On 29 August 2010 18:44, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 6:29 PM, David Gerard <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I ask again: if the case came to you that one side was saying "we must >> do this to the article because someone with a financial interest asked >> us to" and the other was saying "we are an encyclopedia and this is an >> NPOV issue", what would your thinking be on the matter? > Sure, there may be a financial interest, but there can be an > altruistic motivation as well. I agree we are an encyclopedia and need > to include the ending, but I'm not convinced that spoiler *notices* > are a NPOV issue because NPOV applies to the article text, not to > disclaimers. For both the Stig issue and this one, there is (or will > be, depending on a court case) coverage of this in reliable sources, > so presumably the articles now mention this in some fashion, and that > will serve as a de facto spoiler warning within the text of the > article (as long as it appears before the ending or identity is > revealed). In both cases, there has been independent commentary and > coverage of the "secrecy" aspect of this, so saying within the article > that XYZ have objected to the ending/identity being reveled, is a > requirement of NPOV. You've mischaracterised the present issue: they want the ending kept secret, not in the article at all. Also, my question did not posit press coverage, so please do answer the actual question, as to what you would do if the issue were an OTRS request to leave information out of the encyclopedia, versus NPOV. As an arbitrator, your thinking on this matter is actually a relevant consideration. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
