User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-68.146.70.124-20130821201844/@comment-68.146.70.124-20130828223944

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-68.146.70.124-20130821201844/@comment-68.146.70.124-20130828223944 SmallerOnTheOutside wrote: Yes, we do cover magazine issues and will most likely create a page for DWM 464 in the near future, but we will definitely censor any information that contravenes our spoiler policy. Anything completely centred around particular spoilers will not have a page yet obviously, but DWM 464 I'm sure has other, valuable articles in it.

There's no point in creating an incomplete article. And what are we going to do, put a black bar across Voldemort's face on the cover? (may as well use that name as I used the other variant already and Houdini was already used by the BBC) As I've stated repeatedly, exercising the spoiler policy to protect against story spoilers is perfectly fine. To censor (and I thought wikis werent's supposed to be censored, or is that just a Wikipedia thing?) in my opinion goes against the spirit of the thing and makes it look stupid, I'm sorry. It's not as if someone's trying to sneak in leaked info (like, say, someone in the fall of 2012 trying to create an article on Diana Rigg based on seeing her on location filming Crimson Horror, or someone posting info taken from the news reports when that script of Nightmare in Silver showed up in a taxi or someplace like that and someone also leaked a character sheet that confirmed Coleman's character name as Clara). This is something that has been reported worldwide, and with this and Doctor Who Answers being the only sites I'm aware of who are not only actively trying to block the information but punishing those who try to post it, really makes this site odd man out. And while I'm all for individuality, this is not a good thing in this case. In fact it's decisions like this that have made me decide not to edit under my registered user name as I don't want to be associated with that aspect.