acceptable way to keep a spoiler off a page, would it not? Once the movie is out in even a single territory, that argument goes away, and I'd no longer be averse to the spoiler being there. Jschuur (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming the source for the spoiler is unreliable, then yes,this makes complete sense. If, say, USA Today revealed the ending, that's different, but I've rarely seen a case where that happens. --MASEM (t) 13:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Just a question. If the film hasn't been released, just where did the plot summary come from? Because until the film is released, the summary obviously can't be verified against the film. —Farix (t | c) 19:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- My point there exactly. Thanks for chiming in on the film page. So far, the spoiler hasn't reappeared, and I hope I've been able to make a credible case to keep things this way, at least until a reliable source can be cited, or the movie is out. If it's reverted back without proper sourcing, I'm not sure what the next step is. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jschuur (talk • contribs) 22:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
What about spoilers for later episodes?
Someone thought it was a good idea to spoil the identity of "Mysterion" in a South Park episode I just watched, despite the fact his identity wasn't revealed until several episodes later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Coon
Since I just watched this episode, I am understandably furious. Shouldn't such practice be frowned upon?
I think the individual responsible should be permanently banned from editing wikipedia article. But shouldn't he/she receive a warning at least?
I've read summaries for episodes of many different shows and don't ever recall having future events spoiled this way. This is ridiculous.(174.116.212.78 (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC))
- No, it is completely reasonable that if the work has aired, any and all future information that may pertain to the past episode could be mentioned. (There's more issues with writing to the fiction instead of writing around the fiction, but that's not a spoiler problem). --MASEM (t) 22:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Spoilers warnings must be put back
I don't know what idiots deiced to remove that, but it is totally stupid in the extreme. Otherwise you send the signal to people there are possibly millions of articles THEY SHOULD NOT READ unless they are 100% conversant with the subject. I was just spoiled on something where I didn't want to be spoiled, but where I wanted to learn some more background information. And all because some asshole though "screw them, we don't give a shit about what they have read or not, we'll just not write a spoiler warning here". Oh, and Harry Potter dies. --IceHunter (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- You may want to read this page's archives to know who removed spoiler warnings. And why. (We actually had spoiler warnings in The Very Hungry Caterpillar at some point). Yours, idiot Kusma. 13:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- First, very few plot details are actual spoilers. But determining which plot details are spoilers will use an editor's individual opinion and analyst. This means that tagging plot details as spoilers will be a violation of neutral point of view and no original research. And because of that, such labellings is never verifiable against reliable third-party sources. And by the time a reliable source does state that a plot detail was a spoiler, that detail is probably is no longer a spoiler. On top of that, we don't give in article disclaimers for content that may offend certain readers or disclaimers on medical and legal articles (which are far more important and deserving of disclaimers). And finally, watch your language. Wikipedia as a policies that editors must remain civil and not engage in personal attacks. Calling other editors "jackass" violates both policies. —Farix (t | c) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is meant to be a source of knowledge, not a preview. People should assume that if they are reading something on a topic that they are not as versed in as others then they may learn something they don't know. Otherwise, why else be on the site at all?Caidh (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- The main reason "spoiler warnings" were removed is due to the fact that they violate a core tenet of the project: Wikipedia is not censored (and along with that, no disclaimers in articles, as disclaimers are a form of censorship). No one presented a valid reason why we should willingly ignore a major policy just to suit a template of dubious nature and vague terms of usage, and there was never any consensus to implement the template across the site in the first place.
- Besides, you don't open a paper encyclopedia and see "SPOILER WARNING!" all over the page. There is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia should do it. It's just not professional. By all means move information to a more appropriate and logical section (plot should generally always be kept to the plot section), but it's simply not our job to run around telling people to watch out for certain bits. Especially when it decends into chaos as to whether The Hungry Caterpillar or Santa should be censored. This was by no means not a spur of the moment decision. Calling people "idiots" certainly won't help your cause.--Dorsal Axe 19:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia also has a general content disclaimer that is linked from every page on the site and includes such warnings. And no, the decision to not include spoiler warnings was not a "vocal minority" decision. Sure, you might see disparate voices on this page that complain because they just read a spoiler. But every single time there has been a sitewide discussion such as an RfC regarding this matter, consensus has been to keep spoiler warnings off the site.
- In addition, your tone and editing history suggests a tendentious attitude that is detrimental to the project. I would encourage you to read WP:CIVILITY and attempt to work with other editors to solve problems rather than consistently mocking them. elektrikSHOOS 19:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Spoilers in the edit summary
Spotted in recent changes [2] an edit summary making sure you don't even have to read any of the article , in this case The Dark Knight , to get a spoiler .
It's one thing accepting the fact that if you read the article you may get a spoiler but you shouldn't have to stay away from recent changes as well Garda40 (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I see nothing wrong with it. Aranea Mortem (talk to me) 03:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
A question for pro-Spoiler Warning editors
You see, I don't get why such a minor disclaimer such a spoiler warning should be placed on Wikipedia articles, when more important and useful disclaimers such as NSFW disclaimers or disclaimers that say that there are pictures of Muhammad aren't be used. People go to an encyclopedia to learn things, and in the case of Wikipedia, as much as possible, we try to give the most complete and verifiable information on a given subject. If a person read an article on, let's say Star Wars and was spoiled, it's his fault, because he looked it up on Wikipedia, and she should have known that Wikipedia strives to give complete and uncensored information. If he didn't want to be spoiled, he shouldn't have looked it up at all. I know that most of our readers are completely unfamiliar with our policies, but that shouldn't be an excuse for spoiler warnings to be used.
I have seen the archives a number of times, and the question why spoiler warnings should be used when there are no disclaimers in Muhammad, but the question was never answered. If someone was spoiled because he looked up a Wikipedia article, he might get sad, he might get mad, but if a Muslim saw our pictures of Muhammad, he would probably kill us, and if parents saw images of penises and vaginas, they could sue us. Those are genuine concerns, unlike people who are spoiled, the most they will do is probably rant about it somewhere. So why should spoiler warnings be used on Wikipedia if can't we use other, more important and useful disclaimers that would actually make sense? And no, I'm not promoting the use of disclaimers in articles, I'm also against them because there are already disclaimers at the bottom of each page, and the use of more disclaimers would be quite redundant when we already have them. 112.208.114.247 (talk) 10:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
If you are reading the Lord Voldemort article, and you see his family, you won't expect to see Harry Potter usually. That kind of thing is something that might need a spoiler warning. There is no "Plot" or "Summary" header, but there is an important part of the story.
W (talk)alex03 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would think that most people who would look up Voldemort would be familiar with the main character from the book series that he appeared in nor would be shocked to see his most significant foe mentioned. Granted there may be some readers who ramndomly stumble into the article and have no knowledge of Harry Potter but highly doubt that it would be anywhere close to common enough to justify reinstating the spoiler warnings.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Does this guideline affect external links?
So I was looking around some articles, and I saw many external links that have the words "spoiler warning". Does this guideline affect placing the words "spoiler warning" if the words are part of the page's title, or are they excluded. An example would be "Review of Movie X by George Spielberg (warning: contains spoilers) - John Doe, Anytown News". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- Don't attach spoiler warnings to external links. --TS 12:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- But the problem is that the spoiler warnings are in the actual title of the page or on the URL. For example: "http://www.example-review-site.com/reviews/movie-x-review-warning-spoilers". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- The description should reflect what's in the link (in this case "Review of X at Review Site" or something, though if that's actually a valid EL anyway is another matter). In such a case there should be a warning prominently at the top of the linked page anyway, so it's hardly up to WP to really need to give a warning anyway. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
- But the problem is that the spoiler warnings are in the actual title of the page or on the URL. For example: "http://www.example-review-site.com/reviews/movie-x-review-warning-spoilers". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Change in policy
Guys. Come on. 17 pages of archives. I'm not sure how to find this. Wikipedia used to have spoiler warnings. Now it doesn't. That's fine with me, but for history's sake, let's mention when the policy changed, shall we? Big archives are a big hassle. --BDD (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- So fix it. It probably happened in late 2007, around the time that Template:Spoiler was deleted. Anomie⚔ 13:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Why there's no more spoilers warning?
Why did wikipedia remove spoilers warning, one may want to read out some details they missed from something, and the article may lead someone to thinking it won't spoil anything, but in the end, it ends up spoiling things. So my question is why did they remove these warnings? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.186.30 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- The general thinking behind the removal of spoiler warnings is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and people should expect encyclopedia articles to contain all the major information pertinent to the topic. This was in part brought about by the addition of spoiler warnings to Shakespeare's works, fairy tales, and the like. You might like to review the deletion discussion for Template:Spoiler to see more of the actual arguments made at the time. Anomie⚔ 01:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I personally think this should be up for discussion. Wikipedia shouldn't strive so hard to be like other encyclopedias that it should lose site of its goal: A free encyclopedia that is a culmination of all information. If people don't want to see that information, they should be informed that it contains it in a minor, non-intrusive but noticeable for those who are looking for it way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.4.38 (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree, the reason that spoiler templates were removed was not because the people who edited Wikipedia wanted to be like other encyclopedias but for two other reasons. The first was that the template was being highly misused (ie fairy tales, a works of shakespeare hundreds of years old were being tagged). The second, more significant issue was that most of the sections being tagged were titled plot and most editors considered it redundant to mention that a plot section may contain part of the plot that someone has not yet seen/read. I see little reason to believe that the consensus has changed to anywhere near enough to support readding the spoiler warnings.--70.49.73.84 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- That is only part of it. There is also the fact on how do you verify that a plot detail is a spoiler, or remains a spoiler. All of the spoiler warnings that were used were based entirely on original research and personal opinion and had little to no bases on reliable sources. Thus the application of such warnings were in violation of Wikipedia's three core policies. —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I think better housekeeping is in order. It took far too long to track this page down, when I was just interested in why {{spoiler}] tags no longer work. There needs to be a better mechanism for page cleanup that people who take on the task of deleting tasks should initiate. The system is broken as it is. rhyre (talk) 19:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- The place to look would be [3]. Sure enough, that leads to the old template talk page. At the head of that page is a link to the RfC that lead to deletion.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
The rationale for not having spoiler warnings is that it falls under no admonitions (or what-ever they're called). At that page, there is a statement that it is a consensus just below policy level. To my reading, the only really relevant points in support are that it's not encyclopedic (vague and probably based on certain old possibly no-longer viable concept(s)) and that it would be too onerous or disputatious to carry out. I wonder if the issue could be raised again: Many people would like to know something about the content of a work of art with-out getting the climax or key thrust upon them. Giving an indication that a key point is given in the article (e.g., in "The Gift of the Magi") is not censorship: the reader is free to continue or not.Kdammers (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, it is more the case of "what is a spoiler?" We had edit wars where spoilers were being applied to details that most wouldn't call spoilers (to the point where naming the actor for a specific character was considered spoiling), as to old works (like Shakespear plays), and non-fiction. The cleanest solution is simply to remove them, and to note in our disclaimers that we're covering works comprehensively and thus may include spoilers. Spoiler warnings aren't coming back. --MASEM (t) 06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- And on top of that, we don't put in medical disclaimers, why the hell should be put in plot disclaimers? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Filter for addition of spoiler warnings?
Wouldn't it be alright to add a filter if possible spoiler warnings are added? For example, if text is added which says "WARNING! This article contains spoilers", then "Tag: Possible spoiler warning added" would appear. Would that be practical? This because, sometimes spoiler warnings are added to little-watched articles, and thus these edits may remain undetected for some time. I actually removed such instances of added spoiler warnings - I removed them about two weeks after they were added. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)