![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
the fieryangel |
![]()
Post
#1
|
the Internet Review Corporation is watching you... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,990 Joined: From: It's all in your mind anyway... Member No.: 577 ![]() |
Wikipedia puts the ending of Agatha Christie's "The Mousetrap" on the play's article.... and the Christie heirs are pissed.
The issue is discussed ad naseum by the usual cast of Wikipediots... Among the gems in the discussion : QUOTE It would seem best to me, in order to avoid controversy and still provide the requested information, to create a "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" article, move the entire plot spoiler there and then reference it in the introduction to the article. In this way, the final wishes of the author are upheld (and a fundamental part of the play's structure) and Wikipedia gets to post everything just as before.--eleuthero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) I disagree. We don't do that for other articles and we shouldn't do it for this one. If you don't want to know the plot, don't read the plot section of the article (or maybe don't read the article at all). --Two Bananas (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) This would just be another form of spoiler, and would still be covered by WP:SPOILER. If a section called "Identity of the murderer" isn't enough of a clue to the reader that the identity of the murderer is about to be revealed, an article entitled "Killer in Agatha Christie's 'The Mousetrap'" presumably wouldn't help them much either (and could even be worse, if they got there from a Google search and the one-paragraph article got straight to the point). I'm not sure how hiding the ending behind a link would uphold Christie's final wishes any more closely - the Telegraph article suggests that her grandson considers it a "pity" when any reference work includes the plot in its entirety. --McGeddon (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Or they could just not include the spoiler in the article... |
![]() ![]() |
dtobias |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 2,213 Joined: From: Boca Raton, FL, USA Member No.: 962 ![]() |
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane.
|
HRIP7 |
![]()
Post
#3
|
Senior Member ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Regulars Posts: 483 Joined: Member No.: 17,020 ![]() |
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane. Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively. I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this: "Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well, watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it." The last part of this is, of course, right. This knee-jerk reaction gets dressed up with abstract arguments about the value of information, and knowledge, but underneath that's what it is. People get stuck at that response, and don't progress beyond it to actually look at the situation from more than one perspective. The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D). What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it? |
Cyclopia |
![]()
Post
#4
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict. ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 159 Joined: From: Cambridge, UK Member No.: 14,160 ![]() |
It's part of the "geek mindset" (I know because I am one myself) that the abstract logical consistency of ideas and actions is of greater relevance than whatever real-world consequences the actions and ideas might have -- after all, the real world is messy, illogical, inconsistent, and full of annoying human beings, and hence is clearly inferior to the abstract logical plane. Quite. It's just a sign of immaturity, of not having lived long enough to realise that logical consistencey doesn't mean shit. I recommend marriage as an antidote. That takes care of it quite effectively. I imagine the subconscious train of thought goes something like this: "Oy, you may rule out there, but you don't rule here, do ya? We rule! You don't, like, want us to put this in? Well, watch me! This is an En-Cy-Clo-PEE-Dia, and we're gonna, like, just do whatever we want, and there's nothing you can do about it." You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. QUOTE The only time I remember Wikipedia actually stepping back from the brink was in the Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (T-H-L-K-D). What about this one, Cyclopia? Would you like to have the pictures back in that article, or is there a limit to your logical consistency? After all, Wikipedia should not really care about the parents' feelings, should it? Tough call: after all the photos were smuggled illegally, and thus could fall under private information. However, they are all over the place on the Internet, and they are for sure relevant to the article. Also the family has withdrawn from Internet use and has been already damaged by them much more directly by idiots emailing photos to them. I'd say at least a link to the photos should come back. |
Somey |
![]()
Post
#5
|
Can't actually moderate (or even post) ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderators Posts: 11,816 Joined: From: Dreamland Member No.: 275 ![]() |
You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. Sorry about that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) But you see, this is the problem with the "anonymity culture" as it exists on Wikipedia. People don't even bother to look at your own user page to try and get an idea of your ideological biases, because they're so used to the fact that user pages are full of, well, shite. In your case, you're from Italy, you've studied fascism, you oppose it, and you know (being Italian) that fascism is a very real possibility in a country, not a "can't happen here" abstraction. And you know (as we all do) that heavy censorship and propagandizing are key features of a fascist state. To me, this is clearly the (non-psychological) basis for your adoption of an extreme anti-censorship ideology, and I for one don't blame you for that. Nevertheless, IMO it's easy to go too far in the other direction. There's no possible way that hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime of any kind. In fact, it suggests the opposite: Another hallmark of totalitarianism is a disrespect for artists, based on the idea that "art should exist only in service to the state" and other such horrible claptrap. Usually that means censoring the art itself, but it also means making it more difficult for artists who don't conform to make a living. Just by way of example, that could conceivably include the publicly revealment of the endings of whodunits. Wikipedians will, for the most part, say they think art is a wonderful thing. However, Wikipedia does not respect artists and what they do. They never have; that's one of the worst things about Wikipedia, and while it could be said of the entire internet to some degree, Wikipedia sometimes takes it to extremes. |
Cyclopia |
![]()
Post
#6
|
Abominable sociopath, kool-aid addict. ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Contributors Posts: 159 Joined: From: Cambridge, UK Member No.: 14,160 ![]() |
You know what drives me mad? You guys are all talking about trying to understand other people sensibilities and stuff, and how insensitive people like me is, but it seems that at least a number of you is simply incapable of thinking that someone can, simply, have disagreeing opinions on this subject without hidden psychopathological motivations. You simply can't conceive that. Sorry about that... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) But you see, this is the problem with the "anonymity culture" as it exists on Wikipedia. People don't even bother to look at your own user page to try and get an idea of your ideological biases, because they're so used to the fact that user pages are full of, well, shite. Can't truly blame them for that. My user page is quite full of shite as well, if you want (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) QUOTE In your case, you're from Italy, you've studied fascism, you oppose it, and you know (being Italian) that fascism is a very real possibility in a country, not a "can't happen here" abstraction. And you know (as we all do) that heavy censorship and propagandizing are key features of a fascist state. To me, this is clearly the (non-psychological) basis for your adoption of an extreme anti-censorship ideology, and I for one don't blame you for that. It is one of the motives. The current political situation in my country is another (not as bad as fascism: yet quite chilling, perhaps even more because it is subtle and masked by nice words. And that's why I at least respect fascists, even if they are enemies. They are (well, the clever ones) intellectually honest. They want an authoritarian or totalitarian state, and they're proud of that.) And, talking of personal biases, the pretty dramatic submission to the Catholic church that is pervasive of Italian culture and politics (including left-wing one). To be called an "atheist", in Italy, is almost a bloody insult. Just today there was the celebration for the anniversary of the capture of Rome (T-H-L-K-D), the final moment of Italian unification against the Papal state. Not that I care of such nationalistic rhetoric, but: who did they invite? Catholic Cardinals. Who were kept away by police? Atheists. QUOTE Nevertheless, IMO it's easy to go too far in the other direction. There's no possible way that hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime of any kind. In fact, it suggests the opposite: Another hallmark of totalitarianism is a disrespect for artists, based on the idea that "art should exist only in service to the state" and other such horrible claptrap. Usually that means censoring the art itself, but it also means making it more difficult for artists who don't conform to make a living. Just by way of example, that could conceivably include the publicly revealment of the endings of whodunits. I wholly agree that it won't be by removing spoilers that the Big Brother will come; but also the opposite you suggest seems quite a stretch, frankly. Again, books (movies, plays) are public: "revealment" is nothing else than peeking in the book and writing what's in it. But there is something about the "hiding (or even editing out completely) the ending to The Mousetrap could assist in the establishment of a totalitarian regime". Of course not directly, but the mentality that there are reasons to restrain information on what are already public facts makes me uneasy, anyway. You are probably American, you live in a place where, AFAIK, there is full freedom of speech. I understand you see the opposite problem. QUOTE Wikipedians will, for the most part, say they think art is a wonderful thing. However, Wikipedia does not respect artists and what they do. They never have; that's one of the worst things about Wikipedia, and while it could be said of the entire internet to some degree, Wikipedia sometimes takes it to extremes. It depends on what you consider respect, I guess. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: |