
Wikipedia "Spoiler" Button - TechnoFou
http://jaymachalani.com/blog/2013/11/6/wikipedia-spoiler-button
======
avar
I see this person didn't use Wikpedia before 2007, it used to have exactly
what he's suggesting:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler#Why_spoiler_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spoiler#Why_spoiler_warnings_are_not_used)

In addition to the arguments listed there the thing that bothered me most
about it was that it imposed a straitjacket on the editorializing of any
article that contained spoilers, you now had to bend over backwards to
partition it into spoiler and non-spoiler sections.

~~~
TechnoFou
Yeah I just saw a comment on my site with this link. I honestly didn't know
that Wikipedia had a system like this before. Thanks for the link!

I still think though that they should do a better separation between the
actual information and the story elements though.

~~~
avar
The article does have such a separation, but you navigated down to the section
about the fifth season. Honestly, what were you expecting if not a summary of
what happens is that season?

Also, who should spoiler warnings in an article about a TV series benefit?
People who haven't seen the latest series? People who haven't seen it at all?

Should the summary say nothing about how Walt turns to crime (which wasn't
apparent to me when I started watching it), and instead describe Breaking Bad
in vague terms as the struggles of a New Mexico man to provide for his family?

Spoiler warnings are inherently at odds with writing a succinct and accurate
summary of a given subject, which is what Wikipedia strives to do.

Other commenters here are right, if you don't want something spoiled for you
then simply don't read encyclopedia articles about it.

You wanted some information about the structure of the aired episodes, there's
plenty of TV-guide like sources for that that aren't encyclopedias.

------
jellicle
If you don't want to learn about a subject it might be best to avoid reading
an encyclopedia article on it.

~~~
croisillon
It's not always that easy. I was recently reading a fantastic book, not all at
once from beginning to the end. So at some point, thrilled by the book, I just
wanted to quickly check if the author was famous, if the book sold well, etc.
I checked quickly the wikipedia page of that book trying (and succeeding, but
still) to avoid getting spoiled. If you want to read it, it's "the fault in
our stars" (but don't check wikipedia for it)

------
fluxon
Because of a very strong community-driven notion that Wikipedia is not
censored,
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_art...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_disclaimers_in_articles))
spoiler warnings won't make it into articles directly. This has been _heavily_
discussed:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines/Wikipedia:Spoiler_warning)

But _indirectly_ , this functionality could exist in a Javascript
widget/gadget/script that users who do not wish to see spoilers can install
themselves, into their registered account's settings. The installation process
is usually very simple, a small copy/paste into a configuration file.

I think that no direct modifications to articles to accommodate the script
would be allowed; this includes special templates, <!-- hidden comments-->, or
even the existing benign {{anchor}} template (usually used to mark HTML
URL#link targets), if it's used to mark text {{anchor|spoiler}} for the
script.

So the script has to be smart and dependent only the article text itself. It
could selectively activate on articles in any category containing the words
Television or Film, on sections named Plot or Synopsis, and simply collapse
(autohide), or redact (blackout) any paragraphs which contain proper names, or
keywords present in a list (die _, dead, death, kill_ , wed, wedd*, marry,
married, etc.)

A good starting point would be the text selection and redaction functionality
as shown in the ProseSize.js script, which also presents a "Page size" link in
the left navigation bar and, when clicked, instantly styles all the eligible
article text background in yellow. Our widget could just use black.

I leave it to Javascript and CSS wizards to go further.

~~~
duskwuff
Another idea: Maintain an external database of Wikipedia articles (or
sections!) that contain spoilers.

------
dsrguru
WARNING: Do not read this article if you haven't watched the end of Breaking
Bad. (This post is safe though)

I, like the author, am very sensitive to spoilers and completely agree that
people for whom spoilers ruin the enjoyment of a work should still be able to
reap the benefits of an encyclopedia for the work's "metadata" \-- information
about the cast, running time, season and episode count, production, etc.
However, the article, ironically and much to my horror (Edit: actually the
author has a warning at the top of the page, which I missed), spoils the end
of Breaking Bad, one of television's most popular shows, a show that is/was
still on my to watch list.

~~~
TechnoFou
That's why I added at the top of the post a WARNING line! Actually, just the
Wikipedia screenshots I added are enough to spoil, thus the reason of this
article!

~~~
dsrguru
I apparently missed that! Hopefully my redundancy here will help prevent
others from doing the same.

------
talles
It's an encyclopedia for god's sake.

------
lmm
When wikipedia turned user-hostile in about 2006 that was one of the things
that went. Just use a better wiki (e.g. tv tropes).

~~~
davidgerard
We didn't stab the spoiler warning through its whiny little heart until 2007.

~~~
pyre
Good to know that Wikipedia contributors/editors have a healthy respect for
their users! /s

~~~
davidgerard
Yes, we think if they go to an encyclopedia they're after encyclopedic
content. It turns out Wikipedia isn't Ain't It Cool.

~~~
pyre
> we think

There's your problem. Your attitude consists of:

    
    
      We think that the users want X. A bunch of users have
      been asking for Y, but we are going to ignore them because
      what "we think" the users want trumps what actual
      users are asking for. Oh, and the users that don't like
      our attitude are "whiny."
    

You are not pointing to anything concrete about what your actual users want
other than what you think your "ideal user" wants. Idealized views of what
users want don't always end up matching reality.

Also, I'm failing to see how splitting information between "spoiler-full" and
"spoiler-free" makes your content less encyclopedic, or has any link to Ain't
It Cool News.

Overall, your general attitude of putting people down[1][2][3] represents
Wikipedia in a poor light, represents yourself in a poor light, and generally
comes across as very trollish.

[1] Splitting information into 'spoiler/no-spoiler' means that Wikipedia is
going to turn into Ain't It Cool.

[2] Putting information behind a spoiler warning causes the content to be less
encyclopedic.

[3] The spoiler hiding/warning is 'whiny' (and by extension it's proponents
that don't want stories to be spoiled are also whiny).

~~~
davidgerard
The key problems were:

1\. spoilers are inherently opinion - there is no way to dictate neutrally
what is and isn't a spoiler, and no referenceable source for such

2\. spoilers were superfluous in many cases (a section labeled "Plot" or
"Summary" is going to have details of the story in it)

3\. a spoiler-warning culture was causing editorial problems: relevant
information being removed from articles for being a spoiler, or articles being
twisted into weird shapes to herd details into "spoiler" sections

4\. the spoiler culture was getting gibberingly stupid (a spoiler warning on
"Romeo and Juliet" and "The Three Little Pigs", I shit you not).

The thing I did was remove several thousand spoiler warnings from "Plot" or
"Summary" sections, where they were superfluous. When those were gone, the
other problems were enough for consensus to reach the death of the spoiler
warning.

But let's assume spoiler warnings are a great idea. How would you implement 1.
neutrally and verifiably in a manner that was hard to argue with?

~~~
pyre
1\. In the example at hand, a possible solution would be to separate the
mechanics of how the episodes aired from the content of the story itself. You
don't need story details to have an explanation of how Season 5 of Breaking
Bad was broken into two pieces that aired a year apart from each other.

2\. The fact that a major character dies, is pretty arguably a spoiler.
Obviously not for stories so common and/or old that they are tropes (e.g.
Romeo and Juliet). Coming back to the example of Breaking Bad Season 5,
knowing that a major character dies is probably universally accepted as a
spoiler within the first year or so after it airs.

~~~
davidgerard
So how far do you go back? And for what countries and, indeed, cultures? Note
that English Wikipedia is not American Wikipedia, but pretty much
International Wikipedia. The world is a _very big place_. You still seem to be
assuming I've asked you for "something obviously acceptable people like me",
and that's not the case at all. What's a rule for people who are from
somewhere that couldn't even tell you who Baba Yaga was, let alone a story
about her?

------
toxik
... You just spoiled Breaking Bad for me, thanks!

~~~
fluxon
Wow, man, you have to binge-watch faster.

------
ta_delited
This is a stupid suggestion that has no place in an encyclopedia, then again
wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but still this suggestion belongs on a
specialized community forum or website.

Wikipedia is already dying a slow and painful agony and has been for a while,
no need to accelerate it by adding more trivia and irrelevant features to it.

