Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/The Spoiler policy has a spoiler policy that I think should be adapted here. Their policy is "LOST is a show based on suspense and surprise, with nearly every episode ending in a cliffhanger. Because of the encyclopedic nature and scope of a project like the LOST Wikia, this may pose a problem for many visitors who've yet to view all of the episodes. LOST has begun to air all over the world and some countries may not have seen all of the episodes, let alone any. The policy at the LOST Wikia is that information from any episode that has had it's first airing anywhere in the world is fair game for inclusion on this site. Currently, this means 9:00 P.M. EST in the United States and Canada on Thursdays, (However, information may be added if the episode airs earlier at a special time, or on a special day that is prior to Wednesday at 9:00 P.M.). The only pre-aired information that may be added is the title of the episode to the main page for reference purposes, a summary and guest list will not be added. Viewers watching the show at later dates or times are cautioned when browsing this site, again, because it will contain spoilers. Spoiler warnings are NOT given for already aired episodes. In general, information from unaired episode is not to be included on the LOST Wikia. "[1]

What do people think of adding a part of the Lost Wikia policy here. Specifically the part not to include any form of spoiler on any page if the product is not yet officially released. We have been doing that a lot lately with people getting their hands on a copy of a book early. The latest example would have been not adding anything about Revelation until it was officially released on February 26, There were major spoilers on Gilad Pellaeon's page as early as February 8. Oyam5000 04:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't be opposed to adding something like that at all. For the sole reason, based on your example about Revelation, if only 1 or 2 people get their hands on a book before it officially hits the stores, how can anyone else verify the accuracy of the spoiler information? - JMAS Hey, it's me! 04:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm against it, partially because the spoilers that are leaked have proven, for the most part, to be accurate, partially because I don't like Wikipedia's similar stance on the issue, and partially because I'm an inclusionist. Not to mention the warning on the front page. Firebird Moltresheadsig Phoenix Rising 14:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that it's a good idea to wait until the official release date of a book/first airing of a TV episode/etc., for the verifiability reasons JMAS points out. Lostpedia (the other main Lost wiki), the BSG wiki, and other sites I've come across online have similar policies. Of course, official online leaks, excerpts, trailers, comments, and previews are fair game as soon as they appear. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Bleh. I've been against the spoiler templates since the beginning, and having been proved wrong about the accuracy of prerelease information on several occasions I've just given up trying to hold it back. We should just accept the fact that this is where people are going to go to leak stuff, and people who visit here should resign themselves to the fact that there will be spoilers around every corner. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I accept and welcome the fact that we have spoilers everywhere: I just want them to be *verifiable* spoilers. —Silly Dan (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Exactly. Spoilers are going to happen. As DC stated, nothing can be done to stop that, nor should it be. But what Silly Dan and I are agreeing on is that those spoilers should not be allowed on the site until the official release date of that particular product, when the information added can be officially verified by anyone and everyone, not just the 1 or 2 people that claim to have a leaked pre-release version. - JMAS Hey, it's me! 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with JMAS. Especially a few books back when several users got their hands on new material something like a fortnight early. For one thing, those users tend to be rushed in editing trying to get the first edit on a page and get their information close, but not perfect, and certainly not well-written. And for another, spoiler warnings are fine, and leaked information from publishers etc. should be fair game because we'll see it other places, but the whole plot of a new book or comic shouldn't be available to unsuspecting (attempted-)spoiler-free wikians before the publishing date. And allowing it up just supports the bad behavior of people who sell/buy material before the publication date. Once it's out, you should have common sense not to read anything related to the new book/comic/whatever, but beforehand you shouldn't have to worry about major major spoilers. Wildyoda 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Should a vote for a policy change be started? Oyam5000 05:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I would certainly vote for such an amendment. Din's Fire 997 05:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • One: Star Wars is a totally different beast from Lost. Two: pre-release information can and does come from reliable sources. Reliable edits can be made with spoiler information. For example, I regularly get books almost a week early at Wal-Mart, because they get the shipments in and don't give a damn what the actual release date is. Why should information I add, or anyone else who goes to Wal-Mart adds, be subject to any stricter level of scrutiny than any other edit? There are all kinds of sources that no one but Jaymach has, but we don't insist that this information not be added because we can't get Ten Impartial Observers to verify it. If information seems questionable, and the person who added it can't provide a satisfactory explanation, then it can be removed like any other bit of information. And if any information is added that isn't borne out by the book, it can be changed when the book comes out, in short order. Frankly, ninety percent of our users have the reading comprehension skills of woodchucks. They add stuff that's not quite right all the time. This is no different; people with actual reading skills and the book will be by shortly, and as often as not the people with the spoilers are the ones with the reading skills, so it doesn't matter. We don't need a massive, broad rule to fix a minuscule problem. Havac 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    • This woodchuck agrees entirely with Havac. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 18:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
      • So does this one. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Per the Ack and the Ataru. Unit 8311 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
          • He does make a good point. Carlitos Moff 09:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
            • I come here for spoilers so it does not matter to me as long as it doesn't mess with surfing the wook.Tank 16:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • We've got a spate of articles coming up recently which appear to be guesswork based on the trailer for the Clone Wars animated movie, so I'm bumping this discussion. I think someone who's awake should start up a CT thread demanding that spoilers be verifiable. Either that, or I'll start one this evening. —Silly Dan (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Right now, everything we add to the wook is supposed to be verifiable/sourced/etc., so if a spoiler isn't, we can delete it on site (or add a verify tag). —Xwing328(Talk) 18:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)