Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1lquilter
Wikipedia went through a big brouhaha about spoilers. After the spoiler warnings began to approach critical madness meltdown, other folks got it in hand and rewrote the spoiler guideline. It now reads in pertinent part:
Thoughts?
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia contains revealing plot details of fictional works; this is expected. Spoiler warnings should only be used in articles about fictional subjects. When adding or removing a spoiler tag, be prepared to obtain consensus.
Thoughts?
2lilithcat
Thoughts?
What do you mean by "critical madness meltdown"? What precipitated the need to say that spoiler warning should be attached to fictional subjects only? Were people actually calling it a spoiler to say that Marie Antoinette was beheaded or that the colonies won the American Revolution?
By the way, Anna Karenina throws herself under a train and Beth dies!!!
So there.
What do you mean by "critical madness meltdown"? What precipitated the need to say that spoiler warning should be attached to fictional subjects only? Were people actually calling it a spoiler to say that Marie Antoinette was beheaded or that the colonies won the American Revolution?
By the way, Anna Karenina throws herself under a train and Beth dies!!!
So there.
3lquilter
I love the satisfaction with which you write
tee-hee.
My understanding is that spoiler warnings were popping up all over the place, including in the very brief topic summaries. Indeed I saw them in crazy places on wikipedia (and elsewhere). I've heard but haven't actually seen people arguing for spoiler warnings for non-fiction. And the whole point is to get people's attention, so they don't work unless they're blinking in alternating neon colors and really large font-sizes. Well, at any rate, somewhat typographically distracting.
As a blog- & wiki-editor / publisher, the spoiler thing drives me a bit nuts, I have to confess. I feel, uncharitably, that people who want to approach a text in some mythical virginal state should just stay away from reviews and discussion forums and not expect the rest of us to self-censor or label on their behalf. So this group is my response: Create a healthy outlet for my frustration, which I know at least some people share.
Beth dies!!!
tee-hee.
My understanding is that spoiler warnings were popping up all over the place, including in the very brief topic summaries. Indeed I saw them in crazy places on wikipedia (and elsewhere). I've heard but haven't actually seen people arguing for spoiler warnings for non-fiction. And the whole point is to get people's attention, so they don't work unless they're blinking in alternating neon colors and really large font-sizes. Well, at any rate, somewhat typographically distracting.
As a blog- & wiki-editor / publisher, the spoiler thing drives me a bit nuts, I have to confess. I feel, uncharitably, that people who want to approach a text in some mythical virginal state should just stay away from reviews and discussion forums and not expect the rest of us to self-censor or label on their behalf. So this group is my response: Create a healthy outlet for my frustration, which I know at least some people share.
5reading_fox
The eerieist(sp?) thing about LT is finding so many people who share one's somewhat less normal ideas. Great group lquilter.
6_Zoe_
Okay, I'll be the voice of dissent here.
I hate spoilers. Obviously it's my own responsibility to avoid discussions of particular books I haven't read, but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to discuss books at all. When people are having a general discussion about books they've read in the past year, there's just no need to say without warning, "I hated Book X because the main character dies in the end". It's just a matter of showing some respect for others who may want to read the book in the future. The excessive use of silly spoiler warnings in some places doesn't mean that the whole concept of warning people should be rejected. A warning doesn't have to be in the form of blinking lights; you can just write at the beginning of your post that people who haven't read the book may not want to read what you're about to say.
I hate spoilers. Obviously it's my own responsibility to avoid discussions of particular books I haven't read, but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to discuss books at all. When people are having a general discussion about books they've read in the past year, there's just no need to say without warning, "I hated Book X because the main character dies in the end". It's just a matter of showing some respect for others who may want to read the book in the future. The excessive use of silly spoiler warnings in some places doesn't mean that the whole concept of warning people should be rejected. A warning doesn't have to be in the form of blinking lights; you can just write at the beginning of your post that people who haven't read the book may not want to read what you're about to say.
7lquilter
Ah, but see, the problem is that I have no idea what might be a spoiler. I mean, I have gotten slapped down for "spoiling" things that I thought were either general knowledge, or unsurprising, or, you know, not a "big reveal".
What I find annoying is that I end up self-censoring for this. It's like another layer of bureaucracy I have to cross before I write anything.
What I find annoying is that I end up self-censoring for this. It's like another layer of bureaucracy I have to cross before I write anything.
8lquilter
ah ... just reading more of the wikipedia discussions. there's a lot on The Crying Game, in which the critical element of the movie -- the one for which it is notable and for which it even merits scholarly discussion and thus an encyclopedia article -- was buried in "plot details" with a massive spoiler warning.
See Wikipedia talk:Spoilers#Thoughts
See Wikipedia talk:Spoilers#Thoughts
