User:AMHR285/spoilers

Someone remarked on the current state of the discussion being "all rhetorical fluff", so I've attempted to compact what I believe is the most powerful arguement against the spoiler tag.

During the very early stages of the spoiler tag's inclusion in the 'pedia (2001~), this point was brought up, but went largely unaddressed:


 * "There are in fact movie encyclopedias such as by movie critics or cinema academics. IIRC, the former provide a spoiler-free synopsis not unlike what you'd read on the back of a video cassette, whereas the latter assumes knowledge of the ending and makes no qualms about spoiling it, if it is relevant to the point being made (which is often the case). I suppose the reason is that the movie critic encyclopedia's goal is to expose people to more movies that they might want to see, whereas the latter is more educationally focused towards understanding the movie. So then the question for Wikipedia may boil down to whether our objective is to present a listing of movies with the intent of encouraging people to go see them, or if it is to educate *about* the film, filmmaking or circumstances around the film. -- BryceHarrington


 * FWIW, I think the purpose pretty clearly ought to be the latter. --LMS" (important text bolded by AMHR285 ( talk )   )

Now, I've never read one of these moviepedias, but assuming it's true, on what grounds can supporters claim spoiler tags belong in Wikipedia? Does anyone know of any serious reference work or educational material that includes such spoiler warnings? I'd really like some explanation as to exactly what precedent exists for spoiler warnings, or an explanation of how exactly they are encyclopedic.

To avoid a lot of circular rhetoric, let me preempt some things I expect to hear -


 * Wikipedia is closely tied to the internet: Its editors use the internet to edit, yes, but that's it. No policy exists stating that Wikipedia should welcome influence from internet culture or show preference to any internet trend. On the contrary, as Wikipedia aspires to be taken seriously, it's probably the other way around.


 * Wikipedia is different from a paper encyclopedia: People often attempt to justify anything in the name of this point, when it really only refers to the physical limitations of paper &mdash; Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. I've shown some evidence supporting the exclusion of the tags (educational material/encyclopedias on fiction do not use them). Any evidence supporting their inclusion?


 * It's just metadata: It's ugly, disruptive, and (unless proven otherwise) unencyclopedic metadata that seems to promote a false image of Wikipedia as some kind of casual review site or GameFAQs messageboard.

Explain why these tags belong in an encyclopedia, and you may yet sway me.