![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
newnumber6Over the last month or so, there's something been quietly going on at Wikipedia that you may not have noticed yet. They're removing nearly all of the spoiler warning tags.
Now, this itself wouldn't bother me too much. I'll explain my feelings more behind the cut. The main thing is that it's how it's done rather than specifically what's being done.
See, generally speaking I think Wiki works. Oh, sure there are always exceptions and you can't trust any individual article at any given time, but you on the whole it works. God/Luck's usually on the side of the side with superior numbers, as they say. Which is not strictly true, but becomes more true if you interpret 'superior numbers' as a calculation involving numbers, tools, terrain, etc. In this case, the tools and terrain are that which allow everyone to change. It works because even though there are hordes of people wanting to impose their particular point of view or petty vandalism, the group of people devoted to 'the truth' (which includes neutrality and other principles) is larger than that of any niche viewpoint. (At least until something like the Friends of Privacy from Vinge's Rainbows End comes along.)
So, how does this deal with spoiler warnings? Well, ideally it should be a simple matter. The issue is discussed, and an agreement is come to, and it becomes policy. Whether that means frequent spoiler warnings or few, or even none. My view (I'd generally prefer spoiler warnings to exist, but I'm not passionate about the idea to be all that bothered if most people disagree) isn't all that important. Okay, so to about a month ago, spoiler warnings started to be removed from a number of articles I watched. I figured some new consensus had formed. The new policy pretty much said that spoiler warnings were redundant on all pages involving fictional characters, places, etc, because it should be assumed that there are spoilers there, and that any section marked 'plot', 'charcter history', 'and other sections that should self-evidently discuss plot details' (which is left completely vague), should be assumed to have spoilers. Spoiler warnings could be added in other areas if they had a 'compelling reason' discussed on an articles talk pages. There were other parts to the policy of course, but these seemed to be the major 'new' parts of it, that weren't already there.
Okay, in theory, not all that bad. Needed a bit of tightening up and a bit more clarification on the rules, but in principle I could have been relatively okay with it - where I'd still prefer the old way, but could accept it and abide by it.
I got particularly involved after noticing two things. 1) Pretty much all the spoiler-warning-removal edits I saw, seemed to be done by one person. 2) there came a side case. The Runaways article (it's since been changed, but you could see what it was like in the history), in the character listing section, included a number of major plot spoilers. This was not 'Plot outline' or particular 'character history' page, but just a listing of characters. It had a warning, and the warning was removed. I put it back with some justification that most people didn't expect to see major plot spoilers in a simple discussion of what characters appear in the series. It was overruled. One of the overrulers was the person deleting all the spoiler tags. The other, I soon learned, was also going around removing spoiler tags and reverting anyone who overruled it. Neither had any particular connection to the articles that I could detect, they were just blanket voting no.
So, having a little trouble believing that the policy really went that far and got wide consensus, I went to the policy, the talk pages, and some of the pages for the initial comment of it. What I saw threw me. In the polls I saw, even in the ones where anti-warning sentiment prevailed, there were perhaps a slight majority of those who wanted to get rid of spoiler warnings. Fair enough, though the numbers voting totalled only about 100, and the poll was closed off. Still, probably a sign that some compromise has been made.
I got into the debate to try and help shape the compromise, and that's where things got freaky. The two major spoiler-warning stompers go around removing them with semi-automated programs. Then, in a brilliant circular argument, claim that the fact that some thousands of spoiler warnings were removed, and very few were put back, proves that there's consensus for their view of the issue. This while simultaneously claiming that the guideline has authority, and using that to quell any attempt to restore them (some have been reverted several times, each with an appeal to a guideline that is in dispute).
This is where the 'superior technology/landscape' comes in. It's easy to remove spoiler warnings with a semi-automated program. It's much harder to properly insert them. Also, of course, it's quite possible that the majority of pages have spoiler warnings that _are_ unnecessary, or aren't being watched by more than a few editors. With this crusade against the warnings, it's possible for a small handful of editors intent on stamping them out wholesale to overrule hundreds of individual editors on smaller page. The main people involved seem to repeatedly fail to argue in good faith, not answering legitimate questions that might demonstrate they have consensus, or even agree to stop going on a spoiler-warning hunt while the discussion is ongoing, all the while retreating constantly to their circular 'if there wasn't consensus, the tags would be back by now'.
As I see it, their enforcement is actually interfering with the ability to detect consensus. If the policy is widely accepted, it will be widely enforced by local editors on local pages. There won't need to be people going out looking for spoilers to remove. If the page is widely enforced, it's widely accepted. If the page is narrowly enforced, you can't say anything wide acceptance.
So, why am I posting this? Well, for one thing, to vent out my frustrations so they're not bugging me while I attempt to write (that is, write fiction). The other reason is that I think people should know. And it doesn't matter what your feelings on spoiler warnings. I stand by my conviction that while they attempt to shut down disagreements, I welcome them. So, whatever side of the issue you fall on, if you happen to use wiki regularly, you should not be afraid to make your views known, as long as you play fair.
Come to the main discussion page, add your voice to it (though I should warn that, as tends to happen in all discussions of spoilers, a few people use very spoilery examples, so, be warned). If you're browsing and happen to find yourself spoiled by something you don't want, feel free to complain that there was no warning. If you believe a spoiler warning is added and not needed in a article you're already reading, by all means, delete it, and discuss your reasonings on the talk page. Likewise, if you believe a spoiler warning is needed, by all means, add it, and discuss your reasonings on the talk page. And, most of all, read the debate for yourself, note the numbers and the arguments, and decide for yourself, rather than listening to those who'll claim that spoilers should be deleted because if most people didn't already want them gone, they'd be back.
Now, this itself wouldn't bother me too much. I'll explain my feelings more behind the cut. The main thing is that it's how it's done rather than specifically what's being done.
See, generally speaking I think Wiki works. Oh, sure there are always exceptions and you can't trust any individual article at any given time, but you on the whole it works. God/Luck's usually on the side of the side with superior numbers, as they say. Which is not strictly true, but becomes more true if you interpret 'superior numbers' as a calculation involving numbers, tools, terrain, etc. In this case, the tools and terrain are that which allow everyone to change. It works because even though there are hordes of people wanting to impose their particular point of view or petty vandalism, the group of people devoted to 'the truth' (which includes neutrality and other principles) is larger than that of any niche viewpoint. (At least until something like the Friends of Privacy from Vinge's Rainbows End comes along.)
So, how does this deal with spoiler warnings? Well, ideally it should be a simple matter. The issue is discussed, and an agreement is come to, and it becomes policy. Whether that means frequent spoiler warnings or few, or even none. My view (I'd generally prefer spoiler warnings to exist, but I'm not passionate about the idea to be all that bothered if most people disagree) isn't all that important. Okay, so to about a month ago, spoiler warnings started to be removed from a number of articles I watched. I figured some new consensus had formed. The new policy pretty much said that spoiler warnings were redundant on all pages involving fictional characters, places, etc, because it should be assumed that there are spoilers there, and that any section marked 'plot', 'charcter history', 'and other sections that should self-evidently discuss plot details' (which is left completely vague), should be assumed to have spoilers. Spoiler warnings could be added in other areas if they had a 'compelling reason' discussed on an articles talk pages. There were other parts to the policy of course, but these seemed to be the major 'new' parts of it, that weren't already there.
Okay, in theory, not all that bad. Needed a bit of tightening up and a bit more clarification on the rules, but in principle I could have been relatively okay with it - where I'd still prefer the old way, but could accept it and abide by it.
I got particularly involved after noticing two things. 1) Pretty much all the spoiler-warning-removal edits I saw, seemed to be done by one person. 2) there came a side case. The Runaways article (it's since been changed, but you could see what it was like in the history), in the character listing section, included a number of major plot spoilers. This was not 'Plot outline' or particular 'character history' page, but just a listing of characters. It had a warning, and the warning was removed. I put it back with some justification that most people didn't expect to see major plot spoilers in a simple discussion of what characters appear in the series. It was overruled. One of the overrulers was the person deleting all the spoiler tags. The other, I soon learned, was also going around removing spoiler tags and reverting anyone who overruled it. Neither had any particular connection to the articles that I could detect, they were just blanket voting no.
So, having a little trouble believing that the policy really went that far and got wide consensus, I went to the policy, the talk pages, and some of the pages for the initial comment of it. What I saw threw me. In the polls I saw, even in the ones where anti-warning sentiment prevailed, there were perhaps a slight majority of those who wanted to get rid of spoiler warnings. Fair enough, though the numbers voting totalled only about 100, and the poll was closed off. Still, probably a sign that some compromise has been made.
I got into the debate to try and help shape the compromise, and that's where things got freaky. The two major spoiler-warning stompers go around removing them with semi-automated programs. Then, in a brilliant circular argument, claim that the fact that some thousands of spoiler warnings were removed, and very few were put back, proves that there's consensus for their view of the issue. This while simultaneously claiming that the guideline has authority, and using that to quell any attempt to restore them (some have been reverted several times, each with an appeal to a guideline that is in dispute).
This is where the 'superior technology/landscape' comes in. It's easy to remove spoiler warnings with a semi-automated program. It's much harder to properly insert them. Also, of course, it's quite possible that the majority of pages have spoiler warnings that _are_ unnecessary, or aren't being watched by more than a few editors. With this crusade against the warnings, it's possible for a small handful of editors intent on stamping them out wholesale to overrule hundreds of individual editors on smaller page. The main people involved seem to repeatedly fail to argue in good faith, not answering legitimate questions that might demonstrate they have consensus, or even agree to stop going on a spoiler-warning hunt while the discussion is ongoing, all the while retreating constantly to their circular 'if there wasn't consensus, the tags would be back by now'.
As I see it, their enforcement is actually interfering with the ability to detect consensus. If the policy is widely accepted, it will be widely enforced by local editors on local pages. There won't need to be people going out looking for spoilers to remove. If the page is widely enforced, it's widely accepted. If the page is narrowly enforced, you can't say anything wide acceptance.
So, why am I posting this? Well, for one thing, to vent out my frustrations so they're not bugging me while I attempt to write (that is, write fiction). The other reason is that I think people should know. And it doesn't matter what your feelings on spoiler warnings. I stand by my conviction that while they attempt to shut down disagreements, I welcome them. So, whatever side of the issue you fall on, if you happen to use wiki regularly, you should not be afraid to make your views known, as long as you play fair.
Come to the main discussion page, add your voice to it (though I should warn that, as tends to happen in all discussions of spoilers, a few people use very spoilery examples, so, be warned). If you're browsing and happen to find yourself spoiled by something you don't want, feel free to complain that there was no warning. If you believe a spoiler warning is added and not needed in a article you're already reading, by all means, delete it, and discuss your reasonings on the talk page. Likewise, if you believe a spoiler warning is needed, by all means, add it, and discuss your reasonings on the talk page. And, most of all, read the debate for yourself, note the numbers and the arguments, and decide for yourself, rather than listening to those who'll claim that spoilers should be deleted because if most people didn't already want them gone, they'd be back.
