Nothing you write contravenes what I wrote.

1) You still are trusting others (in this case, Wikipedia) more than the author, and you are still allowing a dry outline to replace the narrative. You are still allowing an intermediation between you and the story and the best part is that you defend this practice by saying "but I enjoy stuff more when I don't trust the author." And you don't even see that you've created a vicious circle for yourself.

2) You are admitting that you don't even give a fuck where the spoilers come from, you are literally trusting anyone else with your entertainment over the author. Ned Stark dies barely 200 pages in, by the way - nowhere near the end. Which matters, and which shapes the story, and which absolutely shapes the experience with the book, and which since you weren't forced to pay attention, all you have now is a loosey-goosey don't-really-understand, don't-really-care experience with the material.

3) By allowing Wikipedia to let you know when your least-favorite Gray's character leaves, you rob yourself of the joyful experience of seeing how the creators dispatch them. You're so wrapped up in the meta that you're willing to burn the narrative.

Really - you're stating that you'd rather read about reading than read. That you'd rather read Wikipedia than George RR Martin. Your opinion of George Lucas is pretty firmly cemented - is Wikipedia going to tell you anything to change your mind? Apparently it didn't even tell you that he had nothing to do with the new movie.

You haven't counter-argued, you've elaborated. What's wrong with not trusting authors?

As an author, fuck you.