Lostpedia talk:Spoiler Policy (proposed) Archive 01

From Lostpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive of user talk from Novmeber 2006 to May, 2007.

Please do not reply to this archive; if necessary copy text from here and paste in and reply in the main talk page. Thank you!

Contents

First draft

It seems like the site has some fragments of spoiler policy on various pages, but I think it should be spelled out and easy to find. Here's my attempt at a first draft based on what I found. Feel free to dig in and make revisions and improvements. --Minderbinder 10:57, 2 November 2006 (PST)

I like it. Nice work! --Admin 14:07, 2 November 2006 (PST)
Thanks! --Minderbinder 14:10, 2 November 2006 (PST)

Disagreement with "International Broadcast Dates"

The policy states that "All non-US visitors should be very careful which pages you visit, since information isn't considered a spoiler once the episode has aired in the US," and I disagree with this policy. Keep in mind that Lost occasionally airs in Canada an hour or two BEFORE the american airdate, and some of us canadian Lostpedians who begin to update pages with the latest official information have had our contribs reverted. It seems unnecessairly Americocentric to tell international viewers that "information isn't considered a spoiler after the american airdate" and then when non-americans get legitimate, official, canon information to add it is refused.

It would seem more fair if the policy was not American-based, but rather based on whenever the episode airs first. If an episode airs in the USA first, then information should be posted and non-americans beware of spoilers. Similarily, if an episode airs in Canada first, then information should be posted and non-canadians beware of spoilers. ~Dissonance

That is a point worth considering, I was going to mention the Canadian broadcast time but forgot. For the record, "legitimate, official, canon information" isn't really what spoilers are about. The point is, many viewers don't want to have their experience spoiled by someone blurting out the ending before they've seen it. And also for the record, the edit that was reverted (yours, not coincidentally) was mainly reverted because it was spoilers posted for the sake of spoiling [1]. I wish you'd stop trying to defend that and just realize that it was rude. Contrast that with this week, where you posted info in the context of an episode summary before the US broadcast was over. It wasn't reverted, was it (and did anyone even complain)? I do think the US/Canadian thing could use some more clarification if someone wants to tackle it. --Minderbinder 14:43, 2 November 2006 (PST)
That spoiler blurting was my mistake, no doubt about it. That's how I wrote up this episode's as well - Normally when I write something up, I put down major things in point form and flesh them out into full paragraphs later. Last week, I began to do that, and people didn't like it. Somebody suggested that I instead take my short form points into a text file, flesh them out there, and post it when it's actually readable. I did that with The Cost of Living, things were fine and dandy with all involved, and that's good. There's no reason for you to have such a harsh response - I only included this issue because an 'official' spoiler policy was being written up and I felt the issue of people seeing things before american airdates should be addressed in the same 'official' capacity. =) ~Dissonance
  • I understand your point, Dissonance, but again, I'll restate here that it's an American program, the large majority of viewers are American, so I'm not sure what the big deal about waiting an extra hour before the East Coasters have seen it is. To me, it's all about the majority and if they felt their use of lostpedia was hampered even by EST updating, I would support that and restrain myself for that given time, because to me, it's not a big deal. I wonder if we could vote on that and go with the majority at some point, with the choices being update lostpedia for 1) AST, or whenever the first airing of a Lost episode anywhere worldwide is; 2) EST, the first airing of Lost in the US or 3) PST, the last airing of Lost in the Continental US. --PandoraX 15:18, 2 November 2006 (PST)
Well, considering canadian lostpedians (more than just me!) altered The Cost of Living early last night and nobody complained, there doesn't seem to be much of a problem - i just wanted to bring the issue up for a debate if an official policy was being drawn up. I'm all for your vote idea. ~Dissonance
To Minderbinder, I'd just like to clarify that this is not a "US/Canadian thing", as you put it. It's a matter of different broadcast times in different areas on the Wednesdays when each episode airs. You just have to decide when it stops being spoilerific: is it when it has aired in the first area, or is it when it has aired in the last one. IMO, either position could be validly argued, but you should be consistent in choosing one option or the other. I don't think one could say "It is when it has aired in my own area, and I want people who watched it before me not to speak of it, but on the other hand I want to freely spoil the people who watch it after me". One cannot ask for consideration from others while refusing to extend the same consideration to them. (Concretely, I prefer the option with the least restrictions because it is perfectly natural for contributors to want to edit when they have watched an episode, and it would probably be looking for unnecessary trouble to attempt to implement that kind of restrictions.) -- Cheers 16:53, 2 November 2006 (PST)
I'd agree to a point. It's not an inherently US/Canadian thing. But viewers on the west coast of the US are well aware that there are earlier US broadcasts. I doubt many in the US know that there's a canadian broadcast before the first US broadcast. It's also likely that the number of people who see the early canadian broadcast is considerably smaller than the number of people who see the EST broadcast - the show and website are based in the US, so if consensus says no spoilers before the US broadcast, that's how it will be. Hopefully more will weigh in on this issue. --Minderbinder 13:32, 3 November 2006 (PST)
If Canadian viewers update the pages after the Canadian airdate, all American viewers have to do is avoid visiting pages for an hour. While Canadians, like myself, wishing to update pages have to wait 2 hours for the American broadcast to end, not to mention it's much later and people would rather head to bed. --Voodoo 7 November 2006 (EST)
The site posted the spoiler policy before and during the episode, which said not to post spoilers until the end of the US broadcast. [2] There are a ton of US users on this site, if the site wants to set that policy, that's how it's going to be. --Minderbinder 09:06, 8 February 2007 (PST)
I agree... if Lost fans north of the border cannot wait a couple of hours, they should start a mirror site -- maybe lostpedia.ca -- maybe it can operate 31 minutes ahead of the American site...

Creating New articles based on rumored episode titles

So what's the best way to handle new episode articles created with rumored titles? In the past, those articles were deleted, which seems consistent with the header at the top of Talk:Lost Season 3 which says PLEASE DO NOT DISCUSS EPISODE TITLES AND THEIR SOURCES. THE ONLY OFFICIAL SOURCE IS ABC MEDIANET. THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE WE WILL ACCEPT FOR EPISODE TITLES. But the article for Not in Portland is still up. Which is it going to be? Personally, I favor not creating articles based on rumored info since it casts doubt on the accuracy of LP. If people really want to post that info, it can go in the prespoiler pages. --Minderbinder 09:16, 5 November 2006 (PST)

  • If this site is going to include 'rumor' information or 'spoiler' information (which I highly think it should), the info should be consolidated in one page. For example, any speculative information about a future episode should be consolidated either on the Season 3/prespoilers page under a generic 'Episode #' or on a separate page denoted by something akin to "Season 3/Episode #". This would include any rumored episode titles, and conceivably, prevent the creation of a separate page for every rumored title. Once the episode has aired, or the title confirmed by Medianet, the page header can be changed, from the generic title to the episode title. Clean-up of incorrect rumor or spoiler information can occur concurrently. How about that? --B-Field

Spoilers in episode articles

Some of the theories in articles on old episodes of LOST (from seasons one and two) have now been proven faulty or inadequate. What would be the correct way to act in these cases?

  • Simply remove the theory.
  • Rewrite the theory based on newer information (i.e. from season three), and thus put in a spoiler.

I just changed a theory in Three Minutes (the top one regarding Michael's mission) and got to thinking afterwards. Is it OK to simply state that "Jack was most probably taken to operate on Ben", even though it is impossible to know or even guess that at the time of that specific episode? So, what do you think? --Noseman 2006 09:54, 12 November 2006 (CET)

  • Request: So at the top of every episode article for season 3 there is a table of quick reference links to the each episode articles for the season. These also contain the spoiler of upcoming episodes' flashback characters. For the episode "Enter 77", it is listed as unconfirmed. I would prefer to not have this information added to the table here when it is determined or confirmed, as I often revisit other season 3 episode articles and it's all right there at the top of the pages. --User:makiwolf 12:01, 16 February 2007 (PST)
Wouldn't it be the most logical way to limit an episodes article to what facts are known up until the actual episode?! That way LostPedia would be more useful for the part of the world who have a delay in airing lost. They would then be able to read about their latest episode without spoilers. If any facts changes in later episodes that would then be described in that episode. I hope something like this will be a part of the new spoiler policy! / Dreamingtree72 15:51, 16 February 2008 (PST)

What exactly constitutes an "official source"

This template was created:

Welcome to the talk page for "Lostpedia:Spoiler Policy (proposed) Archive 01"

Do NOT post any SPOILERS for unaired episodes on this page.

  • Any information regarding upcoming episodes should be deleted.

More information:

... to reflect what was believed to be the accepted policy (and in fairness, no reflection on that editor's personal opinion necessarily, but just him trying to sort through what the consensus was, same as I'm doing now)

The part that I'm wondering about is the last line: "SciFi.com, TVGuide.com, etc. may be deleted. These are not official sources recognized by Lostpedia, even if direct quotes from actors, producers, etc. are included. " I think this is a little over-strict personally, but don't know how the rest of you feel. For example, for Not in Portland, Elizabeth Mitchell tells SciFiWire interview that she will have a flashback in this episode, in no uncertain terms. I think that's about as official as they come (SciFiWire is a pretty big site, and not some random blog saying "I heard my cousin's friend told me he talked with Mitchell"), so I thnk that should be included. I do agree that sources which can be edited by "regular Joes" (unrecognized blogs, IMDb, etc) should definitely be excluded. --PandoraX 11:06, 18 January 2007 (PST)

  • I just wanted to make clear that I didn't make that template to try and set a new policy; I only made it to summarize what I've seen repeated again and again by some sysops. I think most people on this site (myself included) would be quite happy to see a looser policy, but I'm not sure what it would be. Maybe we can re-evaluate which sites can be included as "official" sites? I'm not sure how or why ABC Medianet became the only recognized source to begin with?--Dagg 11:15, 18 January 2007 (PST)
While I think it makes sense to exclude rumors from IMDB, tvguide or whatever, it makes no sense that direct quotes from the people who make the show wouldn't be included. What about changing the template to "These are not official sources recognized by Lostpedia, unless direct quotes from actors, producers, etc. are included." --Minderbinder 11:43, 18 January 2007 (PST)
I think part of the problem is that some official-looking sites like Wikipedia, IMDB, etc. are editable by end users, and are susceptible to rumors and speculation. Also, just because an actor or producer says something doesn't necessarily mean it is true; the execs at ABC have been known to change the order of episodes, cut out scenes, etc. Plus, sometimes an actor or producer is just making a joke, or is simply quoted out of context, and then a big revert war starts here on this site. This seems hard to nail down. --Dagg 12:36, 18 January 2007 (PST)
  • I say we just say "Sites that are editable by regular fans, such as IMDb, Wikipedia, etc. are not official sources". I am a little unsure myself on the rest of the spoiler sources, to be honest. I believe SpoilerFix.com and Ask Kristen shouldn't be used, because they do not always cite primary sources (to protect them), and though they are often right, have been known to give foilers in the past. I think sources such as TVGuide, SciFi.com can be included if an exact quote by an actor, writer, or official member of the production team is given. We could always put the disclaimer "may be deleted without a relevant quote" or something along those lines. Still trying to figure this out (I think the cases where they make jokes can be sorted through on a case-by-case basis, many times this isn't too hard to figure out). Thanks Dagg for bringing this up, I think it is a good discussion that needs to be had. --PandoraX 12:44, 18 January 2007 (PST)

PS: As an aside, I'm of the opinion that nothing should be set in stone, even if a sysop made a statement at one point (but the majority of users disagree with the idea). The site is still evolving, and I think the driving force should be more what the community of editors agree on, not necessarily an elite group of sysops; we're here more for enforcement of stuff like vandalism than determining policy alone. Unless the person you disagree with is me, in which case you'll be banned. That is all. --PandoraX 12:52, 18 January 2007 (PST)

I'd support something like "may be deleted without a relevant quote". I'd also be OK with specifying sites that are editable by regular fans, as long as we make it clear that spoiler/rumor websites aren't acceptable. It's a fine line, for example I would trust a blurb in Ask Ausiello that was a direct quote from Damon or Carlton, but not one of his "a little bird told me" rumors. Anyway, something needs to change, it's a joke if this site can't consider a direct quote from an actor in a major publication as a source. --Minderbinder 07:32, 19 January 2007 (PST)
Unless we can come up with a hard and fast rule, then the rule may have to stay as it is. I don't think anyone wants the sysops to constantly have to make judgement calls. Two possibilities:
  1. Only announcements from ABC MediaNet are accepted.
  2. or: The Lostpedia sysops will make a judgement on a case by case basis to decide what is accepted.
Can anyone propose a better rule that doesn't require the sysops to constantly intervene?--Dagg 08:21, 19 January 2007 (PST)
  • I don't think it necessarily has to be either/or. Here's a few proposed changes for the template:
Welcome to the talk page for "Lostpedia:Spoiler Policy (proposed) Archive 01"

Do NOT post any SPOILERS for unaired episodes on this page.

  • Information from ABC medianet and other official ABC press releases/sites are considered official sources.
  • Information from established entertainment news sites such as TVGuide.com, Entertainment Weekly and SciFi.com may be used only if direct quotes from actors, producers, etc. are included.
  • Information from sites which are editable by regular fans such as IMDb.com, Wikipedia and personal blogs are not official sources and will be deleted without support from a primary source (see above).

More information:

  • Please discuss and tweak the last sentence as needed. --PandoraX 08:29, 19 January 2007 (PST)
Works for me. Official site good, established site with direct quotes from the people making the show good. What about abc.com and the official podcast? How about "ABC medianet and other official ABC websites"? --Minderbinder 09:36, 19 January 2007 (PST)
  • Yeah, that sounds good too, I like it. I added it above. --PandoraX 16:11, 21 January 2007 (PST)
  • Those look good. Just to be clear though, is this a suggestion to change the overall Lostpedia "spoiler" policy, or is this just a suggestion to change this particular template? For example, if a Lost actor told Entertainment Weekly that Episode 20 was going to be "... No More", then we could add that title to the multitude of episode pages? I would vote yes for that.--Dagg 16:29, 21 January 2007 (PST)
  • To be honest, I haven't seen previous policy that contradicted direct quote usage from someone directly involved in show production (see the canon policy, I think that would be acceptable according to that), but maybe I just haven't come across it yet. As far as the Lost actor saying that, I think it would be alright if it were a major actor and his name was added to the quote (not "anonymous background actor says..."). But that's just me. --PandoraX 16:34, 21 January 2007 (PST)
I think this quote from the spoiler policy is what people continually reference:
“

Titles and facts about upcoming episodes should only be entered (outside of designated spoiler pages) only when confirmed by official sources, specifically ABC medianet. Please do not discuss episode titles and their sources on non-spoiler talk pages, and please don't create episode pages based on rumored titles; episode pages should only be created when the title is officially confirmed by ABC.

Plot summaries from ABC, promos for the show, and the Official Lost Podcast are not considered spoilers by Lostpedia and don't require spoiler warnings.

”
Maybe we just need to come up with a vote to slightly expand what "official sources" means? And we should probably clarify those sentences a little to include "episode title", "flashback character", "episode synopsis". I'm hoping we can get this well defined.--Dagg 17:01, 21 January 2007 (PST)
The Lostpedia Theory Policy already explains what is considered an official source. Essentially, only official releases from the show's producers or ABC (via ABC Medianet) are official. Other sources, such as cast interviews, many times provide accurate information, but the cast does not have full knowledge of what is planned for the series. --   Jabberwock    talk    contribs    email   - 08:57, 28 January 2007 (PST)
  • Yeah, I understand Jabber's point on being cautious also, but I don't think people will generally go to the theory policy page to find a definition for official sources... I was looking at the canon policy, and there is a direct contradiction there: 
* Other information that is publicly released; interviews, etc.

I think that last point may have to be changed, if a public interview (with a quote) can no longer be considered canon/official. --PandoraX 04:43, 1 February 2007 (PST)

Why prespoilers?

  • Question: Why denote 'spoiler pages' with the address [subject]/prespoilers? Isn't it redundant? It wouldn't be a spoiler unless it were prior to an air date right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B-Field (talk • contribs) .
  • Not necessarily. Because we are in the middle of season 3, Season 3 is primarily for epis 1-6; Season 3/prespoilers is about the unaired episodes. --PandoraX 08:00, 19 January 2007 (PST)
  • Understood... so that would mean, a hypothetical page Season 3/spoilers would contain unconfirmed information about episodes 7 on. Sorry, probably just splitting hairs... Also, is there an initiative to clean up the prespoiler pages for episodes that have already transpired? Since, at that point, they're necessarily resolved? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by B-Field (talk • contribs) .
  • Yeah the spoilers pages should be regularly edited so that the old information that is no longer a spoiler (which either moves into the canon dept, or refuted dept) are taken down (and in the case of canon, put on the main pages of articles. Feel free to clean them up if you see any old spoilers that are no longer spoilers or were debunked; after the season is over, the entire spoiler page is usually deleted. --PandoraX 08:19, 28 January 2007 (PST)

You Are Making This Far More Difficult Than It Needs To Be

Speaking as one who likes spoilage, and despises having to dig for it, I would appreciate it if we make this easier and not harder. Information about the show should be made readily available as participants in this wiki uncover it and post it to the wiki. If someone doesn't want spoilage, they shouldn't go to pages about future episodes. It's as simple as that. Please stop catering to people who do not want a free and wide distribution of available information. Knowledge wants to be free. Please stop hindering it! -- ZachsMind 12:11, 2 April 2007 (PDT)

That's a bad idea. Those who want spoilers can dig for it. Those who want to avoid spoilers (especially ones beyond the basics of press releases and promos) can't be un-spoiled if they accidentally come across one scattered around somewhere. Not to mention that spoilers are often just rumors and sometimes turn out to be wrong. This site aspires to be encyclopedic reference for the show, not a collection of things heard through the grapevine. --Minderbinder 12:39, 2 April 2007 (PDT)
Again. You are making this far more difficult than is necessary. Those who do not want spoilers shouldn't be scouring the web for Lost information. They should not be going to message boards and wikis and chat forums and webpages policing the web telling people not to talk freely about the show. If there is information about Lost it should be shared. Whether it is rumor or spoiler or whatnot will get factored out on its own through the natural process. Spoiler policing is a perpetual attempt to dam up the free proliferation of information and should not be encouraged. Those who claim to want to avoid spoilers shouldn't be fishing around the Web looking for spoilers anyway. Catering to the unspoiler is counter-intuitive to information sharing, and it's insensitive and insulting to the rest of us. -- ZachsMind
With all due respect, I believe you are projecting. You say straight out that you want to be spoiled, but not everyone comes to Lostpedia for the same reason you do, and to assume that anyone here (or at any other single site that isn't unabashedly about spoilers) is "scouring the web for Lost information" seem spurious. Some of us, for example, may be in it for "the thrill of the hunt." We can be interested in what's officially known and what others in the community guess without wanting someone unexpectedly turning us to the last page of the book. --Bastion 11:24, 4 April 2007 (PDT)
PROJECTING??? LOL! Spare me your dimestore psychology. Daming up information flow for the benefit of a vocal minority stymies free proliferation of knowledge. It's as simple as that. -- ZachsMind 12:23, 8 April 2007 (PDT)
No psychology necessary. You made your goals clear. You also seem to be assuming that everyone shares your goals by virtue of their presence here. That's where you're wrong, and I don't think you're going to find significant support for a policy that says making things trivially more convenient for the subset of fans who actively want spoilers justifies completely ruining the experience for the subset of fans who actively don't want them. Histrionics about what knowledge "wants" and unsupported rhetorical pronouncements won't affect that. This is a resource for all fans of the show, regardless of where their particular line in the sand is for acceptable spoiling. --Bastion 11:18, 9 April 2007 (PDT)

I like spoilers quite a bit, but I'd much rather separate the two. I enjoy sending friends who do not like spoilers links to these pages. It's nice to have them separated so we can make that distinction. --Xmuskrat 07:19, 5 April 2007 (PDT)

HeroesWiki.com uses this format for episodes that have not aired that have spoilers. Spoiler:The_Brig and The_Brig for episodes after they have aired. --Xmuskrat 12:47, 10 April 2007 (PDT)

Didn't we have a /prespoilers page for each episode? What happened to that? ShadowUltra 13:42, 10 April 2007 (PDT)

It looks like the individual spoiler pages have been switched to one per season. Either way, they're plenty easy to find for those who are interested. --Minderbinder 14:03, 11 April 2007 (PDT)
ZachsMind is really just saying he's too lazy to look for decent spoilers. I don't like spoilers but I don't want to have to "dig" to avoid them because they are out in the open. I like coming to Lostpedia as a resource, having spoilers out in the open in normal articles will only spread them into other articles like characters, places, etc. and newer members would likel take them as fact and spread them around, turning this encyclopia into a playground of rumors and leaks. If someone really wants to find spoilers, it's not that difficult to go to one extra page that says "spoilers" to find them. I like to look at future episode articles to see who's flashback, whos directing and the guest stars, I wouldn't appreciate the complete synopsis written out for me when I check though. Spoilers shouldn't be something I have to avoid and be afraid of crossing, they should be something well seperated so I can do my thing while you can do yours, without any crossing over. Voodoo 19:10, 16 May 2007 (PDT)

Spoiler template revisited

Above there was a proposal (which seemed to be generally supported, but nothing ever happened) to tweak the template Template:Talk spoiler header to allow other official sources such as other ABC websites and interviews with cast and crew. This needs to be fixed as made obvious by DOC, which Daniel Dae Kim has confirmed the flashback in an on-camera interview. That is an "official" source as any, and there's no doubt about it, yet this site still lists it as unconfirmed. Also, technically speaking the template as worded forbids title and flashback confirmations from the official podcast as well (which this site seems to have ignored on occasion).

So is there support to tweak this? I propose we change it to the latest "brown box" above which is worded "Information from ABC medianet and other official ABC press releases/sites are considered official sources. Information from established entertainment news sites such as TVGuide.com, Entertainment Weekly and SciFi.com may be used only if direct quotes from actors, producers, etc. are included." Who's with me? --Minderbinder 14:56, 16 April 2007 (PDT)

I agree. I suggest we allow cast and crew as confirmations. ShadowUltra 07:33, 28 April 2007 (PDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.lostpedia.com/wiki/Lostpedia_talk:Spoiler_Policy_%28proposed%29_Archive_01"